Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

More on terminology

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...