Commentaries from the Judges (Japanese-to-English Division)

James Davis

Ruth McCreery

Ken Wagner (Part 2)

James Davis

Suggestions for All Contestants

An effective translation should be accurate and complete, and should include usage that is as natural as possible, without compromising the other two attributes. One element of accuracy is the correct rendering of proper nouns. This passage contains several proper nouns, all of which must be translated correctly in order for the reader to gain a complete understanding of the content. In the review process for this contest the team of screeners used accurate translations of four proper nouns—“本邦外出身者に対する不当な差別的言動の解消に向けた取組の推進に関する法律,” “日本学術振興会,” “科学研究費,” and “(株)日経リサーチ”—as key criteria for the selection of the five finalists. Authoritative English translations for all of these proper nouns are available on the Internet. These translations can be found with a modest amount of online research. For example, there is a Library of Congress website (http://www.loc.gov/law/foreign-news/article/japan-new-act-targets-hate-speech-against-persons-from-outside-japan/) that provides the name of the law, as well as a link to a Ministry of Justice website (http://www.moj.go.jp/content/001199550.pdf) that includes a provisional translation of the entire law. This, and other websites containing similar information, can be found by searching for the combination “‘hate speech’ ‘Japan’ ‘2016’ ‘law.’” (In the passage the authors indicate that the law was enacted in 2016. Inclusion of this date serves to narrow the search results.) Whether we translate for a corporation, a government agency, or an NGO, it is important to render proper nouns correctly. Such a rendering ensures that the resulting translation will be consistent with the larger body of English-language material related to the topic in question, thus increasing the value of the translation to the client.

General Comments for All Finalists

All five finalists did a good job of conveying the overall meaning of the contest passage, and we wish each finalist success in his/her future translation career. These comments will be devoted to specific words and phrases in the passage.

The section heading at the beginning of the passage reads 「ヘイトスピーチ」を学術的に検証するために. Generally speaking, the word 学術 could be associated broadly with “learning,” “scholarship” (as an activity), or “academic pursuits,” but it could also be associated more narrowly with “science.” In this article the authors describe a study in which they employed a particular experimental design to conduct a poll, and then used statistical techniques to analyze the responses of different groups of people to questions posed in the poll. Both authors are professors at Japanese universities, so their work is an academic undertaking, but the approach employed by the authors makes this particular study “scientific” (E29), rather than “academic” (E05, E59, E62). “Scholarly” (E51) would be a compromise choice, but “scientific” places greater emphasis on the experimental design used in the study and the quantitative nature of the results.

The conjunction ために usually indicates some kind of goal or objective. Based on this understanding, most of the finalists adopted a literal approach and expressed a future action: “For ... Examining ...”(E29), “To conduct a ... study on ...” (E51), “In the Interest of the ... Study of ...” (E59), “Toward an ... Investigation of ...” (E62). However, in this instance the action represented by the verb that appears in front of ために had already been completed at the time the article was written. Thus, ために does not refer to a future action. Rather, when writing this section heading the authors were simply indicating the purpose of the project they describe in the paragraphs that follow the heading. These paragraphs provide background information and introduce the project conducted by the authors. In this context “A Scientific Investigation into ...” or “A Scientific Examination of ...” would be a more natural option that would still convey the authors’ intent.

The term 理念法 appears in the passage as one form of criticism (“「理念法」に過ぎず”) of Japan’s hate speech law. The word 理念 often refers to an ideal, a principle, or a concept. In this instance the law in question represents an attempt to control a form of undesirable behavior but lacks a ban on any specific type of hate speech and contains no provisions for punishment. In this context “a law espousing a concept,” “a law in name only,” or even “a law lacking teeth” would be a better choice than “philosophical (law)” (E05), “idealistic law” (E29), “symbolic law” (E51, E62), or “ideological principle” (E59).

