Language and Reality

[Guest guest]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/explorations/2002/032502language/

 

Ken:

 

This is a link for an article on the Whorfian notion that language

shapes how we see reality. It seems the 1930s idea is enjoying a

resurgence.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Jim,

>

> This is a link for an article on the Whorfian notion that language

> shapes how we see reality. It seems the 1930s idea is enjoying a

> resurgence.

>

 

Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

It's instructive to see the ebb and flow

of orthodoxy. A couple of other things

were brought to my attention during the

past twelve hours. I'll put them up here

and see if any stir and comments.

 

" To approach the reading of the Lun Yu [selected Discourses or

Analects of Confucius] properly one should remember that, like other

literary Chinese, it is not 'writing' in the same sense that written

English is 'writing'. That is, it is not a recording of speech. It

consists, instead, of a series of suggestive idea-centers

(characters) which vary in their content and in their relation to

each other, depending on the total context, as constantly and as

unpredictably as light on rippling water. The suggestions given to

the reader are neither complete nor full, and consequently the

reading of literary Chinese is a creative, not a passive, task. "

 

That from the General Introduction to Literary Chinese by the

Inductive Method, Volume II, by Creel, Chang, and Rudolph from the

Univesity of Chiacgo Press 1939

 

I don't know if it conforms with Whorf or Chomsky

but the basic premise on which we were operating

when we put the language material together for

Who Can Ride the Dragon? was that there is a causal

link between the patterns of the words we speak and

write (and of course the way we speak and write them)

and the patterns of our thinking. I've always presumed

that the arrow of causation points both directions

on the thought-language axis. This view was

informed probably more by literary than scientific

sources.

 

I just came upon the passage above last night after

having recently gotten my hands on copies of volume

II and III of this Literary Chinese series. There's

a bit more of this paragraph that I will include here

because I think it's relevant to the discussion of

the term and translation standards that has been

a recurrent thread on this list. This next bit continues

right where the first quote ends.

 

" The ordinary photograph tells its full and plain story at a glance;

a great Sung landscape or a Cezanne must be studied to be understood.

The photograph is lamost the same thing to everyone who sees it; the

painting is perhaps never quite the same to any two beholders.

Literay Chinese, like painting, demands more effort and yields

greater returns. And also like painting, it often means slightly

different things to different people. Sometimes it means very

different things, and on the interpretation of some passages in the

Lun Yu Chinese scholars themselves have been at variance for two

thousand years. "

 

There's one more bit from this introduction that I'll

end with here as it comments rather directly on the

importance of the exercise of learning Chinese, not

as an end in itself, but as the only viable way to

extract the true meanings from Chinese texts.

 

" For the student who has a teacher there will be the temptation, of

course, to use a translation to 'make sure' of his interpretation

before he recites. That he may obtain the maximum benefit from his

labors, it is to be hoped that he will resist it. In the first place,

there is always the danger that he will have worked out for himself a

better interpretation, but will allow himself to be diverted to a

worse one by the prestige of a translator. The only serious

difficulty, however, is that one who reads a translation of a Chinese

text, before he has worked thoroughly through the Chinese itself and

discussed it in its various possibilities, is forever limited in his

understanding. Since no translation can express everything that is in

the Chinese, he is in the position of the proverbial Chinese frog at

the bottom of a well who thinks the sky is tiny because he can see

only a little of it. "

 

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Ken: Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

It's instructive to see the ebb and flow

of orthodoxy. >>

 

Jim: Some of the things that I was interested in, back in the 70s

during college---acupuncture, phenomenology, deconstruction, and

poetry styles---were marginal to the cultural orthodoxy then; but

have become mainstream over the years. Now reading about innovation

in Chinese medical history, I find the systems of thought that

inform the style of pulse reading and acupuncture I do---Bian Que,

Mai Jing, Stems and Branches---are not mainstream CM medicine.

Perhaps they will become more accepted in mainstream practice in

future generations.

