JAIS

実践報告

A Report on the Deposition Interpreting Class
at the Monterey Institute of International Studies
TAKEDA Kayoko(Monterey Institute of International Studies)Interpreting at depositions and other proceedings in civil litigation represents asignificant segment of the Japanese interpreting market in the United States. There isalso a solid need for interpreters at depositions taken in Japan. However, there seems to be
no formal training course designed for this specialized field of interpreting. This paper
describes the deposition interpreting class which has been offered experimentally as partof the advanced consecutive interpretation courses in the Japanese Program of the
Graduate School of Translation and Interpretation at the Monterey Institute ofInternational Studies (GSTI/MIIS). The main objectives of this three-session class are toacquire general knowledge of legal procedures, terminology and professional protocol, andto study basic interpreting strategies for depositions. In light of the demand in themarkets, and based on feedback from students and graduates, not only should thesesessions be continued, but considerations should also be given to their further
development to cover a wider scope of legal interpreting in the future.

1. Introduction
Definitions: The term “court interpretation/interpreting” has been defined asinterpreting in legal settings, during both court and non-court proceedings, as noted by
Mikkelson (2000), González et al. (1991), and federal and states court certification
programs, among others. However, because of its connotation of interpreting in the
courtroom and the fact that “court interpreters” work predominantly in criminal court
proceedings, the term “legal interpreting” is used instead in this paper to refer to interpreting

TAKEDA Kayoko, “A Report on the Deposition Interpreting Class at the Monterey Institute ofInternational Studies.”
Interpretation Studies, No. 3, December 2003, pages 83-102.
(c) 2003 by the Japan Association for Interpretation Studies83

in any settings related to legal proceedings―civil or criminal, court or non-court. When“court interpretation/interpreting” is used in this paper, it is for general reference inthe particular context. “Deposition interpreting” refers to interpreting at depositions anddeposition preparation sessions.
In U.S. civil procedure, there is a fact-finding process called “discovery,” during
which each party attempts to obtain relevant information before trial. The methods
employed include depositions, interrogatories (written questions) and production of
documents. In a deposition, a witness testifies under oath outside of the courtroom.
The questioning is primarily done by the opposing counsel, but counsel for the witness
may object,1 advise, and even ask questions after the opposing side’s examination. No
judge is present, but the testimony is recorded by a court reporter, and often
videotaped, and the transcript and/or the videotape may be used during the trial.
Interpreting for Japanese witnesses and parties at depositions, trials and otherproceedings in civil litigation represents a significant, and arguably the most secure,segment of the Japanese interpreting market in the United States. As a considerable
number of Japanese corporations continue to design, manufacture and market theirproducts in the United States and to partner with U.S. companies, litigation involving
such Japanese firms is not uncommon in cases such as patent infringement, products
liability, contractual enforcement, antitrust and employment. This has created a steady,
if not increasing, demand for Japanese translators and interpreters during discovery,
trials and other proceedings. In litigation-related assignments, translators mainly workon the review and translation of Japanese documents that are produced during
discovery, while interpreters generally work on preparation sessions, deposition
testimonies and trial testimonies for Japanese witnesses. Since depositions areoccasionally taken in the U.S. Embassy and Consulates in Japan,2 this is also an area
relevant to interpreters based in Japan.
In teaching translation and interpretation, it is important for instructors to beattentive to the trends and needs of the evolving profession and to provide students
with professional training in line with market demands. However, it seems that noformal course dedicated to Japanese/English interpretation in civil litigation exists at
the present time. There are study groups, seminars and college courses on court
interpretation in Japan, but their focus is on interpreting for foreign suspects anddefendants in Japanese criminal proceedings. There is also a private Japanese interpreting
school in Los Angeles that offers some instruction on deposition interpreting, but it is84

offered on an ad-hoc basis and the school does not have courses designed for legal
interpreting.
As an instructor of interpretation at GSTI/MIIS, I have been experimentally
incorporating an introductory class of deposition interpreting in my advanced
consecutive interpretation courses on and off since 19963 in order to expose thestudents to this specialized field as a challenging, but quite possibly the most steady,interpreting job segment in the United States. This class has evolved over the years,
with some adjustments made each year to offer more effective and up-to-date
instruction.
This paper discusses various aspects of this deposition interpreting class in the mostrecent format, including where this class fits within the overall interpretation
curriculum; how this class is structured; what is taught in the class; how students andgraduates view this class; and how this class could be further developed in the future.

2. Deposition Interpreting in the Overall CurriculumThis section presents a brief overview of the school-wide interpretation curriculumat GSTI/MIIS; the court interpreting courses offered only in the Spanish Program andthe reasons the approach and design of these Spanish courses may not be suitable for
the Japanese Program; and where the deposition interpreting class fits within theoverall interpretation curriculum of the Japanese Program.