The phrase 新しい国民的な規範 was translated in a variety of ways: “new national standard” (E05, E62), “new national norm” (E29), “new national canon” (E51), and “new national guideline” (E59). The word 規範 has many possible meanings, most notably “standard,” “norm,” and “criterion.” In this passage the focus lies on the development of agreement within a society to maintain a certain type of behavior within acceptable limits. In this context either E29’s “new national norm” or “new national consensus” would be a good option.

The pattern “xyz以上”, where xyz represents a numerical value, can be troublesome in certain situations. In most situations “xyz以上” means “greater than or equal to xyz,” “at least xyz,” or “no less than xyz.” In other words, “xyz”—the threshold value—is included in the acceptable range. However, there are exceptions, and a translator must look carefully at the context to confirm whether “xyz以上” means “greater than or equal to xyz” or “greater than xyz” in the specific situation at hand. In the sixth paragraph of this passage the authors discuss limitations to their study, and they state that, “七十歳以上の高齢者は含まれておらず.” The five finalists described those excluded individuals as follows:

              “people over the age of seventy” (E05)
              “people over the age of 70” (E29)
              “elderly persons over 70” (E51)
              “senior citizens aged 70 and over” (E59)
              “elderly population above the age of 70” (E62)

Earlier in the same paragraph the authors indicated that respondents were “二十歳から六十九歳まで.” Based on this information it is clear that people aged seventy were not included in the pool of respondents. If we now look at the five descriptions of the individuals excluded from the study, we see that E59’s understanding is correct. As this example illustrates, checking for consistency between (or among) different portions of the same document is extremely important.

Specific Comments on Individual Translations

 E05
E05’s translation includes several well-crafted phrases. However, there were a number of “bumps in the road.” For the final sentence of the fourth paragraph E05 stated, “This large scale public opinion poll is an opportunity to gain scientific insight into the reasons why people adopt different actions and attitudes regarding hate speech.” In this sentence the authors write that a サーベイ実験 is a means for “要因を特定しようとする” by “実験的要素を組み込む,” but they do not mention hate speech. The term 実験的要素 could be rendered as “experimental elements” or “elements of an experiment,” and the authors’ use of “... しようとする” indicates that they “seek” or “attempt” to identify the factors in question. The presence of the double particle とは after サーベイ実験 indicates that in this particular sentence the authors are explaining to the reader the general concept of a サーベイ実験, in case the reader is not familiar with this term. (Explaining a potentially unknown term to the reader near the beginning of the article allows the authors to use the term freely thereafter.) A translation that includes all of these ideas could read, “A survey experiment incorporates elements of an experiment into a large-scale public opinion poll. This is one method for attempting to identify the factors that give rise to differences in people’s attitudes or behavior.” In the first sentence of the fifth paragraph the authors refer to “感情と感傷.” E05 lumped both terms together as “emotional responses.” It is true that there is considerable overlap between感情 and 感傷, but if the authors are indeed making a distinction between 感情 and 感傷, a reference to “emotions and sentiments” would be a good choice. (The distinction between “emotions” and “sentiments” mirrors the distinction between 感情 and 感傷.) In the same sentence the authors refer to 煽動的なレトリック, which E05 translated as “simple demagogy.” The word 煽動家 can refer to a “demagogue,” but in this instance “inflammatory speech” (E29), “incendiary rhetoric” (E51), or “inflammatory rhetoric” (E59, E62) would be a better option. In the final paragraph the authors mention 貴重なデータ. E05 described such data as “precious,” but “valuable data” would be more natural for an article of this type. (Maintaining the appropriate tone in any document is another important element of professional translation.)