 

 

 

Ken: " To approach the reading of the Lun Yu [selected Discourses or

Analects of Confucius] properly one should remember that, like other

literary Chinese, it is not 'writing' in the same sense that written

English is 'writing'. That is, it is not a recording of speech. It

consists, instead, of a series of suggestive idea-centers

(characters) which vary in their content and in their relation to

each other, depending on the total context, as constantly and as

unpredictably as light on rippling water. The suggestions given to

the reader are neither complete nor full, and consequently the

reading of literary Chinese is a creative, not a passive, task. "

" The ordinary photograph tells its full and plain story at a glance;

a great Sung landscape or a Cezanne must be studied to be

understood.

 

The photograph is almost the same thing to everyone who sees it; the

painting is perhaps never quite the same to any two beholders.

Literary Chinese, like painting, demands more effort and yields

greater returns. And also like painting, it often means slightly

different things to different people. Sometimes it means very

different things, and on the interpretation of some passages in the

Lun Yu Chinese scholars themselves have been at variance for two

thousand years. " >>

 

Jim: The same proposition can be made concerning English or any

literary style of writing. This is similar to Derrida's contention

about language

: " He contends that the

traditional, or metaphysical way of reading makes a number of false

assumptions about the nature of texts. A traditional reader believes

that language is capable of expressing ideas without changing them,

that in the hierarchy of language writing is secondary to speech,

and that the author of a text is the source of its meaning.

Derrida's deconstructive style of reading subverts these assumptions

and challenges the idea that a text has an unchanging, unified

meaning. Western culture has tended to assume that speech is a clear

and direct way to communicate. Drawing on psychoanalysis and

linguistics, Derrida questions this assumption. As a result, the

author's intentions in speaking cannot be unconditionally accepted.

This multiplies the number of legitimate interpretations of a

text.Deconstruction shows the multiple layers of meaning at work in

language. By deconstructing the works of previous scholars, Derrida

attempts to show that language is constantly shifting. Although

Derrida's thought is sometimes portrayed by critics as destructive

of philosophy, deconstruction can be better understood as showing

the unavoidable tensions between the ideals of clarity and coherence

that govern philosophy and the inevitable shortcomings that

accompany its production. "

 

 

 

 

Ken: I don't know if it conforms with Whorf or Chomsky

but the basic premise on which we were operating

when we put the language material together for

Who Can Ride the Dragon? was that there is a causal

link between the patterns of the words we speak and

write (and of course the way we speak and write them)

and the patterns of our thinking. I've always presumed

that the arrow of causation points both directions

on the thought-language axis. This view was

informed probably more by literary than scientific

sources.

 

Jim: That arrow does point in both directions. In my past, as an

English major, we would have called that process an on-going

dialogue with the text. Texts are kept 'alive' by virtue of this

constant interaction. This is also a possible argument---one that I

believed I raised earlier regarding literal and literary translation-

--about why standardization can be contentious. The author and

readers meet the text in different contexts---personal, cultural,

and intellectual. Translation---whether from the author's head to

the written word, the written word to a native reader, or from one

language to another---has many possibilities.

 

But then this cacophony of interpretations is also an important

motivation for some standardization or consensus---especially at the

entry levels to the profession. But we're in a awkward position in

the development of our profession. Publishers can't afford to print

the original Chinese, schools may not afford to have Chinese

language classes, and half the students are already happy with the

status quo. Alas, this problem wasn't solved in my college days

either, when arguing about poetry translations and styles.

 

I think the final test of a translation is whether you (or others)

can clinically employee what you have translated. If not, it is only

an academic exercise. Which is not, necessarily, a bad thing in

itself---that information may become useful at another time.

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Jim,

>

> Jim: The same proposition can be made concerning English or any

> literary style of writing.

