도쿄 전범재판(1946)에서는 왜 동시통역이 사용되지 못했나?
Why simultaneous interpreting was never used in the Tokyo Trials(1946)
0
조회
0
다운로드
0
인용
0
참고문헌
키워드
초록
The aim of this study is to answer the question of why simultaneous interpreting, successfully introduced in the 1945 Nuremberg Trials, was not utilized in the Tokyo Trials that took place the following year. At Nuremberg, simultaneous interpreting had dramatically accelerated the trials and allowed justice to be achieved in four languages. It was an innovation that gave rise to the profession of conference interpreting, and established research on interpreting as an independent academic discipline. The Tokyo Trials, however, employed only consecutive interpreting. The primary reason was the shortage of bilinguals fluent in English and Japanese. Additionally, the Tokyo tribunal neglected the fact that linguistic justice was a prerequisite for legal justice. A more fundamental reason was the tribunal’s mistrust in Japanese interpreters. The US-led tribunal, forced to depend on Japanese interpreters in a courtroom where their compatriots were being tried, assigned Japanese-Americans (Kibei) as monitors and US military officials as language arbiters to keep close watch on them. Unlike their counterparts in Nuremberg, the interpreters in the Tokyo Trials were reluctant to publicly disclose their involvement. The Tokyo Trials thus failed to become a turning point in the history of interpreting and Interpreting Studies in Japan.
Abstract
The aim of this study is to answer the question of why simultaneous interpreting, successfully introduced in the 1945 Nuremberg Trials, was not utilized in the Tokyo Trials that took place the following year. At Nuremberg, simultaneous interpreting had dramatically accelerated the trials and allowed justice to be achieved in four languages. It was an innovation that gave rise to the profession of conference interpreting, and established research on interpreting as an independent academic discipline. The Tokyo Trials, however, employed only consecutive interpreting. The primary reason was the shortage of bilinguals fluent in English and Japanese. Additionally, the Tokyo tribunal neglected the fact that linguistic justice was a prerequisite for legal justice. A more fundamental reason was the tribunal’s mistrust in Japanese interpreters. The US-led tribunal, forced to depend on Japanese interpreters in a courtroom where their compatriots were being tried, assigned Japanese-Americans (Kibei) as monitors and US military officials as language arbiters to keep close watch on them. Unlike their counterparts in Nuremberg, the interpreters in the Tokyo Trials were reluctant to publicly disclose their involvement. The Tokyo Trials thus failed to become a turning point in the history of interpreting and Interpreting Studies in Japan.
참고문헌 (27)
- 김영신, "해방기 한국 픽션에 나타난 언어접촉과 통역사 정체성 연구", 통역과 번역, 20(2), pp.53~71 (2018)
- 고선정, "한국 전쟁기 군 통번역사의 역할과 정체성 연구", 박사, pp.2022
- 권영법, "도쿄 대재판" (2022), 고려대학교 출판문화원
- 극동군사재판소, "A급 전범의 증언: 도쿄 전범재판을 읽다: 도조 히데키 편" (2016)
- 유하영, "제2차 세계대전 이후 극동지역 전시범죄 재판 개관", 동북아연구, 34(1), pp.67~98 (2019)
- 이장희, "도쿄국제군사재판과 뉘른베르크 국제군사재판에 대한 국제법적 비교연구", 동북아역사논총, (25), pp.195~246 (2009)
- 이향, "뉘른베르크 법정의 동시통역사", 인문언어, 25(2), pp.83~105 (2023)
- 이향, "회의통역은 어떻게 통역학의 화두가 되었나", T&I Review, 13(1), pp.63~79 (2023)
- 조승연, "전시상황에서의 통역연구: 도쿄전범재판을 중심으로", 한국일본학회 학술대회발표논문집, pp.189~192 (2023)
- 최효은, "한국전쟁 정전협상 통역은 누가 했을까: 초기 개신교 선교사 언더우드의 손자 형제를 중심으로", 통번역학연구, 23(1), pp.169~199 (2019)
- AIIC de Luxembourg, "Il y a 70 ans: Le procès de Nuremberg", Catalogue de l’Exposition, ~ (2016)
- Cronin, Michael, "The Interpreting Studies Reader", pp.387~397 (2002), Routledge
- Frank, Wolfe, "Nuremberg’s Voice of Doom: The Autobiography of the Chief Interpreter at History’s Greatest Trial" (2018), Pen & Sword Books
- Gaiba, Francesca, "The Origins of Simultaneous Interpretation: The Nuremberg trial" (1998), University of Ottawa Press
- Katan, David, "Interpretazione e mediazione: Un’opposizione inconciliabile?", pp.33~66 (2011), Arcane
- Keiser, Walter, "L’Histoire de l’Association Internationale des Interprètes de Conférence (AIIC)", Interpreting, 4(1), pp.81~95 (1999)
- Kim, Hyongrae, "Interpreters in the United States army military government in Korea: A government of, for, and by interpreters?", TTR, 34(2), pp.123~148 (2021)
- Pym, Anthony, "On Translator Ethics" (2012), John Benjamins
- Ramler, Siegfried, "The Origin and Challenges of Simultaneous Interpretation: The Nuremberg trial Experience", Interpretation Studies, 7, pp.7~18 (2007)
- Sato-Rossberg, Nana, "Translation and Translation studies in the Japanese Context" (2012), Continuum
- Sonnenfeldt, Richard. W., "Witness to Nuremberg" (2006), Arcade
- Takeda, Kayoko, "The Interpreter, the Monitor and the Language arbiter", Meta, 54(2), pp.191~200 (2009)
- Takeda, Kayoko, "Interpreting the Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal: A Sociopolitical Analysis" (2010), University of Ottawa Press
- Takeda, Kayoko, "New Insights in the History of Interpreting", pp.225~242 (2016), John Benjamins
- Takeda, Kayoko, "Interpreting Conflict", pp.17~35 (2021), Springer Link
- Torikai, Kumiko, "Voices of the Invisible Presence" (2009), John Benjamins
- Watanabe, Tomie, "Interpretation at the Tokyo war crimes tribunal: An Overview and Tojo’s Cross-examination", TTR, 22(1), pp.57~91 (2009)