 E29
E29 captured the intended meaning in most instances, but E29 stumbled over several patterns. In the third paragraph the authors state that “ネット上でのヘイトスピーチは収束する気配がなく.” E29 translated this clause as follows: “online hate speech shows no sign of converging.” The verb 収束する can mean “to converge” in a mathematical context (e.g., for a series of numbers) or in a physical context (e.g., for a beam of light that passes through a certain type of lens). However, in this instance the authors are writing about a social problem that results from a certain type of behavior. In this context 収束する indicates that some problem will be resolved or some abnormal situation will return to normal. Thus, this clause could read, “there is no indication that online hate speech has been curtailed” or “there is no sign that online hate speech has subsided.” (In this sentence the authors are highlighting the contrast between the situation on streets or in parks and the situation on the Internet.) For the following sentence (法律は制定されたものの、日本は新しい国民的な規範を形成していく途上にある、というべきであろう。) E29 stated, “Although Japan has passed a law, it is questionable whether the country is on its way to establishing new national norms.” “Norms” is a good choice for 規範, but the phrase “it is questionable” is an overly negative rendering of the authors’ viewpoint. The last portion of this sentence reads, “... 、というべきであろう.” The use of であろう serves to soften the use of べき. The authors are not hedging about their fundamental assessment. However, they are hedging with regard to how strongly they express that assessment. In essence, the authors indicate that “(we) probably should say (something).” A better translation for the final sentence in this paragraph would be, “A law has been enacted, but it probably should be said that Japan is still in the process of formulating/creating a new national norm/consensus for dealing with hate speech.” (The authors seem optimistic about Japan’s trajectory regarding the control of hate speech, but they acknowledge that they may not be correct and they recognize that this process may take time.) The first sentence of the fifth paragraph ends with the phrase “煽動的なレトリックをともなう危険がある.” E29 expressed this phrase as “inflammatory speech invites danger.” The authors are certainly acknowledging that there is danger here, but the 煽動的なレトリック mentioned in this sentence is not hate speech itself. Rather, this 煽動的なレトリック is brought about by other discussions dealing with hate speech. The elements that are linked by the verb ともなう are 煽動的なレトリック (which appears in front of をともなう) and ヘイトスピーチをめぐる議論や意見交換 (which serve as the twin topics of this sentence). If so, the second half of this sentence could read, “there is a danger that debates and exchanges of opinion related to hate speech will be accompanied by inflammatory/incendiary rhetoric.” (This sentence provides background for the authors’ emphasis on an objective (or scientific) approach when investigating attitudes related to hate speech. Such an approach is one way to avoid the generation of inflammatory/incendiary rhetoric during discussions about hate speech.)

   E51
E51 produced a translation that was generally solid. Even so, several awkward portions stand out. The opening sentence of the passage contains both the katakana term マイノリティグループ and the longer phrase 他の人々と区別される少数派集団. The authors use すなわち and the longer phrase to explain the meaning of the katakana term to those readers who may not be familiar with this particular loanword. (This pattern appears frequently in news stories or magazine articles in which someone writes for a large audience.) E51 rendered the longer phrase as “less numerous groups of people distinct from the rest.” This translation is accurate, but awkward. E51 may have been trying to avoid using the word “minority” in her rendering of the longer phrase. However, if we think back to the authors’ purpose in including both the katakana term and the longer phrase, we realize that there is nothing wrong with using “a minority of the population” in our translation of the longer phrase. The longer phrase could be expressed like this: “people who represent/make up a minority of the population and are treated differently from other people.” This option would accomplish the authors’ purpose and would still match the overall tone of the article. In the third paragraph E51 used the phrase “leaning on the legislation” to express the concept of “それを拠り所にして.” The pronoun それ clearly refers to the law mentioned earlier in the article, and 拠り所 does convey the sense of relying on something or using something as a basis for taking a particular action, but “leaning on” seems too colloquial for this type of article. A translation such as “relying on this law as the basis for ...” or “using this law as grounds for ...” would be a better option. The authors begin the fifth paragraph with the clause “ヘイトスピーチをめぐる議論や意見交換は、そのテーマや内容ゆえに、ともすると感情や感傷に流され.” E51 expressed this clause as follows: “Debates and discussions on hate speech, due to its thematic nature and subject matter, have its risks; they may be taken over by emotions and sentiments.” In this clause E51 mixes up singular and plural. In addition, the topic of this sentence is not ヘイトスピーチ; rather, the twin topics are 議論 and 意見交換. Thus, the phrase そのテーマや内容 refers back to the debates and exchanges of opinion that revolve around hate speech—not to hate speech itself. If so, this portion of the sentence could be expressed this way: “Debates and exchanges of opinion surrounding hate speech are apt/liable to be engulfed by emotions and sentiments, due to the topic (itself) and the content of such discussions.” (In this translation the word “discussions” encompasses both 議論 and 意見交換.)  

