Guest guest Posted July 30, 2000 Report Share Posted July 30, 2000 I'd like to respond to Bob Felt's recent post on 'easy terminology.' As I am new member to the list I am sure that I have missed the beginning of this thread and apologize if any of my remarks are redundant. In the discussions of terminology there is often a confusion between two things. One is scholarly rigor which is a collegial, inclusive process using the various tools of scholarship to better understand and communicate certain issues. Confronting and dealing with Oriental medicine from this perspective is always a humbling experience as the process continually reveals how much we do not understand. This has been confused with academic rigidity - the aggressive and combative use of specialized knowledge used in a divisive and adversarial manner which can lead to pomposity by those on the inside and the bewilderment of outsiders. In terms of medical translation, I have seen people use the adjective 'naturalistic' and 'clinical' is either a pejorative or defensive manner. How could the discussion of any aspect of Oriental medicine [remember this is Oriental medicine that we are talking about] be criticized for being naturalistic or clinical? This is an example of the difference between being scholarly and being academic. For example in his post Bob seems to object to a certain transparency of language, appearing to argue that our existence as a profession demands that we have our own arcane, technical language that is completely incomprehensible to outsiders. [his putting a 2500 word limit on 'easy' vocabulary is such an obvious straw man in this context that it requires no rebuttal]. This argument basically asserts that the only way Oriental medicine can flourish in the west is if it becomes some sort of crazy-house mirror reflection of mainstream medicine. Isn't the co-opting and " standardization " of Chinese medicine by a state that takes modern medicine as its standard one of the things that we in the west feel was a mistake made in China? What is the difference between making Oriental medicine fit the ideas of a Nationalist commissar, a Communist cadre, or a middle-manager at an HMO? Many many years ago Bob and I had a discussion about how technical the language of Oriental medicine is. I have spent over twenty-five years with this material and keep coming to the conclusion that there are simply not that many words used in medical texts that are outside the realm of understanding of the average literate Chinese person. Certainly, many words used in Oriental medicine have special resonance [perhaps not that different from the language of wine], but the vast majority of the words themselves are neither peculiar nor off-putting. This can be seen by the large number of medical books that are for sale in the average Chinese bookstore or by taking a random stroll through any medical dictionary. Given that, it seems to me that the best way to transfer this knowledge into English is to try and make the translation as transparent as possible. This attempt at transparency is the mainstream approach [although not the only approach] in sinological works on all subjects as can be seen by reading the works of leading scholars. The tools are there to come up with a variety of useful, readable translations. While it is not my intention to deal with the issues via a " my translations are better than your translations " approach [see below], I am afraid that I have to give at least a couple of examples to demonstrate what I am talking about. 1) The place to start when trying to figure out how to translate a term should be the medical literature itself. If there are problems that the medical literature cannot fully resolve, then we start looking at etymology, contemporaneous works, religious usage, etc. One of the nice things about the Neijing is that it is a composite work and so includes many parallel passages where the same thing is said in slightly different ways. For example, there are instances when the word xu1 [deficiency, depletion, vacuity] occurs in one passage but is replaced by bu4 zu2 [insufficiency, not enough] in a parallel passage elsewhere. The Inner Classic contains words for emptiness, such as kong1, but they are not used in this manner. This is very strong evidence that the term xu1 should be translated into English by a word that has something to do with a deficit or inadequacy. 2) Terms should be used judiciously, both to reflect as accurately as possible the meanings of the Chinese term, but to avoid unnecessary confusion. An example is yu4. Mr. Wiseman translates this as " depressed " probably based on the term yu4 zheng4, a primarily mental state that is often translated as depression. However, when Chinese people feel yu4 they are feeling over constrained, overly bound in by circumstances and not " down " as would be implied by the term " depression. " This is a strong cultural difference. An overly rigid use of idea of using a specific English word for each specific Chinese word really gets one into trouble here. What could " depressive heat " possibly mean in English? That as the qi is pushed down into the body it become hot; or maybe that when it is low in the body it becomes hot? This idea has nothing to do with the Chinese concept of yu4 re4, which is heat secondary to some form of constraint, compression, or stagnation. These kinds of examples are legion I am not suggesting that other methodologies of translation should be proscribed. Quite the opposite, as everyone's style has its own advantages and shortcomings. In our own work there are many problems that have not been solved and translations that are arguable. In part this is due to our own inadequacies and in part it is due to the fact that there are many concepts in Chinese medicine which are just not fully understood. While I personally disagree with much of the approach that Mr. Wiseman and his colleagues take to the medicine and translation, I respect them and think that much of their terminology is perfectly serviceable. At the Seattle Institute of Oriental Medicine, where I teach, some students prefer their terminology and are completely free to use whatever translation scheme or schemes they desire. In addition, everyone in the Oriental medical community should admire the huge amount of effort that went into their dictionaries and be appreciative of their work. I know how much work goes into these types of projects and am very impressed by their productivity. That is exactly the point. By the nature of language and medicine no translation can be perfect and there are many different, useful, and interesting ways in which texts on Oriental medicine can be translated. We should not try and inhibit students, teachers, or practitioners from using whatever terms are helpful to