2.1 Interpretation Curriculum at GSTI/MIIS
GSTI/MIIS is a graduate program of translation and interpretation in the UnitedStates, and offers Masters degrees in Translation (MAT), Translation and Interpretation(MATI) and Conference Interpretation (MACI) for Chinese, English, French, German,
Japanese, Korean, Russian and Spanish.
The two-year curriculum consists of four semesters. Under the MATI and MACI
tracks, students are required to take interpretation courses (Introduction to Interpretation; Intermediate Interpretation: Consecutive and Simultaneous; Advanced Interpretation I and II: Consecutive and Simultaneous; Action Research in Interpretation
Studies; Interpretation as a Profession; and Interpretation Practicum) as well as sometranslation courses and general courses such as Public Speaking. Students are also
required to take the Professional Exams at the end of the fourth semester, and those
who pass these exams receive the Professional Exam Certificate.

852.2 Court Interpretation Courses in the Spanish Program
Although there are currently no courses specific to legal interpreting in the schoolwide curriculum at GSTI/MIIS,4 the Spanish Program has the unique offerings ofIntroduction to Court Interpretation and Court Interpreting courses as electives in thethird and fourth semesters.5 It also offers certificate programs for Spanish/English
court interpretation, usually in the summer. Students include those who are preparing
for the federal and states court certification exams. These courses are taught within thecontext of criminal proceedings since the criminal courts are where most Spanishinterpreters work (although they engage in civil procedure, including depositions, aswell).

This approach is also in line with the contents of the federal and statescertification exams, including the Japanese exam program in California.
It is true that the Introduction to Court Interpretation course in the Spanish
Program serves as a general introduction to certain universal subjects such as the U.S.
judicial system and interpreters’ code of ethics for students of any language. However,the prime focus of this introductory course and the subsequent court interpretingcourses in the Spanish Program is on criminal proceedings, and this is not consistent
with the mainstream practices and needs in the Japanese/English legal interpreting
field in the United States.
While a Spanish interpreter may go to a courthouse most mornings without knowing
what kinds of cases are waiting, and interpret (consecutively or simultaneously) for as
many as fifteen defendants in a day,6 the place a Japanese interpreter typically finds
himself/herself is in a conference room of a law firm, not in a courtroom. Japaneseinterpreters work at depositions (including preparation sessions) far more often than incourt. A typical assignment would be to spend two or three days of preparation with awitness and attorneys, followed by working at the actual deposition as the lead orcheck interpreter in a patent or product liability case. A deposition often lasts morethan one day. (I have never done or heard of simultaneous interpretation performed at
a deposition involving the Japanese language.)
As the markets create different needs and requirements for Japanese and Spanishinterpreters who work in legal settings, different types of instruction must be given to
properly train students in these different programs.

2.3 Consecutive Interpretation Courses in the Japanese Program
There are different objectives for different interpretation courses. The following is a86general description of the consecutive interpretation courses, in sequence, taught in theJapanese Program at GSTI/MIIS.7
a) First Semester: Introduction to Interpretation
This is the first interpretation course students must take. The course includes an
overview of the interpreting profession; exercises for active listening, analyzing andmemorizing; an introduction to note-taking; and interpreting exercises using speecheson general topics.
b) Second Semester: Intermediate Interpretation
The main course objective is to enhance the students’ ability to grasp the structuralorganization and essential meaning of speeches of moderate difficulty. While improving
their note-taking and public speaking skills, students also learn how to research andprepare for interpretation of specific topics.
c) Third Semester: Advanced Interpretation I
This course focuses on the settings where Japanese/English consecutive interpretation is commonly used in the actual market. Topics selected are also in line withthe current market demand for Japanese interpreters.
d) Fourth Semester: Advanced Interpretation II
In this course, students are expected to interpret difficult and complex speeches.
Guest speakers are invited so that students can experience first-hand how to keep theright pace and control the environment, among other things. Students are also prepared
for the Professional Exams.
The deposition interpreting class is offered in three sessions. The first two sessions
take place in Advanced Interpretation I (third semester), involving one lecture session
and one practice session in the following week. The third session, which is anotherpractice session, is taught in Advanced Interpretation II (fourth semester). (Since a
substantial amount of time is dedicated to classes with guest speakers and preparations
for the Professional Exams, it is not feasible to have more than one session fordeposition interpreting in Advanced Interpretation II.)
These sessions are not offered in the first and second semesters, considering thatstudents’ knowledge and skills are not sufficient yet to receive training for depositioninterpreting. Students may also become confused if complete and accurate interpretation87required in legal settings (which covers all aspects of what is said, including selfcorrections, rambling and incoherent statements) is imposed upon them while stilllearning basic interpretation skills (which emphasize attention to the sequential logic
and key ideas of a speech).
3. Deposition Interpreting ClassThis section describes the three sessions on deposition interpreting, and theassignments given to the students before those sessions start.
Although linguistic challenges particular to Japanese/English interpretation in legal
settings are discussed during the practice sessions, given the time limitations and theunlikelihood of students working at depositions immediately after graduation, the focus of
the class is to make students familiar with discovery proceedings, legal terminology,
deposition settings, basic interpreting strategies, and protocol in interacting withattorneys, witnesses, opposing interpreters and court reporters. This focus is consistent
with the feedback received from graduates who are currently practicing in the legal
interpreting field. (They generally stress the need to know the environment where
Japanese legal interpreters work, and basic interpreting strategies, rather than detailed
techniques and skills―since they believe those are of a nature interpreters acquire “onthe job” through specific assignments.)