  E59
E59’s translation was well done, but E59 had difficulty with a few specific words and phrases. At the end of the third paragraph the authors make reference to Japan’s current situation: “法律は制定されたものの、日本は新しい国民的な規範を形成していく途上にある、というべきであろう.” E59’s translation of this sentence reads, “Thus, it would appear that, despite a law having been enacted, Japan should still be in the process of formulating new national guidelines.” The phrase “Japan should still be in the process of ...” represents a misreading of the authors’ intent. The authors are not saying what Japan should do or what Japan should be. Rather, the authors append the phrase というべきであろう to their analysis to indicate that Japan “probably should be described/regarded as ...” A better translation for the full sentence would be, “A law has been enacted, but it probably should be said that Japan is still in the process of formulating/creating a new national norm/consensus for dealing with hate speech.” Another option would be, “A law has been enacted, but Japan should probably be regarded as still in the process of formulating/creating a new national norm/consensus for dealing with hate speech.” E59 began the first sentence of the fifth paragraph with the phrase “Given the associated themes and subject matter” when referring to the 議論 and 意見交換 involving hate speech. The distinction between “themes” and “subject matter” is not as clear as the distinction between テーマ and 内容. The word テーマ refers to the topic of these 議論 and 意見交換 (i.e., hate speech) and the word 内容 refers to the content of the same 議論 and 意見交換 (i.e., the specific arguments or ideas that people present during these 議論 and 意見交換). Thus, the opening phrase could simply read, “Given the topic (itself) and content.” (A suggested translation for the first portion of this sentence appears in the comments for E51.)  

  E62
E62 grasped most aspects of the passage but missed a few points. In the first sentence of the fourth paragraph the authors explain the background behind their project and the goals of the project. One portion of this sentence reads, “日本人が差別や言葉の暴力をどのように規制すべきである(規制すべきでない)と考えているのか、またその理由は何か、をより深く理解するための学術プロジェクトを進めている.” E62’s translation for a portion of this sentence reads, “Through this project, we aim to gain a deeper understanding as to where the Japanese stand on regulating discrimination or abusive speech (they are against such regulation), and why.” E62 understood the portion within parentheses to be a blanket statement, but that is not the case. The appearance of the particle か twice in this sentence indicates that two distinct questions are embedded in this sentence. The first か is related to what Japanese people may think about the issues mentioned in the sentence. The second か is related to the reasons behind such thinking. The presence of the phrase 規制すべきでない in parentheses immediately after the phrase どのように規制すべきである suggests that there are two fundamental alternatives for the first question: “discrimination and abusive speech should be regulated” and “discrimination and abusive speech should not be regulated.” The inclusion of the interrogative phrase どのように as part of the first alternative indicates that if this alternative is selected there is the issue as to how such regulation should be carried out. The authors probably placed the phrase 規制すべきでない in parentheses because this alternative involves no action by the government, so there is no issue of “how” associated with this alternative. However, this phrase still represents one of two alternatives; it is not a statement of fact. Based on this understanding of the grammar, this sentence could read, “Our research group has taken the opportunity at this point in time to move ahead with a project designed to gain a deeper understanding of these issues: how Japanese people think discrimination and abusive speech should be regulated, or whether Japanese people think there should be no regulation at all, and why they think the way they do.” In this instance the English translation is significantly longer than the Japanese original, but additional words are necessary in English in order to convey the intended meaning accurately and in a readable manner. The first sentence of the sixth paragraph reads, “あらかじめ、私たちが行った調査の概要と留意点を述べておこう. E62 rendered the sentence this way: “We will now discuss a study that we conducted earlier, summarizing it and highlighting key points in the process.” The word あらかじめ often means “beforehand” or “previously,” but it can also mean “in advance” or “ahead of time.” In this instance あらかじめ does not modify the verb 行った, as E62 and several other entrants thought. Rather, it modifies 述べておこう. If so, this sentence could read, “Initially, we will provide an overview and the salient/key points of the public opinion poll we conducted.” (If we look at the remainder of the article, we find that the authors do initially provide such an overview, which they follow with more detailed results. Thus, this translation accurately describes the structure of the article.) The authors indicate that the age range for respondents to their survey was “二十歳から六十九歳まで.” However, E62 specified the age range as “20 to 60,” rather than “20 to 69.” Confirming that numbers have been rendered correctly is an important element of proofreading any translation—regardless of subject or purpose.

