Guest guest Posted May 13, 2000 Report Share Posted May 13, 2000 From Peter Deadman There seem to be so many issues regarding the translation discussion, and it looks like one that will (and should) run and run. A few comments I would like to add: o who or what is the translation for? Whilst Chinese medicine offers rich material; for historians, anthropologists, philologists and philosophers and so on, its primary purpose is to treat and benefit patients, and so we primarily need a language to assist the study and communication of CM between practitioners, teachers, students and patients. Does the translation make communication relatively free and easy yet offer enough exactitude to be clear? Choices in terminology hinder or assist this. It seem to me that the language should be, wherever possible, simple and clear, easy to speak, sufficiently modern and well suited to its application. The needs of academics might be different, but their needs and interests should not be allowed to hijack those of the numerically much greater coalface practitioners. Thus it might suit an academic to use terms such as " foxy mounting " and " depurate " and " downbear " , but does it suit everyone else? When we teach CM we have to explain what the concepts mean. This places less weight on terminological exactitude. I use terms such as Œdescend¹ when I teach Lung function, but I still have to explain what it means and so for students the term Œdescend¹ comes wrapped in its amplified meanings. Why get so hung up on driving the language to extremis when this is the case? o how close do we need to be to the literal Chinese? The patients I treat are both similar to the patients I treated in China (they all eat, have sex, sleep and so on) yet profoundly different. The way I talk to them, and they to me, is very different to the dialogue in China. We are forging practices that are very different in many ways to those in China and this may need a different language. I like to try and explain to many of my patients how CM understands their symptom/disease. How different should this everyday language be from our more technical language? o How wide should the input to terminology be? It¹s possible through email forums to have much greater debate and co-operation. Look at Linex (is that the right name?) the computer operating system worked on by thousands of individuals through the web that is reputedly much more robust and error-free than any system developed by a much smaller number of employed specialists at Microsoft or Apple. I have commented on the sexual slang connotations of " foxy mounting " in a review of Wiseman¹s Practical Dictionary and it reminded me of when the movie Free Willy came out in the UK to the merriment of millions of British schoolboys, " willy¹ being English slang for " penis " . Simple communication can avoid howlers like this but more importantly continually refine terminology to reach working consensus. It is not impugning Wiseman¹s monumental wok to both suggest that it is not perfect, nor to question the idea that a handful of individuals define the language to be used by a worldwide community. Communication, co-operation, maximum discussion and input will surely bring the best results. Does the Dictionary sufficiently and publicly invite feedback and comments from the users of the language? If not, doesn¹t this risk alienating the very people the work is supposed to be for? o I teach CM in English in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Israel and other countries where English is a second language. Their vocabulary is great but how well does Wiseman¹s terminology suit their needs, and importantly both for Wiseman and publishers who use the terminology how well will it be accepted? My impression is that there is widespread resistance. o Finally I have to say that I don¹t speak or read Chinese. I do love English though and it hurts when it sounds ugly and forced. Also I don¹t have any precise agenda. I have questioned and sometimes criticised Wiseman terminology in Journal of book reviews over the years, and judging by the responses I have received from those with a vested interest (Bob Flaws for example) this is a burning-at-the-stake kind of crime. Clearly though, Wiseman has got some of the terminology right and some wrong how could it be otherwise? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 13, 2000 Report Share Posted May 13, 2000 Hi Peter, I couldn't agree more with your statement that the discussion regarding translation should go on and on. From Peter Deadman There seem to be so many issues regarding the translation discussion, and it looks like one that will (and should) run and run. A few comments I would like to add: o who or what is the translation for? My personal point of view is that translation is for the author. Not the author of the translated version, but the author (or authors) of the original work. When we select material to translate, we first and foremost pay hommage to the enduring value of the original text. I mention this, because as someone who toils in this field, I want to make this value system understood. When we choose a passage from Sun Si Miao, for example, we recognize that what this old doctor had to say not only has implicit value, it has served as a guidepost for the education of doctors in China for centuries. The act of translating his work into English is an act of respect for the man and for what he said. Our primary responsibility as translators is to undertake to comprehend the deep meanings of the original and bring them to life in the new language. If this is done, then the resulting translated material is adequate to be put to whatever other use people might have for it. If we fail to convey the gist of the original, the translation will not serve much purpose whatsoever. By being focused on this goal of harmony with the source, and I contend by this method alone, can we develop meaningful and useful translated literature. If we permit the existence of poor translation, we invite the degradation of the clinical practice. I