 

Yes. Well, the fact that the same or similar

propositions might apply to other matters

in no way lessens their importance with

respect to the Chinese material. The point

is not that Chinese is unique, but that

such considerations must be taken into

account when dealing with the transmission

of knowledge from Chinese sources. And

whereas it may be true of other languages

and literatures, even if it may well be

true of all other langauges and literatures,

the details of how it is true and how one

deals with those literatures are what

matter, no?

 

 

 

>

> Jim: That arrow does point in both directions. In my past, as an

> English major, we would have called that process an on-going

> dialogue with the text. Texts are kept 'alive' by virtue of this

> constant interaction. This is also a possible argument---one that I

> believed I raised earlier regarding literal and literary

translation-

> --about why standardization can be contentious. The author and

> readers meet the text in different contexts---personal, cultural,

> and intellectual. Translation---whether from the author's head to

> the written word, the written word to a native reader, or from one

> language to another---has many possibilities.

 

Isn't this precisely why term and translation

standards are a necessary feature of the

study of such texts, expressly to accomodate

such differences?

 

>

> But then this cacophony of interpretations is also an important

> motivation for some standardization or consensus---especially at

the

> entry levels to the profession.

 

I have absolutely no quarrel with a cacophony of

interpretations. There is no problem whatsoever

with their being many interpretations of Chinese

terms and texts. The function of a standard is

primarily to make it possible for individuals to

share a common sense of what is being interpreted.

In fact, I believe contrary to the oft-asserted

position that standards limit freedom and impose

some sort of onerous burden on people, that just

the opposite is true. Sound standards that link

term sets from the two languages empower individuals

to understand more clearly, think more creatively,

and pursue their own interpretations.

 

But we're in a awkward position in

> the development of our profession. Publishers can't afford to print

> the original Chinese, schools may not afford to have Chinese

> language classes, and half the students are already happy with the

> status quo. Alas, this problem wasn't solved in my college days

> either, when arguing about poetry translations and styles.

 

This inventory of the causal factors omits

illiteracy.

 

If there were widespread literacy of

Chinese medical language, publishers

would naturally produce books appropriate

to such a readership and schools would find

natural motivation to teach and improve

upon levels of scholarship. Who would

want to be identified by their inability

to read and comprehend and use the terms

knowledeably? Students could not be lulled

into believing that ignorance is bliss.

 

Why is there not a widespread command

of the language and literature of Chinese

medicine among those who call themselves

students and practitioners of the subject?

 

I don't know sort of poetry you were

arguing about in college, but were you

arguing about translations of poems which

you had never read in the original?

 

Clearly there is no point in such arguments.

 

 

> I think the final test of a translation is whether you (or others)

> can clinically employee what you have translated. If not, it is

only

> an academic exercise. Which is not, necessarily, a bad thing in

> itself---that information may become useful at another time.

 

I think we're far from being in a position

where developing criteria for the final

test of a translation has any practical

value. Until the individuals that constitute

the field, including both students and practitioners,

make up their minds to take ownership and

responsibility of the knowledge base of

the subject, it doesn't matter how it's

translated. For until the frog hops out

of the well, each translation will continue

to be just another little piece of the sky.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Until the individuals that constitute

the field, including both students and practitioners,

make up their minds to take ownership and

responsibility of the knowledge base of

the subject, it doesn't matter how it's

translated. For until the frog hops out

of the well, each translation will continue

to be just another little piece of the sky.

 

The last time I saw the Acupuncture Today survey, half the students

are content with the status quo. The discontent half probably have

issues other than translation. So COMP publishers, schools, and

scholarly writers (where the real power to change resides) really

need to take the lead in this action; there is no immediate demand,

otherwise.

 

 

 

I don't know sort of poetry you were

arguing about in college, but were you

arguing about translations of poems which

you had never read in the original?

 

No, the arguments always involved how to translate, and comparing

the original to the translation. It was always a question of how

meaning is best conveyed in and by the English---either literally

term for term, or more literarily. I believe it was a problem that

never could be resolved because different people use different sides

of their brain.

 

 

I think we're far from being in a position

where developing criteria for the final

test of a translation has any practical

value.