Ruth McCreery

              This article is well written, with a scholarly, but accessible, tone. The translations should also be written in somewhat scholarly but smooth, readable English. Failure to achieve that style violates at least step three of the Fred Uleman theory of translation: “Read a little, think a little, write a little.” This article also stirred my conviction that we must remember to translate the punctuation, too.

General: The 「ヘイトスピーチ」を学術的に検証するために section title is challenging. Upon reading further, I realized that the “ために” is referring to the necessary research design for such a study.

E59: While the content of this translation is largely accurate, awkward phrasings and misinterpretations make it somewhat painful to read.

             That said, the section title,「ヘイトスピーチ」を学術的に検証するために , is mistranslated as “In the Interest of the Academic Study of Hate Speech.” That implies “doing something to make academic study of hate speech possible,” whereas this section about how the authors’ study is structured.

              How to translate 学術的 is something of a puzzle. “Academic” is a term with many nuances. Apart from its straightforward meaning, it can be used pejoratively to imply something is pedantic and lacking in real-world applicability. Here, the authors are neither talking about being scholastic nor denigrating their research. Given the content of this section, following E29’s example, “scientific” would be work better, since the authors describing how he went about their (social) scientific research.

              The first paragraph ends with “etc.,” which is never used in formal writing. Given the frequency with which など occurs in Japanese texts, E59 needs to learn some workarounds. “For the purpose of degradation” is also awkward.

              The next paragraph, with “Having formerly been subjected to criticism, . . . Japan enacted,” implies that Japan enacted the law in question because of that criticism. That may indeed be true, but the logic of the original text does not imply that. It is simply, “Japan, which had been subject to criticism, has enacted . . . .” What to do with the かつて requires thought. The authors could be implying that Japan had been criticized in the past, but not now. Thus, “formerly” or “once” might work, but I would be tempted to take it as merely reinforcing the past tense of the verb and skip it.

              In the same sentence, “so-called” for いわゆる is a poor choice, since it can express the view that a term is inappropriate (“my so-called friend Mary”). In this case, “what is known as” would work better. Even better would be simply to leave the informal name of the act in quotes, thereby implying いわゆる, since quotation marks are not used with names of laws. Stating the official title of the act in parentheses reinforces that interpretation--especially when the unnecessary quotation marks there are removed.

              The major challenge in the next paragraph is 理念法. Since the discussion is about a law, translating that phrase as “ideological principle” does not fit. Given that the authors’ point is that the act in question does not include means of enforcement, “an act laying down basic legal doctrine” would fit better.

              The last sentence in that paragraph also caused E59 difficulties. と言うべきであろう does not imply “Japan should.” “One could probably say,” if you must, but leaving it out is fine. 国民的規範を形成 is a thorny phrase. Who is doing the forming? “Japan,” but not, as “Japan . . . forming national guidelines” would imply, the Japanese government. Rather, Japan (as a society) is in the process of forming new national norms.