3.1 Pre-session Assignments
In order to make the best use of the limited class hours, reading assignments are
given to the students prior to the first session. These assignments include selected
chapters from various books, which present an overview of discovery procedures anddepositions in litigation in which Japanese corporations are typically involved in the
United States, and recent newspaper and magazine articles covering settlements,
verdicts and other notable developments in cases where Japanese firms were named as
parties. Recent reading materials contained the chapters on discovery from『日/米国際
訴 訟 の 実 務 と 論 点 』 and 『 製 造 物 責 任 な ん で も 事 典 』 and newspaper articles titled“Deposition: Firestone used lowest-rated tire” (USA Today. 8/16/2001), “Nakamura
may face perjury trial” (www.optics.org. 4/19/02) and「青色 LED の中村教授、米国特許訴訟が泥沼化」(Mainichi Shimbun. 4/19/02). Students are expected to gain a working
knowledge of what is involved in discovery proceedings through these materials. This
process helps the instructor use the class hours more productively.

88

Students are also given terminology assignments. A list of English legal terms isprovided, and each student is assigned a portion of the list. The student is expected to
study the assigned terms and to post their Japanese translation on the course bulletin of
the school network. The postings from all the students complete the terminology list
with Japanese translation. The students are expected to review the portions contributedby other students before the first session. In addition, a list of objections which arefrequently used by attorneys during depositions and trials is provided in English only.
Students are expected to review them and to prepare translations of such objections
prior to the session.
If the student wishes, audio tapes of actual depositions are provided for review.
This is not a requirement, but most students have listened to a deposition tape before
the first session to feel the atmosphere of the setting and to familiarize themselves withinteractions between the participants.

3.2 Session 1 (Lecture)a) Why “Deposition Interpreting?”
Session 1 starts with an explanation why this class is not called “court interpreting,”
but “deposition interpreting.” The instructor describes the unique needs and opportunities found in the Japanese legal interpreting market in the United States, with acomparison to the Spanish market: There are a substantial number of court-certified
Spanish interpreters and they are contracted by the courts to work in criminal court
proceedings most of the time; while most Japanese legal interpreters are not courtcertified, and they are usually contracted by private parties such as law firms and end
clients to work in civil litigation. The instructor then introduces depositions (including
preparation sessions) as the setting where Japanese legal interpreters work mostfrequently. Due to time limitations, the focus of this class is narrowed down to depositions
instead of covering various types of legal proceedings; and it is accordingly called“deposition interpreting class.”b) Civil Litigation Procedure and Needs for Japanese Interpreters
The reading assignments are reviewed with the students to confirm that they have ageneral understanding of what is involved in discovery and depositions. Types of
litigation in which Japanese firms are commonly named as parties are also introduced,
with references to some actual high-profile cases in such areas as products liability,89patent infringement, antitrust and employment.
The instructor then discusses the stages where the services of Japanese interpreters
are needed, such as general strategy meetings; mediations and arbitrations; witness
preparations; deposition testimonies; and trial testimonies. Again, it is pointed out thatJapanese interpreters work in depositions (including preparation sessions) more
frequently than in any other legal proceedings.

c) Lead Interpreter and Check Interpreter
The relationship between a lead interpreter and a check interpreter is explained asfollows. In order to pursue the accuracy and completeness of interpretation, there isalmost always an interpreter who checks the interpretation of the lead interpreter in adeposition.

