On terminology

[Guest guest]

<< , " " wrote:

> I.e. Reading into the terminology more than we should. When the

> Chinese sources are not standardized but we have this dictionary

of standardized terms, it can be real easy to make clear

> differentiations when things are not so… I am not saying this is

the case with everything in regard to blood invigorators, just some.

That is why I am curious to where you draw your information.

Comments? >>>

 

 

 

Jason:

 

Excellent point---and one always overlooked!

 

Always using Wiseman terms imposes a standard on the Chinese

material that did not really exist beforehand. Which is not a

problem if we think of it that way. It can be a practical conceit

for teaching beginners. But to say that we are always conveying the

original or real Chinese meaning each time we use it would be

incorrent.

 

I can appreciate that Flaws and others are trying to " find " some

precision in the Chinese literature; it's a strong argument for

using Wiseman. But instead they are imposing exactness or precision

where there is none---a typical Western sensibility.

 

That is why including the original Chinese in publication is so

important; everything is above board and opens the original to

inspection and interpretation by everyone. Translations should

primarily be judged on the merit of their conveying meaning.

 

 

Jim Ramholz>>

 

This is a really interesting discussion all round - I'm not a Chinese

scholar, and must stand to the side while the pros battle it out.

Giovanni Maciocia makes some points along the lines of Jason and

Jim's comments above, in his article that I've pasted below.

 

Giovanni Maciocia http://www.giovanni-

maciocia.com/articles/onterminology.html

 

 

Articles - On Terminology

 

The following is an abridged version of a letter sent to the editor

of " Clinical Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine " in response to an

article by N Wiseman published in the same journal.

 

I would like to make a few comments on Wiseman's article Translation

of Chinese medical terms: not just a matter of words (Clinical

Acupuncture and Oriental Medicine, Vol. 2, no. 1).

 

Firstly I would like to correct some of the comments he makes on my

book Foundations of . Wiseman asserts that in my

book " the same area is described in terms of thorax, abdomen, chest,

flank, hypochondrium, epigastrium, upper part of the abdomen, lower

abdomen, lower (part of) the abdomen, upper part of the abdomen just

below the xiphoid process and hypogastrium " . I presume that when

Wiseman says " is described in terms of " he means " is translated as " .

This is simply not true. It is obvious to any reader that " chest " is

a translation of xiong while epigastrium is a translation of wan.

Although these terms are not in the glossary, some terms have an

obvious translation e.g. an " elbow " in Chinese is the same as

an " elbow " in English. Wiseman himself says in the following page

that I translate xin xia as upper part of the abdomen just below the

xiphoid process, thus contradicting himself because this proves that

the terms he quotes above are not translations of the same term.

Wiseman dislikes my translation of xin xia as upper part of the

abdomen just below the xiphoid process: although long, my main

priority is that this term is clinically useful. Moreover, Wiseman

translates xin xia in his dictionary as region below the heart but

this is imprecise because the region " below the heart " could be

central or lateral towards the left of the chest: it is in fact, the

midline area below the xiphoid process.[1] The Concise Dictionary of

confirms this when it says that pain in the xin xia

region is pain in the pit of the stomach.[2]

 

Secondly I would like to make some general observations on the

translation of Chinese medical terms. In my opinion, the most

important issue facing practitioners is not how to transmit the

language of Chinese medicine (an impossible task given the

differences between Chinese and other languages) but how to transmit

the clinical skills of Chinese medicine. What matters is not whether

xian is translated as " wiry " or " bow-string " [pulse] but whether

students are able to master that pulse quality and successfully

identify it in the clinic. It could even be argued that the excessive

(if not obsessive) attention dedicated to terminology with its

ensuing " debate " distracts us from the main task, i.e. that of

mastering and communicating the clinical skills of Chinese medicine.

Of course, the language of Chinese medicine is important in as much

as it helps us to understand the concepts behind it: thus what

matters is not so much the translation of a term but understanding

the idea conveyed by a particular Chinese character. For this

reason, when I lecture and I am introducing a new concept or disease

of Chinese medicine, I would always draw the relevant character and

explain its meaning and nuances: in my opinion that is what matters,

not how we translate it. I simply fail to see how translating zheng

jia as " concretions and conglomerations " (rather than " abdominal

masses " ) helps students and practitioners to understand the

pathology, diagnosis and treatment of this disease (incidentally,

according to the Oxford English Dictionary both " concretion "

and " conglomeration " indicate a process, an action rather than a

substance and therefore cannot have a plural form). In his quest to

establish a " correct " terminology, Wiseman occasionally needs to

invent new words such as outthrust, an absurd situation given the

extremely rich English vocabulary.[3] Another example of the

narrowness of English translations of Chinese terms is Wiseman's

translation of cou li as " interstice " and his explanation that this

is an " anatomical entity of unclear identity " .[4] I suggest Wiseman

looks at the article " The location and function of the San Jiao " by

Qu Lifang.[5] Wiseman clearly reduces the meaning of " interstice " to

that of " grain " which is not correct given than li indicates

the " grain " (of various structures) while cou indicates

the " interstices " (in various parts of the body). This is an example

of how the rigid and reductive translation of a Chinese term actually

reduces our understanding of it.