share your view entirely that the ultimate test of translation of Chinese medcial material is its efficacy in the hands of students, who develop into doctors. The only sane wat to determine the effects of such material is to observe the clinical results of those trained in them. That's why I strongly support Bob Felt's suggestion to the entire field of Chinese medicine that we devise a way of tracking the progress of those who complete the various training regimens that currently exist. What happens to people trained in these programs? What is the attritition rate of practitioners of Chinese medicine today? How does it compare with the attrition rate of allied health care professions? How are we doing? We can discuss it until we're all blue in the face. But how about we find out? Every step of the translation process involves similar editorial or value judgment such as those described above. I think it's important that as the field of Chinese medicine in the West matures and continues to spawn more interest and therefore more books, some of which will always be or include translations, we come to recognize the significance of such judgments. This can only be done by public disclosure of who is doing what. That is why I applaud and vigorously support the efforts of the Council of Oriental Medical Publishers to work towards the adoption of standard labels for books in the field. There are reasons for such initiatives. As noted recently on this list, different individuals have different interests. But I submit that it is in everyone's best interest to insist upon only the highest possible standards of translated materials, if those materials are to be expected and indeed depended upon to train doctors who thrive as purveyors of well being for their patients. How to determine such standards? The process is happening all the time. I use this one fundamental test: does the translation transmit the spirit of the original? Whilst Chinese medicine offers rich material; for historians, anthropologists, philologists and philosophers and so on, its primary purpose is to treat and benefit patients, and so we primarily need a language to assist the study and communication of CM between practitioners, teachers, students and patients. Does the translation make communication relatively free and easy yet offer enough exactitude to be clear? Choices in terminology hinder or assist this. It seem to me that the language should be, wherever possible, simple and clear, easy to speak, sufficiently modern and well suited to its application. The needs of academics might be different, but their needs and interests should not be allowed to hijack those of the numerically much greater coalface practitioners. Thus it might suit an academic to use terms such as " foxy mounting " and " depurate " and " downbear " , but does it suit everyone else? When we teach CM we have to explain what the concepts mean. This places less weight on terminological exactitude. I use terms such as Odescend¹ when I teach Lung function, but I still have to explain what it means and so for students the term Odescend¹ comes wrapped in its amplified meanings. Why get so hung up on driving the language to extremis when this is the case? I think if you break it down you'll find that you are talking about what are typically two distinct sets of nomenclature. One is the literary nomenclature, the language of the texts themselves. The other is the pedagogic nomenclature, the far more lively discourse between students and teachers. As I've said before, all that I experience with the appearance of language taken to the extremis, as you put it, is a continual freeing up of my imagination to delve more deeply into possible meanings and implications. The study is a living thing, after all. The example of Western medical English I believe demonstrates rather conclusively that it doesn't really matter at all what the words are as long as they are standardly understood and used. That is the real problem with the Chinese medical nomenclature: so few people really grasp the meaning of the original Chinese. For one good reason: it's difficult. When we wrote Who Can Ride the Dragon? what we did was break down answers to one simple question into what seemed like an organic categorization. The question: What does it take for someone who does not know Chinese language and culture to begin to come to terms with Chinese medical nomenclature? o how close do we need to be to the literal Chinese? The patients I treat are both similar to the patients I treated in China (they all eat, have sex, sleep and so on) yet profoundly different. The way I talk to them, and they to me, is very different to the dialogue in China. We are forging practices that are very different in many ways to those in China and this may need a different language. This may very well be the case. In fact the Chinese themselves have faced a similar quandry many times throughout the centuries. They are constantly gathering up the literature and trying to make sense of it, not only in terms of its original meanings but in terms of how it can be updated and adapted to the contemporary age. It comes with the territory. Part of the problem with Chinese medical terminology both in the original and particularly in translation is When did a given term mean What, and how do changes in the meanings of terms reflect theoretical development. But before we can safely introduce changes, we have to comprehend the original. To fail at this prerequisite threatens the whole endeavor of transplanting Chinese medicine into Western soil. I point out that we are far from the first generation to undertake to do so. For the past several centuries it has proven a somewhat elusive target. I like to try and explain to many of my patients how CM understands their symptom/disease. How different should this everyday language be from our more technical language? The language you use in dialog with your patients is yet another category of language or nomenclature. Again, the only real impact of a standard translation terminology is that