Generally, the interpreter from the examining party serves as the leadinterpreter, and the one from the witness side as the checker. However, there are no
established ground rules as to the roles of the lead interpreter and the checker. Thereare cases where the interpreter from the witness side serves as the lead, as well as thosewhere the two interpreters take turns to be the lead and the checker. Also, there may be
more than one interpreter checking the lead interpreter when there are more than two
parties in the case.
d) Federal and States Court Certification Programs
Court certification programs and their relevance to Japanese interpreters are discussed
in class.

The Administrative Office of the United States Courts has federal court

interpreter certification programs for Spanish, Navajo and Haitian-Creole, anddesignations for “professionally qualified” interpreters and “language skilled” interpreters
for other languages. In other words, there are no federal certification exams prescribedby the Administrative Office for the Japanese language.
California is the only state that has a court certification program for Japanese alongwith those for Arabic, Cantonese, Korean, Portuguese, Spanish, Tagalog and Vietnamese.8
The instructor points out that although the state’s court certification is geared to thecriminal justice system and does not reflect the practices of most Japanese interpretersin the actual market, “the courts are required to use certified court interpreterswhenever available”, according to the Judicial Council of California; thus, becoming acourt certified interpreter may be a good starting point for newcomers to work in thelegal field.990e) Codes of Ethics and Professional Protocol
Some of the main focus points of Session 1 are codes of ethics and professional
protocol in working with the witness, the attorneys, the opposing interpreter and thecourt reporter.

Referring to the instructor’s own experiences as examples, it isemphasized that the codes of ethics generally recognized and practiced in theinterpreting profession have even more significance in legal settings because of thehigh stakes usually involved in the case and the potential impact of interpreters’
unprofessional conduct or incompetence on the outcome of the case. The instructor
points out that legal interpreting requires probably the highest level of discipline interms of the fidelity of interpretation and the professional conduct of the interpretercompared to other fields of interpreting, such as conference, media or escortinterpreting. Among the topics discussed in class are the need for strict accuracy andcompleteness of interpretation, confidentiality, impartiality and conflicts of interest issues.
How to interact with the participants of a deposition is also discussed, initiated by
the instructor’s questions such as “What do you do if you don’t agree with thechecker’s correction?” and “What do you do if the witness asks you for legal advice?”
The instructor also asks the students who have listened to actual deposition tapes
about their thoughts on how the participants in the taped depositions interacted witheach other, and leads class discussion based on them. The points emphasized by the
instructor include the need to be keenly aware of one’s role as an interpreter; the needto strictly limit one’s conduct within the scope of the job; and the need for professionalmanners in interacting with all the participants of a deposition.

f) Basic Interpreting Strategies
Those students who have listened to taped depositions are also asked about the
linguistic challenges they identified in the interpreters’ performance in the tapes. In
response to their comments, the instructor describes some of the problems depositioninterpreters often encounter because of the characteristics of the spoken Japanese
language and the complex legal language.
Basic strategies for handling those challenges are introduced by the instructor. The
discussion includes how to handle the absence of singular and plural in the Japanese
language; Japanese idioms that cannot be translated into English “verbatim”; theomitted subject and/or object of Japanese sentences; and lengthy sentences withcomplex syntax spoken by attorneys. Strategies such as the use of the passive voice91

instead of the active (in the case of omitted subjects); the use of a Japanese term as is,followed by saying “literally,” and a “direct” English translation (in the case of terms
and concepts peculiar to Japanese); and the occasional need to ask the witness to clarify
homonym and singularity/plurality issues, are explained by the instructor using
example sentences.

g) Review of Legal Terms and Objections
Assignments involving legal terms and objections are reviewed.

The instructor

makes corrections on the translation of the terminology list posted on the school
network, if necessary. If there are questions on the meaning or concept of certain terms,
the instructor or the students who were assigned such terms provide answers. The
instructor also explains the importance of properly interpreting objections for thewitness before he/she answers a question, and briefly goes over the translation of eachobjection.

3.3 Session 2 (Practice I)a) Introduction
This is a practice session in a simulated deposition setting.

Occasionally, an

attorney is invited to the class as a guest. His introductory comments are interpreted
by a student as part of the practice. Those comments generally cover the attorney’s
self-introduction, the purposes of a deposition, and the roles of interpreters.
The seating of participants (the witness, his/her counsel, the opposing counsel, thelead interpreter, the checker, the court reporter and the videographer) in a typicaldeposition setting is explained with a diagram.
The instructor then sets up a role-playing session as follows: One student is
assigned as the lead interpreter and another as the checker. The instructor plays therole of the Japanese witness, and the guest attorney or a first-year student (native
speaker of English) plays the role of the examining attorney. When a guest attorney
participates, a first-year student (native speaker of English) plays the court reporter forthe swearing-in part and the opposing counsel for the objection parts. An actual
deposition transcript usually from a product liability case is used as the base for ascript. Those who play the roles of the witness and the counsel must be flexible toimprovise their remarks in response to how the student interpreter interprets.