them, even as we continue to work on improving our understanding of the medicine and our translations. We are so far from having a good enough grasp on this material that only impatience, vanity, and hubris could push us to think that at this stage we are ready to " standardize " the translations of these terms. I'd like to raise another somewhat related issue. In much of the material I have read about translation schemes, it seems taken for granted that standardization would be both helpful to the profession and to students. I emphatically disagree. My argument above has been that the state of our knowledge and abilities with regards to the many facets of Oriental medicine and its language is much too limited and incomplete to think about standardizing on any system. But I think there is even a more compelling reason not to go in that direction which I have only alluded to. On the one hand Oriental medicine has always been pluralistic. This is one of its strengths, which has allowed it to grow and develop over the ages. In addition, Oriental medicine encompasses a number of ways to look at health, disease, and treatment. Due to these factors, one of the main requirements to learn it well has been a combination of flexibility and the ability to handle ambiguity. What better way to demonstrate this to students [especially those who do not learn an East Asian language in school] than to expose them to a wide variety of translation schemes? I think Oriental medical education and practice, both here and elsewhere, have been adversely affected by an " industrial " mind-set. Exposing students to differing systems of translation should not only give them a more well-rounded understanding of the medicine, but impress upon them the need to remain fluid and avoid rigidity when practicing Oriental medicine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 30, 2000 Report Share Posted July 30, 2000 But I think there is even a more compelling reason not to go in that direction which I have only alluded to. On the one hand Oriental medicine has always been pluralistic. This is one of its strengths, which has allowed it to grow and develop over the ages. In addition, Oriental medicine encompasses a number of ways to look at health, disease, and treatment. Due to these factors, one of the main requirements to learn it well has been a combination of flexibility and the ability to handle ambiguity. Given that, it seems to me that the best way to transfer this knowledge into English is to try and make the translation as transparent as possible. This attempt at transparency is the mainstream approach [although not the only approach] in sinological works on all subjects as can be seen by reading the works of leading scholars. The tools are there to come up with a variety of useful, reaThe place to start when trying to figure out how to translate a term should be the medical literature itselfdable translations >>>Thank you Dan I could not agree more Alon - dfbensky Sunday, July 30, 2000 3:29 PM Re: 'easy terminology' I¹d like to respond to Bob Felt¹s recent post on Œeasy terminology.¹ As I am new member to the list I am sure that I have missed the beginning of this thread and apologize if any of my remarks are redundant. In the discussions of terminology there is often a confusion between two things. One is scholarly rigor which is a collegial, inclusive process using the various tools of scholarship to better understand and communicate certain issues. Confronting and dealing with Oriental medicine from this perspective is always a humbling experience as the process continually reveals how much we do not understand. This has been confused with academic rigidity - the aggressive and combative use of specialized knowledge used in a divisive and adversarial manner which can lead to pomposity by those on the inside and the bewilderment of outsiders.In terms of medical translation, I have seen people use the adjective Œnaturalistic¹ and Œclinical¹ is either a pejorative or defensive manner. How could the discussion of any aspect of Oriental medicine [remember this is Oriental medicine that we are talking about] be criticized for being naturalistic or clinical? This is an example of the difference between being scholarly and being academic.For example in his post Bob seems to object to a certain transparency of language, appearing to argue that our existence as a profession demands that we have our own arcane, technical language that is completely incomprehensible to outsiders. [his putting a 2500 word limit on Œeasy¹ vocabulary is such an obvious straw man in this context that it requires no rebuttal]. This argument basically asserts that the only way Oriental medicine can flourish in the west is if it becomes some sort of crazy-house mirror reflection of mainstream medicine. Isn¹t the co-opting and "standardization" of Chinese medicine by a state that takes modern medicine as its standard one of the things that we in the west feel was a mistake made in China? What is the difference between making Oriental medicine fit the ideas of a Nationalist commissar, a Communist cadre, or a middle-manager at an HMO?Many many years ago Bob and I had a discussion about how technical the language of Oriental medicine is. I have spent over twenty-five years with this material and keep coming to the conclusion that there are simply not that many words used in medical texts that are outside the realm of understanding of the average literate Chinese person. Certainly, many words used in Oriental medicine have special resonance [perhaps not that different from the language of wine], but the vast majority of the words themselves are neither peculiar nor off-putting. This can be seen by the large number of medical books that are for sale in the average Chinese bookstore or by taking a random stroll through any medical dictionary.Given that, it seems to me that the best way to transfer this knowledge into English is to try and make the translation as transparent as possible. This attempt at transparency is the mainstream approach [although not the only approach] in sinological works on all subjects as can be seen by reading the works of leading scholars. The tools are there to come up with a variety of useful, readable translations. While it is not my intention to deal with the issues via a "my translations are better than your translations" approach [see below], I am afraid that I have to give at least a couple of examples to demonstrate what I am talking about.1) The place to start when trying to figure out how to translate a term should be the medical literature itself. If there are problems that the medical literature cannot fully resolve, then we start looking at etymology, contemporaneous works, religious usage, etc. One of the nice things about the Neijing is that