Paper short abstract:

This paper addresses systemic issues surrounding court interpreting in Japan, focusing on what these issues can tell us about the beliefs of legal practitioners about interpreters and how interpreters see their role as participants in criminal proceedings involving non-Japanese speakers.

Paper long abstract:

One of the most frequently raised issues pertaining to court interpreting in Japan is that, unlike other G7 nations, it lacks an accreditation (certification) system for interpreters. Courts usually interview candidates to assess their linguistic skills and motivation and then determine whether they are adequate to serve as interpreters. Whether a centralized, nationwide certification system would solve all, or even most, issues concerning court interpreting, especially those related to languages of lesser diffusion, can be a subject of debate. The lack of such a system, however, leads to considerable challenges for both prospective and practicing court interpreters and those needing their services, including legal practitioners and non-Japanese-speaking participants in judicial proceedings, mainly defendants and witnesses.

One such consequence is that interpreters are left without clear guidelines of what is expected of them. As a result, there are few official educational platforms that would allow them to gain or improve the required skills and knowledge. Furthermore, how to address ethical matters and dilemmas, too, is left to interpreters, making their role and responsibility in the proceedings only vaguely defined and, more often than not, out of step with recent developments in scholarship concerning court interpreting. Therefore, one conclusion that can be drawn is that interpreters are not viewed by those who work with them as equal professionals who would require a level of education and expertise in their field similar to that of legal practitioners.

This paper addresses the various challenges surrounding court interpreters’ work against the backdrop of the systemic issues discussed above. To illustrate this, the paper draws on the voices of court interpreters interviewed in various jurisdictions in Japan. These in-depth interviews demonstrate how interpreters define their roles and how they believe they are perceived by those with whom they work. The interpreters’ voices bring yet another challenge to the fore that Japan’s judicial system may need to face in the near future; namely, that even though the number of interpreter-mediated criminal court proceedings in Japan remains steady, the number of those serving as court interpreters has seen a decline in recent years.