              The next paragraph uses “academic” again. The project could be better described as scholarly or scientific. The quotation marks around “survey experiment” are puzzling. Why use them, since the authors go on to explain the method? (Note that the use of 「 」in Japanese does not perfectly parallel the use of quotation marks in English. If the kakko were used for emphasis, for example, the English should produce that effect in another way.)

              あらかじめ at the beginning of the next paragraph does not imply “previously.” The authors are telling us that they are now going to talk about the research design and points to be borne in mind (not key points; they are talking about the sample’s lack of representativeness) before going on to present the results.

              E59 understood that the authors are talking about the number of respondents here, not how many people were asked to take the survey. (Response rate is not mentioned here.) But “as we intend to explain sequentially below” is unfortunate. They do not intend to; they have. And “sequentially,” as opposed to “randomly,” perhaps? “As we explain in the sections below” might work better.

E51: This translator made a few obvious errors and produced some graceful and some surprisingly clumsy English.

              The section title is again a problem. The quotation marks around “hate speech” are puzzling in English. Does he mean something called “hate speech” but that isn’t? Dropping the quotes instead of following the 括弧 in the original would help.

              The first sentence begins well--“fuel discrimination or violence or impugn human dignity” is excellent. But why the redundancy of “less numerous groups of people”? (At least “or the like” is better than “etc.”)

              In the second paragraph, translating いわゆる as “so-called” generates a potentially derogatory implication. Using quotation marks around the informal name or writing “what is commonly called the Hate Speech Act” and then leaving out the quotes around the formal name would work better.

              In the next paragraph, “deep-seated concerns of whether” should be “about whether.” “On the other hand” in the next sentence, without a previous phrase to set it up, is clumsy; it could be dropped or the two sentences rephrased. “Others criticize that” is also not English. “Aforementioned countermeasure act” is painfully literal and contributes nothing. “Others criticize the Hate Speech Act as being merely symbolic” might work better. E59’s “means of public regulation” works better than just “as a public regulation,” since the point is whether the act can be enforced. “Each municipality” implies that each and every municipality has taken action; here the 各 is a marker indicating that multiple local governments (not municipalities) have done so. “Hate-motivated protests” works well. And “a new national canon” is a pleasing solution for 国民規範.

              In the next paragraph, “a method called ‘survey experiment’” is awkward English, even if the quotation marks are removed. “A survey experiment” would work better.

              The first sentence of the next paragraph has an obvious grammatical error (debates and discussions . . . have its risks). “Thematic nature” is wordy and confusing: could the subject have a non-thematic nature? E59’s “Given the associated themes and subject matter” is a much smoother translation.

              In the next paragraph, 概要 could indeed be an abstract, but here the authors are offering more of an overview of the research. “Some points to be considered” is good, but “in stages,” two sentences below, is not; try “in the sections below.” The “this is” following it is vague; “its large size” would be better. The rest of the paragraph is clumsily written, with 七十歳以上 mistranslated as “persons over 70” instead of “70 and above.” The “though” in “though it goes without saying” is unnecessary. “Be mindful” seems a little new age-y in style for this topic, while “said data” at the end seems harshly legalistic.

E05 combined some skillful writing with some unfortunate translation errors.

              The section title was the first hurdle, which E05 handled well, though “Examining hate speech under a scientific lens” might work better.

              The first paragraph ends with etc., which must be avoided, but is otherwise good.

              In the third paragraph, we find “perceived regulation,” where “perceived” seems to have no basis in the Japanese. Perhaps the translator was thinking ahead to the next sentence, which asserts the lack of regulation. Here, however, the sentence can be taken to referring to a general principle, not specific regulations: “Regulation of hate speech . . . would potentially violate . . . .” The next sentence is an ungrammatical muddle: “Doesn’t ban hate speech nor establishes . . . .” “Only philosophical” is not bad, but “merely laying down the basic legal doctrine” would be more specific. “With no end in sight” is great!