92

There are four 15-minute segments. Each segment has a different set of student
interpreters (the lead and the checker). These segments are recorded and the tape isreplayed after each segment for the instructor’s feedback and class discussion.

b) Practice with a Product Liability Case
The following illustrates a typical sequence of text used in the practice. A script
based on a product liability case has been used in recent years.
The first segment begins with the interpreter’s swearing-in administered by the
court reporter. The wording is standard, and the student is expected to understand it
and make an affirmation without any trouble. Then, the student interpreter begins
interpreting. First comes the witness’ oath. This is also a standard phrase, and thestudent is expected to interpret it with no hesitation or back-tracking. The general
instruction by the examining counsel and the first line of questions follow.
In the second segment, a portion that contains longer questions with complex
syntax is selected as the script. It is also moderately technical.
The text used in the third segment has more technical content with some words andphrases, such as “hazard analysis” and “crashworthiness”, which an examining attorney
would frequently use in a product liability case.
The fourth segment has a line of questions that concern drawings and documents as
exhibits.

This is also technical, but contains some questions on the administrative

aspect of the subject company, such as document retention policy.

c) Common Errors and the Instructor’s Feedback
The student generally performs well in the first segment since it contains standard
phrases and basic questions on the witness’ background such as the name, the address,and current job. The instructor advises the students that memorizing the interpretationof standard introductory phrases is useful.
In general, the student interpreter is capable of grasping the main ideas of questions,but their interpretation tends to be incomplete, and sometimes inaccurate, when longsentences are used. The instructor emphasizes that no omissions, additions, alterations
or explanations are allowed; every word, including “any” or “ever”, must be
interpreted in most cases; and all the aspects of what is said, including self-corrections,
repetition and fragmentary statements, must be interpreted. It is also pointed out thatdifferent translations must be used for different words or phrases with similar93meanings (such as “produce” and “manufacture;” and “Were you aware …,” and “Didyou know about …”). The need to pay attention to every detail and to write down
specific words, rather than symbols, in their notes is suggested in order to achievecomplete and accurate interpreting.
Some students have difficulty handling technical terms. The instructor’s suggestion
is to transliterate those terms (i.e. to use English words as is) instead of attempting tocome up with Japanese equivalents which may not be commonly used in the subject
industry. The witness is generally familiar with those English technical terms as longas they are used in the context of his/her expertise.
As for technical and legal terms frequently used by the examining attorney inproducts liability cases (such as “design defects” and “assumption of risk”), thestudents are advised to become familiar with the concept and standard interpretation ofsuch terms by reading product safety-related materials, for example.
When asking for clarification, the student interpreter sometimes forgets todifferentiate his/her own remarks from the interpretation. The instructor advises thestudents to refer to themselves in the third person, such as “The interpreter would liketo ask the witness for clarification,” or to signal before they speak by saying, “Theinterpreter speaking,” or “By interpreter:”.
The timing of corrections made by the check interpreter is also among thediscussion topics. The student checker sometimes is so reserved that he/she delays toolong in making a correction to the lead interpreter’s interpretation or makes nocorrections at all when they are needed. The instructor stresses that the role of both thelead and check interpreters is to deliver accurate and complete interpretation to the bestof their abilities and that both interpreters must strive to that end in a professionalmanner and should not be concerned with “offending” or “being offended” between
themselves.

3.4 Session 3 (Practice II)a) Practice with Lines of Questions Commonly Asked
In Session 3, the first half of the class is dedicated to interpreting practice with linesof questions frequently asked by the examining counsel in any type of case. They include:
i. Voir dire: questions concerning the interpreter’s qualifications and credentials.
ii. Preliminary instructions such as what to do if the witness doesn’t understandthe question.

94

iii. Introductory questions such as the educational background and job history of
the witness.
iv. Questions concerning documents, such as the identification of an exhibit
document and the company’s document retention policy.

The same format as the first practice session is used, with role-playing in asimulated deposition setting.