 

Sick people are calling up now. Should we ask them to wait?

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Jim,

>

> The last time I saw the Acupuncture Today survey, half the students

> are content with the status quo. The discontent half probably have

> issues other than translation. So COMP publishers, schools, and

> scholarly writers (where the real power to change resides) really

> need to take the lead in this action; there is no immediate demand,

> otherwise.

 

I continue to believe that the real power

to change lies in each individual's mind.

The only demand that really matters is

the demand we make on ourselves and on

each other to develop to our fullest potential.

>

>

>

> I don't know sort of poetry you were

> arguing about in college, but were you

> arguing about translations of poems which

> you had never read in the original?

>

> No, the arguments always involved how to translate, and comparing

> the original to the translation. It was always a question of how

> meaning is best conveyed in and by the English---either literally

> term for term, or more literarily. I believe it was a problem that

> never could be resolved because different people use different

sides

> of their brain.

 

Which side of the brain is in use when

the meanings of the words are not included

in the argument? I had a strong hunch that

you were arguing about translation of

words that you had bothered to learn.

 

No self-respecting college professor

would tolerate students talking about

translation of material that they'd never

bothered to read in the original.

>

>

> I think we're far from being in a position

> where developing criteria for the final

> test of a translation has any practical

> value.

>

> Sick people are calling up now. Should we ask them to wait?

>

There never has been any question in my mind

about any conflict or contest between studying

well i.e., taking ownership of and responsibility for

the language and literature of the subject, and

dealing with the realities of clinical medicine.

I've always seen these as complementary efforts.

As far as I know it is only people who oppose

literacy who argue that the two compete.

 

The question that lingers with me is not

should we make patients wait, but how long

shall we make ourselves wait before we

move on in our evolution and learn the

language and study the literature of the

subject we study and practice?

 

I think that if people simply ask themselves

this question then perhaps before long

Acupuncture Today can publish the results

of a survey which includes the question,

" Can you read and understand basic texts

containing the essential terms and theories

of Chinese medicine in Chinese? " and report

that a majority of subjects responded

in the affirmative. And not one patient

need be made to wait. Doctors in China

have been advancing their knowledge

by reading...and writing...for centuries

now.

 

That's why we have a subject to talk about

today.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Ken: I continue to believe that the real power

to change lies in each individual's mind.

The only demand that really matters is

the demand we make on ourselves and on

each other to develop to our fullest potential.

 

Jim: Okay; that's a noble sensibility. But how does that translate

into action; into getting more practitioners and students buying

books, taking language classes, reading the classics, etc.?

 

 

Ken: Which side of the brain is in use when

the meanings of the words are not included

in the argument? I had a strong hunch that

you were arguing about translation of

words that you had bothered to learn.

 

Jim: In college (and still today), the central question regarding

meaning can be reframed in two questions: " which should come first,

the literary version or the literal; and is the translator free to

express the sense of the original in any style and idiom he

chooses? " ---George Steiner in After Babel: Aspects of Language and

Translation (Oxford, 1975). The problem is compounded in poetry and

literature because the form or structure of the text must be

addressed along with the words because it is an essential part of

the context, emotion, and meaning of the text. For example, if you

don't address the rhythm and rhyme of a text, you simply paraphrase

the words. I remember having a vinyl record album of Sebastian Cabot

doing a dramatic reading (he didn't sing) of Bob Dylan's songs.

Wasn't good.

 

A better example is one of my favorite books about translation

called " Nineteen Ways of Looking at Wang Wei " by Eliot Weinberger

and Octavio Paz (Moyer Bell, 1987). A single Chinese poem by Wang

Wei (c. 700-761) is published in Chinese characters, in

transliteration, character-by-character translation, and then into

16 different English and foreign language translations. Below are

excerpts:

 

Transliteration

" Lu zhai "

Kong shan bu jian ren

Dan wen ren yu xiang

Fan jing (ying) ru shen lin

Fu zhao qing tai shang

 

Character-by-character

empty mountain(s) (negative) to see person

but to hear people words sound/echo

To return bright(ness)/shadows(s) to enter deep

forest

To return/again to reflect/shine green/blue/black

moss/lichen above/on (top of)

 

W.J.B. Fletcher, 1919

" The Form of the Deer "

So lone seem the hills; there is no one in sight there.