              In the next paragraph, “for a research group like ours” sounds general, but the authors are writing specifically about what their research group did. The rest of the sentence is quite free, and, with “the opinion and reasoning of Japanese people,” implies that there is only one opinion or type of reasoning. The last sentence has 要因 as “reasons,” but the research results will show factors associated with those differences, but not necessarily the reasons why.

              In the following paragraph, “in as neutral a manner as possible” might be more realistic, but the あくまで is more “consistently, no matter what.”

              The next paragraph, with its pesky あらかじめ, begins with a hanging phrase and needs rewriting. Also, E05 has conflated the overview of the research and the points to bear in mind. The explanation of the reason for the large sample size could be improved by making it “dividing the same into several subsamples.”

              The next sentence states that the “subsets . . . would not be statistically significant,” but that is not what statistical significance means. E59’s “to allow for the statistical analysis of the subsamples” is better. On problems with the sample, E05 should remember that 七十歳以上 includes people who are 70.

E29’s section title is a bit clumsy; ために has been turned into “for,” resulting in a title that seems to suggest promoting scientific examination; plus the quotation marks are a literal translation of the Japanese punctuation.

              The first paragraph is a bit awkward and ends, sadly, in etc.

              In the second paragraph, E29 implies that the Hate Speech Act was the result of criticism by the international community; the Japanese does not. But E29 avoided “so-called.” (Just need to delete those quote marks around the official title).

               In the next paragraph, “having the government regulate hate speech violates” implies that the government is regulating it; should be “would violate.” “Idealistic law” does not provide the right contrast. The question here is not whether the law is idealistic or pragmatic: giving every adult the right to vote is an idealistic part of the constitution, but not a hollow one. “Merely a law laying down the basic legal doctrine, but not prohibiting or penalizing hate speech” would be clearer.

              E29 also has “each municipality” taking action instead of multiple local governments. “Hate speech demonstrations” seems more vague than “hate rallies.” Also, 実際にhas been moved; it indicates the turn from discussing the law itself to its actual consequences, not the continuing proliferation of hate speech on the internet. There, “converging” is the first meaning given for 収束 in every dictionary, but not one that makes sense in this context; consider “dwindling” or “subsiding” instead. The final sentence would be better if its beginning included “passed a law prohibiting hate speech,” but the rest is excellent.

              The next paragraph, apart from “academic,” is also excellent.

              In the following paragraph, the logic of the sentence ending in 危険がある has been garbled. While it is indeed true that inflammatory speech invites danger, here the point is that debates about this subject carry the risk of being accompanied by inflammatory rhetoric.

              In the next paragraph, “before going into this” is rather wordy. “First” would work better. “Points of consideration” should be “points for consideration.” Here and in the rest of the paragraph, the English is clumsy, and the 以上 problem has recurred.

E62’s section title is good, though “scientific” would have been even better. In the first paragraph, “e.g.” is used deftly. In the second paragraph, “for the longest time” seems an overstatement. “So-called” is not needed, given the quotation marks around the informal name of the act.

              “Presented with an opportunity” makes no sense in the next paragraph. In “we (the research team),” “the” implies a team in a specific organization, for example. The writers are simply saying, “our research team.” “Through this project, we aim to gain a deeper understanding as to where the Japanese stand on regulating discrimination or abusive speech (they are against such regulation), and why” completely mistranslates 規制すべきである(規制すべきではない). It should be “Where the Japanese stand on whether actions such as discrimination or abusive speech should (or should not) be regulated, and why.” In the next sentence, “mechanism” should be plural. “Incidentally” is a regrettable intrusion. “Social surveys” should be “public opinion polls.”

              Skipping two paragraphs down, we find “a study that we conducted earlier,” another failed attempt to deal with あらかじめ. The authors are alerting us that they are going to talk about the research design and points to be borne in mind (not key points). “Approximately, 5,000 respondents aged 20 to 60 were surveyed via the Internet”: it should be 69, not 60. The remainder of the paragraph is poorly written, misses the 以上, and has all Japanese holding “the attitude and opinion.”

Ken Wagner (Part2)