In addition to providing feedback and leading classdiscussion on the interpreter’s performance after each segment, the instructor discusses
words and phrases frequently used in particular lines of questions.
With document-related questions, for example, the attorney’s intentions in askingcertain questions are briefly explained. The instructor also discusses frequently-usedverbs such as “review,” “prepare,” “search” and “store” and shares with the students
how they are usually translated into Japanese.

b) Practice with a Patent Infringement CaseIn the second half of the class, a script based on a deposition transcript usually froma patent infringement case is used for two segments of interpreting practice. In the mostrecent session, the first segment concerned the subject company’s internal proceduresfor patent applications, and the second segment contained some technical matters.
Types of errors the students make are usually the same as made in the previous
session; and the instructor, again, stresses the importance of precise interpretation―noadditions, omissions, summarization or editorializing. Through the patent translation
courses in the previous semesters, most of the students already have a general
understanding of patent prosecution in Japan and the United States and are familiar
with patent-related terms. This makes it easier for the instructor to briefly touch uponsome of the basic concepts associated with patent cases, such as patent validity,
infringement and triple damages.

c) Summary of the Class and Suggestions for Further Studies
As closing, the instructor reviews the key points the students learned in the three
sessions of deposition interpreting class, and makes suggestions for further studies.
The importance of sight translation is discussed since real time reporting by the
court reporter is available to the interpreter during a deposition most of the time,eliminating the need for note-taking for the English into Japanese part of the95interpretation. Japanese documents with no English translation are sometimes
presented as exhibits, and the interpreter is often required to sight-translate portions ofsuch documents into English during a deposition. The instructor stresses the need ofsight translation practice using legal and technical documents.
Lastly, for those students who are interested in pursuing legal interpreting, theinstructor provides some practical advice, such as recommending that they start withon-site document review work at a law firm. There is a great need for reviewing andcoding Japanese documents and translating those that are relevant to the case during
discovery. Participating in such work at a law firm can be a good starting point tobecome familiar with the specifics of a case, potentially leading to introductoryinterpreting work such as witness preparations.

4. Feedback from Students and Graduates
Although students who took the deposition interpreting class have orally expressed
their feedback on the class over the years, more specific comments were needed forconsidering further development of this class. In order to identify the students’ interestin legal interpreting and the relevance of this deposition interpreting class to them, asurvey was conducted immediately after the second session in the 2002 fall semester.
Nine out of the eleven students who attended the class responded, and all of them
indicated that they would like to spend more time studying legal interpreting in a
separate elective course, not as part of the Advanced Interpretation courses. They
especially liked the experience of interpreting in a simulated setting with role-playing.
They were able to feel what an actual working environment would be like, but theyregretted that time limitations didn’t allow all of them to interpret as the leadinterpreter in the practice sessions. They were interested in practicing in various typesof cases as well. According to them, having an attorney’s presence and listening to his
feedback from the client’s perspective was also a highlight of their learning in the class.
Some graduates of the GSTI Japanese Program, whose work includes interpreting inlegal settings, suggested that there be a separate elective course, or workshops,
dedicated to legal interpreting in the Japanese Program given the stable, and possibly
growing, demand for deposition interpreting both in the United States and Japan.
Among the reasons cited for making such a course elective was that not all students
would be interested in or have aptitude for legal interpreting since it is a highly
specialized field and location-dependent. The graduates also indicated that such a class96

should cover an overview of civil litigation procedure, deposition settings, codes of
ethics, and professional protocol; legal terminology, including objections and typicalphrasing of questions; and basic interpreting strategies for dealing with linguistic
challenges arising from the differences between English and Japanese languages.

5. Future Possibilities
In view of the feedback from students who took the deposition interpreting classand graduates who now work in the field of legal interpreting, instruction on
deposition interpreting should be continued. The current deposition interpreting class
could also be developed into a short elective course or a series of workshop-typesessions outside the required Advanced Interpretation courses in the future.
The coverage of the class could be expanded to include:a) more practice sessions;b) practice in a wider variety of cases such as employment and antitrust;c) a lecture on rudiments of patent law;d) a lecture on interpreting trial testimonies;e) sight translation of real time reporting using a laptop computer; andf)a lecture on translators’ roles in document review and translation.

Since this expanded class may cover trials and other legal settings, it would be more
appropriate for the class to be called by a broader name such as “legal interpreting.”(“Court interpreting” may not be an appropriate title because of its possible
connotation to criminal courtroom work.)
In order to avoid any confusion students may feel by engaging in a different
interpreting style (i.e. interpreting all aspects of statements) from what has been taught
and practiced in the regular interpreting courses, and so as not to impose this highly
specialized field on the entire group of students, it would be ideal to have an elective
short course or a series of workshops for teaching legal interpreting.
If the first session of such course or workshops included the topic of the roles oftranslators in the document production during discovery, translation-major students
could also benefit from attending the session.
There would, however, be some challenges in such offerings that are morecomprehensive. For example, it would be difficult for the resident teaching staff tocover a wide variety of topics. However, inviting guest lecturers who represent various

97specialties would be an effective solution to that problem. Also, recruiting volunteer
participants from a local law school in role-playing might be a good way to create
simulated settings that are close to reality.
Another challenge would be how to incorporate sight translation in the class. While
it would be ideal to have a court reporter and computer hook-ups in the classroom sothat students could exercise sight translation using a laptop, making such arrangements
would be extremely challenging. For the time being, student interpreters must continue
to rely only on their notes in class. While it serves as part of note-taking practice,students should be reminded that sight translation is one of the keys to performing wellin deposition interpreting and they should be encouraged to practice sight translation
using technical and legal documents outside the class.