it is a composite work and so includes many parallel passages where the same thing is said in slightly different ways. For example, there are instances when the word xu1 [deficiency, depletion, vacuity] occurs in one passage but is replaced by bu4 zu2 [insufficiency, not enough] in a parallel passage elsewhere. The Inner Classic contains words for emptiness, such as kong1, but they are not used in this manner. This is very strong evidence that the term xu1 should be translated into English by a word that has something to do with a deficit or inadequacy.2) Terms should be used judiciously, both to reflect as accurately as possible the meanings of the Chinese term, but to avoid unnecessary confusion. An example is yu4.Mr. Wiseman translates this as "depressed" probably based on the term yu4 zheng4, a primarily mental state that is often translated as depression. However, when Chinese people feel yu4 they are feeling over constrained, overly bound in by circumstances and not "down" as would be implied by the term "depression." This is a strong cultural difference. An overly rigid use of idea of using a specific English word for each specific Chinese word really gets one into trouble here. What could "depressive heat" possibly mean in English? That as the qi is pushed down into the body it become hot; or maybe that when it is low in the body it becomes hot? This idea has nothing to do with the Chinese concept of yu4 re4, which is heat secondary to some form of constraint, compression, or stagnation.These kinds of examples are legion I am not suggesting that other methodologies of translation should be proscribed. Quite the opposite, as everyone¹s style has its own advantages and shortcomings. In our own work there are many problems that have not been solved and translations that are arguable. In part this is due to our own inadequacies and in part it is due to the fact that there are many concepts in Chinese medicine which are just not fully understood. While I personally disagree with much of the approach that Mr. Wiseman and his colleagues take to the medicine and translation, I respect them and think that much of their terminology is perfectly serviceable. At the Seattle Institute of Oriental Medicine, where I teach, some students prefer their terminology and are completely free to use whatever translation scheme or schemes they desire. In addition, everyone in the Oriental medical community should admire the huge amount of effort that went into their dictionaries and be appreciative of their work. I know how much work goes into these types of projects and am very impressed by their productivity.That is exactly the point. By the nature of language and medicine no translation can be perfect and there are many different, useful, and interesting ways in which texts on Oriental medicine can be translated. We should not try and inhibit students, teachers, or practitioners from using whatever terms are helpful to them, even as we continue to work on improving our understanding of the medicine and our translations. We are so far from having a good enough grasp on this material that only impatience, vanity, and hubris could push us to think that at this stage we are ready to "standardize" the translations of these terms.I¹d like to raise another somewhat related issue. In much of the material I have read about translation schemes, it seems taken for granted that standardization would be both helpful to the profession and to students. I emphatically disagree. My argument above has been that the state of our knowledge and abilities with regards to the many facets of Oriental medicine and its language is much too limited and incomplete to think about standardizing on any system. But I think there is even a more compelling reason not to go in that direction which I have only alluded to. On the one hand Oriental medicine has always been pluralistic. This is one of its strengths, which has allowed it to grow and develop over the ages. In addition, Oriental medicine encompasses a number of ways to look at health, disease, and treatment. Due to these factors, one of the main requirements to learn it well has been a combination of flexibility and the ability to handle ambiguity. What better way to demonstrate this to students [especially those who do not learn an East Asian language in school] than to expose them to a wide variety of translation schemes? I think Oriental medical education and practice, both here and elsewhere, have been adversely affected by an "industrial" mind-set. Exposing students to differing systems of translation should not only give them a more well-rounded understanding of the medicine, but impress upon them the need to remain fluid and avoid rigidity when practicing Oriental medicine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2000 Report Share Posted July 31, 2000 Al, I can explain what I mean and what I understand Bob's intent to be. Methodology needs to be clearly articulated and quite literally see-through. Anyone picking up a text should be able to know virtually at a glance, what it is...at least what it purports to be. What, for example, is Chinese Acupuncutre and Moxibustion? Shouldn't we know what the status of that text is as it has come to occupy the position of " gold standard " in the profession? There ought to be a set of labels that can be applied to books on the subject so that a buyer/reader can pick up any given text and know what it is and how it was produced. This is the aim of the COMP initiative, i.e. to develop and get into common usage just such a set of labels that would differentiate the literature, thus providing a basis for informed decision making on the part of those who buy it and use it. This is an important step in developing a transparent methodology. Currently it can be difficult to tell what sources have been used in the compilation of various texts. It gets down to a question of how anyone knows what they know about the subject. Where did they gather their information from? What texts have been used as sources of data? None of this places any kind of limit on what any given author can write. It only asks that those who write and publish in the field take care to inform those who buy and read their book as to the methods employed to create them. Does that help? Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2000 Report Share Posted August 1, 2000 yulong: stagnated dragon? : ) Close, but no cigar. Cosmic Dragon. > None of this places any kind of limit on > what any given author can write. It only > asks that those who write and publish in > the field take care to inform those who > buy and read their book as to the methods > employed to create them. > > Does that help? Yes, thank you. Avec plaisir. -The Orientalist 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.