Is translation interpretation ? The Supreme Court decides !

       Yes, on today's American Supreme Court docket (i.e. oral arguments will be presented today) is Kouichi Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., where the question presented (warning ! dreaded pdf format !) (the fundamental legal question at issue) is:

Section 1920 of 28 U.S.C. sets out the categories of costs that may be awarded to the prevailing party in a federal lawsuit. One of the listed categories is "compensation of interpreters." Id. § 1920(6).

The question presented is whether costs incurred in translating written documents are "compensation of interpreters" for purposes of section 1920(6).

       Why is this of interest ? Because the leading case on the issue is the Seventh District Court's decision in Extra Equipamentos e Exportação Ltda. v. Case Corp. (warning ! dreaded pdf format !), where no one less than Richard Posner held:

the translator of a document is not referred to as an interpreter. Robert Fagles made famous translations into English of the Iliad, the Odyssey, and the Aeneid, but no one would refer to him as an English language "interpreter" of these works

       Law 'n' lit man Posner should, of course, know a lot better -- lots of folk (me among them) do very much consider Fagles an interpreter of these texts, as much as their translator, and indeed many literary translators do consider themselves (or should ...) interpreters of texts. (It's a horrible example, and a rare big slip by Posner, who should know better: there was no need to bring up literary translation in the context of this particular case (nor in Kouichi Taniguchi v. Kan Pacific Saipan, Ltd., which is his only hope of not being made to look the fool by the justices ...), but apparently he just couldn't help himself .....)
       The Scotusblog page should keep you up to date on the case -- and see also Peter Landers' Lost in Interpretation: Japan Citizen Case Goes to Supreme Court at the Wall Street Journal's Japan Realtime.