6. Conclusion
The purpose of this paper was to provide an overview of the depositioninterpreting class offered as part of the advanced consecutive interpretation courses in
the Japanese Program of GSTI/MIIS.

In light of the demand in the Japaneseinterpreting market, and based on the feedback provided by students and by graduates
who practice in the legal field, this type of class should be continued. It could also be
expanded, in the future, into an independent short course, or a series of workshops.
Participation of more lecturers with specific expertise would become one of the keys tosuccess if more comprehensive courses on legal interpreting were to be offered.
It is my hope that this paper also serves as an introduction to the field of Japanese/
English legal interpreting in the United States. During my research for this paper, I
found very few materials that shed light on the roles of Japanese interpreters in civil
litigation. Publications on court interpretation (not language-specific) in the UnitedStates had some references to civil procedure, but most of the discussions werededicated to criminal procedure. Most of the books and articles on court interpretationin Japan also address issues stemming from the Japanese criminal justice system.
Although there were some business and legal books that advise Japanese corporations
on civil procedure in the United States, and some of them had references to the use ofinterpreters, those references were very general, and sometimes misleading.10
It also came to my attention that some practicing interpreters (including court
interpreters) and interpretation professors of other languages had very little knowledgeof what transpires in the work of Japanese interpreters in civil litigation. They seemed98to be unaware of the significance of legal assignments involving Japanese interpreters.
The concepts of being checked by an opposing interpreter (and occasionally by morethan one) and using a laptop computer to sight-translate the examining attorney’squestions seemed foreign to some of them.
Future studies may include a more detailed discussion on the practices of Japaneseinterpreters in civil litigation in the United States, in order to present better
understanding of this key segment of the profession.

The number of Japaneseinterpreters who work in legal settings, the volume of such work, the types of cases
they work on, the challenges they typically face, and professional guideline andstandards could be among the topics to be covered. In addition, it may be interestingand informative to study the relevance of the California court certification program to
Japanese interpreters who work in civil litigation, in order to address the issue of
evaluating the competence of interpreters.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT: I would like to thank my colleagues at GSTI/MIIS, Dean Chuanyun
Bao, Ryoko Winter, Professor Emerita, Professors Joe Harvin, Yun-Hyang Lee, and Holly
Mikkelson, for their valuable comments and support. I am also grateful to my former
students and fellow alumni for their most helpful input. My special thanks to Michael
Hawkey for his generosity and encouragement.

筆者紹介：武田 珂代子（たけだかよこ）フリー通訳者・翻訳者、モントレー国際大学大学院客員教授。Visiting Professor in the Graduate School of Translation and Interpretation at
the Monterey Institute of International Studies in California, USA. Freelance Interpreter/
Translator. Email: kayoko.takeda@miis.edu

NOTES
1.

To object is “a procedure whereby a party asserts that a particular witness, line ofquestioning, piece of evidence or other matter is improper.” (Gifis, 300)

2.

According to the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo, there were 40 days of depositions taken at
the U.S. Embassy in Tokyo and 119 days of depositions taken at the U.S. Consulate
General in Osaka in 2003 as of July 25. The deposition rooms at the U.S. Embassy andthe U.S. Consulate General in Osaka are always booked six months in advance.

99

3.

There were two sessions of deposition interpreting class offered by another instructor
in 1991.

There was another instructor who taught ad-hoc deposition interpretingclasses from 1998 to 2000.
4.

There was a school-wide general course, Introduction to Court Interpretation, offeredin the past.

5.

Besides MIIS, there are several other undergraduate and graduate programs of
Spanish/English court interpretation in the United States, which reflects the great
demand for Spanish interpretation services in the U. S. criminal justice system. In
California, the number of court-certified Spanish interpreters was 1,030 in 2002
( Report to the Legislature on the Use of Interpreters in the California Courts), and the daysof interpreter service for Spanish for fiscal year 1998-1999 were estimated to be 145,
661 (2000 Language Need and Interpreter Use Study). The chronic shortage of court
certified Spanish interpreters is considered a serious problem.

6.

This reference is based on observing and interviewing Spanish interpreters working
in the Monterey County Superior Court in Salinas, California.

7.

Simultaneous interpretation courses are also taught in the second, third, and fourth
semesters.