But whence is the echo of voices I hear?

The rays of the sunset pierce slanting the forest,

And in their reflection green mosses appear.

 

Kenneth Rexroth, 1970

" Deep in the Mountain Wilderness "

Deep in the mountain wilderness

Where nobody ever comes

Only once in a great while

Something like the sound of a far off voice.

The low rays of the sun

Slip through the dark forest,

And gleam again on the shadowy moss.

 

James J.Y. Liu, 1962

On the empty mountain no one can be seen,

But human voices are heard to resound.

The reflected sunlight pierces the deep forest

And falls again upon the mossy ground.

 

Burton Watson, 1971

" Deer Fence "

Empty hills, no one in sight,

only the sound of someone talking;

late sunlight enters the deep wood,

shining over the green moss again.

 

How is meaning best conveyed? Putting any personal choices aside,

I'm not sure if one is " best " ---but the series brings out the

sensibilities of its era and a slightly different perspective of the

original's nuances. The best way is to publish the characters along

with the translation. That's why I admire the efforts of Paradigm

Press and others who include---at least some---Chinese characters.

Because however you decide to answer the two questions about literal

and literary styles of translation, if you publish the characters

along with the translation, you are covered. And it begins to build

the very intellectual environment that will more broadly promote the

use of and the desire to translate that you are asking for. Without

exposure to translation and seeing the Chinese characters,

practitioners will find little interest in them.

 

In CM we must impose one final criteria: the translation must convey

some clinical information that is demonstrable and generally

verifiable.

 

 

 

Ken: The question that lingers with me is not

should we make patients wait, but how long

shall we make ourselves wait before we

move on in our evolution and learn the

language and study the literature of the

subject we study and practice?

 

Jim: You keep repeating this point, in one way or another, in each

post. What is your plan to action?

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Jim,

 

> Ken: I continue to believe that the real power

> to change lies in each individual's mind.

> The only demand that really matters is

> the demand we make on ourselves and on

> each other to develop to our fullest potential.

>

> Jim: Okay; that's a noble sensibility.

 

Hmmm...I don't feel noble. I just happen to

think that that's how change is most likely

to come about along this path. I see it

happening already and since knowledge

occurs one mind at a time, I don't see

any alternative.

 

But how does that translate

> into action; into getting more practitioners and students buying

> books, taking language classes, reading the classics, etc.?

 

When we started to work on putting our books

together and engage in those processes that

would hopefully result in people buying and

reading them I had absolutely no idea that

I'd be having conversations like this one

at this point in the plan. I have to laugh

a little when using that word, " plan. " Since

I've long since stopped planning much if anything,

having recognized that virtually none of my plans

ever come to pass. But interesting stuff happens

along the way. Life is what happen while

you're making other plans.

 

One of the more interesting things that's

happened is this series of confrontations

between two points of view related to the

transmission and reception of Chinese medicine.

As I've said, I'm slow and it's taken me

quite a while to start to understand what

it means when people say they, and by extension

others, don't need to know various things

that are related to Chinese medicine, such

as the language and the literature.

 

 

>

> Jim: In college (and still today), the central question regarding

> meaning can be reframed in two questions: " which should come first,

> the literary version or the literal; and is the translator free to

> express the sense of the original in any style and idiom he

> chooses? " ---George Steiner in After Babel: Aspects of Language and

> Translation (Oxford, 1975). The problem is compounded in poetry and

> literature because the form or structure of the text must be

> addressed along with the words because it is an essential part of

> the context, emotion, and meaning of the text. For example, if you

> don't address the rhythm and rhyme of a text, you simply paraphrase

> the words. I remember having a vinyl record album of Sebastian

Cabot

> doing a dramatic reading (he didn't sing) of Bob Dylan's songs.

