Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

'easy terminology'

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Guest guest

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest

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

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.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...