 

Also, it could be argued that the main issue facing us in the West is

not how to translate the Chinese terms but how to find the

correspondence between Chinese terms and what Western patients

actually use. For example, most authors, even Wiseman, translate the

word zhang as " distension " (or " distention " ). However, English

patients will never use this word and will usually say " bloating " to

indicate zhang, while Italian patients would say gonfiore (which

strictly means " swelling " ) and German patients spannung. Thus, we

may " correctly " translate zhang as " distension " but students will

never hear that term in the clinic. Another example is that of men

which is usually translated as a " feeling of oppression " ; however,

very few English patients will use the word " oppression " to describe

this feeling and will usually say " tightness " or " a feeling of

weight " . Thus, what is the point of concentrating all our attention

in getting the terminology " right " if it is not clinically relevant?

There would be a case for producing a glossary re-translating the

translated English terms into the expressions that patients actually

use (in each Western country).

 

The very premise of Wiseman's article ( " if we assume that it would be

a good thing for all speakers to refer to each concept of Chinese

medicine by the same term " ) is itself debatable. Apart from the fact

that this aim may be impossible to achieve, is it even desirable?

Given that some Chinese medical terms are practically impossible to

translate because they have so many nuances, do the differences in

translation not actually enrich our understanding of Chinese

Medicine? If someone translates xian [pulse quality] as " wiry " and

another as " bow-string " does the reference to a bow string not help

us to visualize the wiry pulse? I translate Yang Qiao Mai as " Yang

Heel Vessel " but " Yang Motility Vessel " is by no means wrong and it

usefully conveys a particular aspect of this vessel. Why subject all

authors to a rigid, autocratic uniformity? In over 28 years of

practice and teaching I have met thousands of students,

practitioners, teachers and heads of colleges and nobody has ever

indicated to me that terminology is the main issue facing the

successful development of Chinese medicine in the West: the most

pressing issue facing practitioners is how to develop the diagnostic

skills of Chinese medicine. Since more and more people are learning

Chinese, as long as authors use a glossary of terms, there is not a

problem.

 

Furthermore, Wiseman's position is rather Anglo-centric by

concentrating so much on the " correct " translation of Chinese terms

into English. Chinese medicine is truly universal now and is used in

practically all countries of the world. Even if we adopt the

only " right " and " correct " English terminology, how does that promote

the development of Chinese medicine in the world? Again, as more and

more people are now studying at least the rudiments of Chinese, the

only universal terminology is the Chinese one. I have taught in many

countries with many different languages all over the world and

whenever there is a doubt about a particular term I always use the

Chinese term and this invariably clears up any misunderstanding.

 

Moreover, Wiseman attributes a precision to Chinese medical

terminology that the Chinese texts themselves often do not have. One

only needs to look at the imprecise way the terms Heat and Fire are

often used interchangeably in Chinese books, old and modern. Wiseman

himself seems to have this difficulty in the article when he comments

on the term xie which he translate as " to drain " . However Wiseman

seems at pains to distinguish xie (as in " to drain " from xie (as

in " to discharge " ) _ as in his dictionary he asserts that xie

(discharge) has the same meaning as xie (drain) which is clearly not

the case[6]. A confusion of these two treatment methods in herbal

medicine would lead to dire consequences. The often imprecise use of

terms (or different uses of the same term by different authors) is

due to the fact that Chinese medicine was developed exclusively by

practising doctors not linguists, anthropologists or ethnologists. In

other instances Wiseman seems to deviate from his own rule of

translating every term literally (e.g. " Foxy mounting pattern " ) quite

a few times. For example, his dictionary translates Xu Li (the

throbbing of the left ventricle of the heart and the Great Connecting

channel of the Stomach) as " apical pulse " and then as Vacuous Li,

leaving the word Li untranslated.

 

 

----

----------

 

[1]. Wiseman N 1998 A Practical Dictionary of ,

Paradigm Publications, Brookline, p. 497.

 

[2]. Guangzhou College of 1980 Concise Dictionary of

(Jian Ming Zhong Yi Ci Dian, People's Health

Publishing House, Beijing, p. 193.

 

[3]. A Practical Dictionary of , P. 422.

 

[4]. Ibid., 317.

[Guest guest]

Hi Wainwright,

 

Thanks for posting this article . While mindful of the fact that it

is a response to Wiseman's article and Ken is attempting to

seek the latter's response, I think that the issues raised by this

articletouches the core of the problem of 'translation' i.e.

linguistic, cultural and political.

 

I think that when we translate materials embedded in the

language and culture of one civilization into that of another

symmetry is very important.. And to achieve symmetry in

translation we must have a profound understanding of the

language and culture of both civilizations. This must be the case

in the work of translating traditional Chinese medicine

concepts,litrature , practices , techniques , knowledge into that of

our civilization i.e. Western civilization. There is over half a

millenium of history that should guide us here.

 

Regards,

 

Rey Tiquia