> Wasn't good.

 

Sounds scary. Are you familiar with Nigel's

characterization of " source oriented " versus

" target oriented " translation and the appropriateness

of both in different situations?

 

 

>

> A better example is one of my favorite books about translation

 

[...]

 

Thanks for the poems. You know Louis Zukofsky's

A Test of Poetry?

 

The one comment I'd make is that by pegging

the various translated versions to the original

the editor has fulfilled what I see as the

primary aim of literature designed to actually

transmit information that comes from one language

and cultural context into another, i.e. ensuring

that the original is present and serves as

the standard of comparison.

 

What we see all too often in English language

literature about traditional Chinese medicine

is highly idiosyncratic presentations that do

scarcely bother to establish such points of

reference.

 

It seems to me that part of this discussion has

to include American attitudes about other cultures.

Americans tend to exhibit an attitude held over

from Victorian England that sees the status quo

as the highest point in human evolution.

 

" We don't really need to know what those

old Chinese said about Chinese medicine.

We're Americans. "

 

 

>

> How is meaning best conveyed? Putting any personal choices aside,

> I'm not sure if one is " best " ---but the series brings out the

> sensibilities of its era and a slightly different perspective of

the

> original's nuances. The best way is to publish the characters along

> with the translation. That's why I admire the efforts of Paradigm

> Press and others who include---at least some---Chinese characters.

 

No argument about bilingual presentation.

What there is in the way of a plan includes

development of more bilingual texts. It

turns out that such undertakings are non-trivial

and require a good deal of careful investigation

in order to bring about. Those out there who

are interested and willing to help have little

trouble finding something to do.

 

It's not proven to be very profitable work

but I think that is changing as well. Again,

what it will take is the development of a

reading public to support the work of more

writing and publication.

 

When you come right down to it, that's why

I bother repeating the message about literacy.

So that more people will want to read. And

it's why I continue to attack the idea that

illiteracy is not just tolerable but somehow

superior.

 

> Because however you decide to answer the two questions about

literal

> and literary styles of translation, if you publish the characters

> along with the translation, you are covered. And it begins to build

> the very intellectual environment that will more broadly promote

the

> use of and the desire to translate that you are asking for. Without

> exposure to translation and seeing the Chinese characters,

> practitioners will find little interest in them.

 

Agreed.

 

And people have simply been told for decades now

that all that doesn't matter. But it does.

>

> In CM we must impose one final criteria: the translation must

convey

> some clinical information that is demonstrable and generally

> verifiable.

 

This is not a new criterion. It has been applied

to Chinese medical literature for some time.

If there's one thing that characterizes the

traditional Chinese approach to medicine

it's pragmatism.

>

> Ken: The question that lingers with me is not

> should we make patients wait, but how long

> shall we make ourselves wait before we

> move on in our evolution and learn the

> language and study the literature of the

> subject we study and practice?

>

> Jim: You keep repeating this point, in one way or another, in each

> post. What is your plan to action?

 

My plan may look like a vicious circle.

I plan to continue to edit the journal

that I edit, continue to write the books

that I write, continue to give the lectures

and workshops that I give...

 

....and all in order to keep repeating the point.

 

Don't overlook the benefit of repeating

the point. Much of what we believe to

be reality is nothing more than some

point that has been repeated to us

to the point where we repeat it to

others.

 

For some thirty years people studying

Chinese medicine in the West have been

repeatedly told...to the point where they

now repeatedly tell others...that they do

not need to bother with the language and

literature. This is not based on sound

scholarship. It is solely and only based

on repeating the point.

 

The problem is that it is a mistake.

One does need to study the language and

the literature. My plan, such as it is,

is to just work away at improving the

understanding of this and increasing the

flow of communication of ideas between

those who are involved.

 

Ken