8.

According to Report to the Legislature on the Use of Interpreters in the California Courts,
the Judicial Council of California designated additional 5 languages for certificationin 2002―Armenian, Khmer, Mandarin, Punjabi, and Russian.

Certification

examinations for these newly designated languages are currently under development.
9.

In California, the number of court-certified Japanese interpreters was eight in 2002
(Report to the Legislature on the Use of Interpreters in the California Courts), and the daysof interpreter service for Japanese for fiscal year 1998-1999 were estimated to be 1,080(2000 Language Need and Interpreter Use Study). These numbers are significantly lower
than those of Spanish. In the meantime, there are quite a few Japanese interpreters
who almost exclusively work in civil litigation-related assignments on a daily basis.

10. In a book for advising Japanese companies about litigation in the United States, there
was a reference to the effect that it is often the case that the attorneys on both sides
get frustrated by the lead interpreter and the checker fighting and wasting time.
(Underlined by Takeda.)

REFERENCES
Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Federal Court Interpreter Program.
Federal Court Interpreter information Sheet. Retrieved June 12, 2003

100

[Online] http://www.uscourts.gov/interpretprog/infosheet.html
Baylis, P. (2003, February 17). A long fight for better court interpreting. The Asahi Shimbun
News Service. Retrieved July 2, 2003
[Online] http://www.asahi.com/englishfeature/K2003021700356.html
Black, H. C. (1990). Black’s Law Dictionary. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
de Jongh, E. M. (1992). An Introduction to Court Interpreting: Theory & Practice. Lanham, MD:
University Press of America.
Edwards, A. B. (1995). The Practice of Court Interpreting. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John
Benjamins Publishing Company.
Gifis, S.H. (1983). Dictionary of Legal Terms. New York: Barron’s.
González, R., Vásquez, V., Mikkelson, H. (1991). Fundamentals of Court Interpretation: Theory,
Policy, and Practice. Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Horton-Flaherty, K. (2002, April). Dearth of qualified interpreters raised the courtroom
language barrier. The California Bar Journal. Retrieved July 4, 2003
[Online] http://www.calbar.ca.gov/calbar/2cbj/02apr/index.htm
Ivanichvili, N. (2003, July). A Lawyer’s Guide to Cross-Cultural Depositions. The Colorado
Lawyer, Vol. 32, No. 7, pp. 81-86. Retrieved July 4, 2003
[Online] http://languagealliance.com/white-paper/white-paper1.html
Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts. (2000). 2000 Language
Need and Interpreter Use Study. San Francisco, CA
Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts. (2002). The Judicial
Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts is pleased to announce the statecertification examination for court interpreter.
Judicial Council of California, Administrative Office of the Courts. (2002). Report to theLegislature on the Use of Interpreters in the California Courts.
Lise, W. Japanese-English Deposition Interpreting. Retrieved May 30, 2003
[Online] http://www.lise.jp/depo.html
Mikkelson, H. (2000). Introduction to Court Interpreting. Manchester, UK: St. Jerome
Publishing.
Mikkelson, H. (1998). Towards a Redefinition of the Role of the Court Interpreter.
Interpreting, 3(1), 21-45.
National Center for State Courts. (2002) Court Interpretation: Model Guides for Policy andPractice in the States Courts.
National Center for State Courts. Research: Court Interpretation. Retrieved June 19, 2003,.
[Online] http://www.ncsconline.org/D_Research/CourtInterp.html

101Tsuda, M. (2002). Non-Japanese Speaking Suspects/Defendants and the Criminal Justice
System in Japan. Interpretation Studies, No. 2, December 2002, 1-14.
木梨貞男（2001）『米国特許入門』工業調査会
住友商事文書法務部（1989）『アメリカビジネス法務』

有斐閣ビジネス高岡亮一（2002）『アメリカ特許法実務ハンドブック』中央経済社『通訳事典 2002 年度版』（2002）「司法通訳」アルク『通訳者・翻訳者になる本 2004』（2003）「法廷・捜査現場の通訳」イカロス出版
中山義壽（2002）『訴訟社会アメリカと日本企業』新評論
PL 研究所（1991）『製造物責任なんでも事典』ダイヤモンドセールス編集企画
藤田泰弘（1998）『日/米国際訴訟の実務と論点―訴状の送達から判決の執行まで』日本評論社
宮守則之（1992）『アメリカの PL 訴訟を知る 理論と実務の解明』有斐閣ビジネス
安田火災海上保険株式会社編（1989）『事例が語る米国 PL 訴訟』保険毎日新聞社
渡辺修、長尾ひろみ（1998）『外国人と刑事手続―適正な通訳のために』成文堂

102