it would always provide you with a starting point for such discourse, just as the conventional medical terminology is used by medical doctors to begin to explain to their patients what is wrong. Doctors who never learn how to communicate beyond this level don't make it, at least not as general practitioners who have to deal with the whole person. Neither could competent GPs ever be trained without having a standard nomenclature in which their education was conducted and in which their store of learning resides. What we've had for the past couple of decades with respect to Chinese medical literature in English is best described by the word " confusion. " o How wide should the input to terminology be? As wide as the universe of those who use it. That's what language is. Let's carry this discussion to each and every person who uses the literature, the nomenclature, the theories and methods of Chinese medicine and let's work to rectify and regulate the basic meanings. It¹s possible through email forums to have much greater debate and co-operation. Look at Linex (is that the right name?) the computer operating system worked on by thousands of individuals through the web that is reputedly much more robust and error-free than any system developed by a much smaller number of employed specialists at Microsoft or Apple. I have commented on the sexual slang connotations of " foxy mounting " in a review of Wiseman¹s Practical Dictionary and it reminded me of when the movie Free Willy came out in the UK to the merriment of millions of British schoolboys, " willy¹ being English slang for " penis " . Simple communication can avoid howlers like this but more importantly continually refine terminology to reach working consensus. I understand this story as compelling evidence supporting the position that cultural context cannot be ignored when dealing with translated materials. This naturally includes the cultural context of both the source language and the target language. While our first book was undergoing the editorial process, we realized one day that it had all been written for a Chinese reader. The whole book had to be rewritten so that its arguments would address the presumed concerns and circumstances of English language users. It is not impugning Wiseman¹s monumental wok to both suggest that it is not perfect, nor to question the idea that a handful of individuals define the language to be used by a worldwide community. Communication, co-operation, maximum discussion and input will surely bring the best results. Does the Dictionary sufficiently and publicly invite feedback and comments from the users of the language? If not, doesn¹t this risk alienating the very people the work is supposed to be for? I'm not sure I follow you here, but I can tell you from my experience with the publisher of the Dictionary that all sound arguments are entertained. Bob and I argue constantly. I've argued less with Nigel, mainly because we have less traffic. But on each occasion where such arguments have occurred, I can tell you that I learned and benefitted a great deal. It was the great English poet William Blake who said that opposition is true friendship. In case neither Bob or Nigel has somehow failed to invite such feedback, I invite anyone who feels un-listened to about this to get in touch with me, either directly or via this list. I teach CM in English in Norway, Sweden, Denmark, Holland, Belgium, Israel and other countries where English is a second language. Their vocabulary is great but how well does Wiseman¹s terminology suit their needs, and importantly both for Wiseman and publishers who use the terminology how well will it be accepted? My impression is that there is widespread resistance. I hope that all such resistance will take the form of vigorous debate about the specific term choices or with other epistemological issues and that this debate will result in the constant improvement of the Dictionary and all subsequent scholarship. And I once again applaud Nigel and Feng Ye for the fortitude to conduct such labor. o Finally I have to say that I don¹t speak or read Chinese. I do love English though and it hurts when it sounds ugly and forced. Also I don¹t have any precise agenda. I have questioned and sometimes criticised Wiseman terminology in Journal of book reviews over the years, and judging by the responses I have received from those with a vested interest (Bob Flaws for example) this is a burning-at-the-stake kind of crime. Clearly though, Wiseman has got some of the terminology right and some wrong how could it be otherwise? I myself have a vested interest. My wife and I have written several books, and I want a good reason to write some more. I want people to recognize that the study of Chinese medicine is a vast and a profound undertaking. It is a subject that represents one of the high points of human intellectual accomplishment. It has not yet been understood in the West for what it is, in my humble opinion. The Chinese refer to it as a great treasure house. It stands beside artifacts of understanding like the compass, paper and movable type, and gunpowder as one of most influential bodies of knowledge that has ever been assembled. Hadn't we better treat it accordingly? I want those who disagree with me to step forward and argue the point. If I am wrong, I hope that someone will help me to see how. I do not know of anyone who has ever forwarded the idea that Nigel Wiseman is infallible. He's a hard working dedicated scholar, from what I know of him. He deserves our respect and gratitude for the work he continues to do. I, too love English. But I don't mind saying that my ongoing study of the Chinese language is a thing of mystery and wonder. I urge you and everyone to take a look at what the Chinese language is and how it works. For me such an investment of time and attention pays off noticably in terms of my effecicacy in the clinic. Would we really tolerate a training program in Shakespeare that omitted the English language versions? Ken Rose Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.