Reply to Maciocia

[Guest guest]

All,

 

The text following contains excerpts copied from the letter by Giovanni

Maciocia interspersed with replies from Nigel Wiseman.

 

Bob

**********************

 

>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.

 

Wiseman: This article has been put on the forum, by whom and for what

purpose I do not know. Since it touches on important concepts such as

``elbow’’ and ``obsessiveness’’, I have offered a few comments.

 

>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,

[ . . . ] [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]

 

Wiseman: The point I have made is that Maciocia uses English terms

indiscriminately, using multiple English translations for single Chinese

terms (hypochondrium, flank for xie, for example). I showed examples of

this, and I am sorry but it’s true.

 

Unfortunately, the abdomen is not like the head or elbow, with perfectly

corresponding names in different languages. How we divide the abdominal

region varies from culture to culture. ``[Region] below the heart’’ is what

the Chinese xin xia says. When people read my texts, they can be sure what

the Chinese text I am translating says. All the reader has to do is learn what

this term means (which takes two minutes of their attention). In this way we

can avoid the horrible paraphrase of ``upper part of the abdomen just

below the xiphoid process.’’ Pit of the stomach appears in Chinese as wei

wo, a term which is probably due to English influence. Personally I prefer

below the heart. This term enables people who wish to be familiar with the

Chinese language or idea to make the association between it and the Chinese

xin xia.

 

>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

[ . . .] 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.

 

Wiseman: I am interested in communicating the theoretical knowledge and

clinical experience of generations and generations of Chinese physicians.

When we have close renderings of Chinese terms, we can present Chinese

medicine as Chinese people understand it now and have understood it in the

past. Using words familiar to Westerners may help people people to

roughly understanding quickly; it prevents them from gaining a detailed

understanding when it confuses the Chinese concepts.

 

In my opnion the most important issue facing the Western community of

Chinese medicine is communicating the clinical skills and the knowledge on

which such skills rest that are contained in the body of Chinese literature

that reflects centuries of Chinese experience.

 

People who consider themselves authoritative clinicians and who have their

own vocabularies that are not clearly related to the terms used by

successive generations of Chinese know term translation is an influence that

directs attention away from Western clinical authorities toward Chinese

clinical authorities.

 

 

[ . . . ] 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).

 

Wiseman: Abdominal mass is single term that cannot represent the two

distinct entitites that the double Chinese term represents in Chinese

medicine. Maciocia below makes a big thing of ``nuances’’ as a reason for

giving up exact translation. Here there are more than nuances (please see

Practical Dictionary).

 

Webster’s say conglomeration is the act of conglomerating and ``a cohering

mass; cluster.’’. It is the latter sense in which I use this word to represent

what the Chinese jia. See also Websters definition of concretion.

 

Which Oxford Dictionary was Maciocia looking at?

 

[ . . .] " 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.

 

Wiseman: I translate cou li as interstice. What is the problem here? Li

means grain in wood or stone. This often pops up in Chinese langauge

explanations of the Chinese terms. The term is problematic because of the

Chinese inattention to anatomy.

 

>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).

 

Wiseman: If doctors, East or West or anywhere, had ever cared that their

vocabulary should be understood by patients, medical knowledge would

never have advanced a inch (or cun). I am sure many patients don’t know

really know what epigastrium means, even though they have heard it.

 

Even if Maciocia is talking about symptom terms, we have problems. The

symptom terms in Chinese medicine have developed over 2,000 years.

Many of the terms used in modern literature are not modern terms, so when

Chinese doctors in China write case reports, they translate their patients

descriptions into a different language — as do Western doctors. Doctors in

any sophisticated form of medicine have symptom categories into which

they fit their patients’ subjective descriptions.

 

Chinese medicine is oriented toward the Hàn dynasty. Most of the key

symptom terms developed then, and have been used ever since. If we

rewrite the terminology of symptomatology around the words Western

patients use to describe their symptoms, we are rewriting Chinese medicine.

The literature thus developed has no contact with its roots in Chinese

history. This is completely pointless.

 

If you want a terminology that makes sense to your patients, you have to

think carefully. You might wish to consider translating the pi and shen as

something other than spleen and kidney, because among educated

Westerners these are not terms used to denote organs of digestion and

reproduction! The fact is when we understand Chinese medicine, we have

to take into account that we are dealing with a body of knowledge 2,000

years old that differs from Western medicine. The problem that Maciocia

raises is to what extent we should fashion our terminology of a medicine

rooted in a period 2,000 years ago of a country thousands of miles from any

English-speaking area.

 

That having been said, bloating might be a good word for zhang. Bloating

has two main usages in English, one is fullness in the stomach from

overeating. The other is the swelling of the body, as after drowing. Yet,

there are many conditions described as zhang4 in Chinese that could not be

described as bloating in English. For me, this is a difficult problem, because

I always wish to have a single character translated with a minimum number

of equivalents so that the whole conceptual picture of Chinese medicine can

be replicated as clearly as possible in English. I am not really sure if

bloating hits the spot any more than distention.

 

>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 ? 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.

 

Wiseman: Sorry, the main meaning of qiao1 according to my Ancient

Chinese Dictionary (Gu Dai Hàn Yu Ci Dian, Shang Wu Yin Shu Guan) is to

``lift the foot.’’ Our suggested translation for qiao mai has for some time

been Springing Vessel.

 

The argument for multiple translations that enrich our understanding of the

nuances is an old one. To understand the nuances, the best thing is a

dictionary that explains them. Practical Dictionary explains many Chinese

terms by translating authoritative Chinese explantions in the terminology

presented in it.

 

In most cases, different renderings of the same Chinese terms lead only to

confusion. How are people to relate different English terms when every

author does not relate relate their terms to the Chinese? Maciocia claims he

does this in his classes, but he does not do it in his books. In a single book

or series, the terms should ideally all be same. I have previously showed

how Maciocia uses different English terms for the same Chinese term, so

different translations don’t just represent different points of view between

translators; they also represent differences of translation in one translator

or editor's work. In the case of Maciocia’s texts, it it appears to be a

failure

to assert editorial rigor in text portions created by various team members.

 

Is it really a question of different translations helping us to understand

nuances, or is it a question of the difficulty of controlling terminology when

you have a team of translators ? If the editor does not care if it is `flank’

or

``hypochondrium,’’ the editor is careless.

 

 

>…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.

 

Wiseman: None of these people have indicated any terminology problems,

because most of them cannot read Chinese. How can one possibly judge

one’s effectiveness in the transmission of the concepts of a medicine that

developed 2,000 years ago in country thousands of miles away if one takes

non-Chinese-speaking people as the criterion for success? Maciocia judges

his success by people who largely have no knowledge of Chinese and hence

no access to primary sources. He chooses judges for his work who are

incapable of judging. He chooses criteria for his success in transmission

(clinical skills) that he and his followers naturally suppose him to possess,

but which cannot be transmitted or assessed without standing beside him.

 

Maciocia’s implication is that since he is a successful clinician in the West;

his description of Chinese medicine is a true reflection of the Chinese

tradition. This is a complete non-sequitor to me. Providing what

Westerners who have no linguistic access to the Chinese tradition want does

not mean provision of a clear picture of Chinese medicine.

 

The fact that people in positions of authority in the West are allowed to be

in such positions is a really sensitive issue. As I have said time and time

again, no person can call himself a real expert of Chinese who does not have

access to the full body of Chinese medical literature. People in the Western

community of Chinese medicine have never fully realized this fact. They

would like very much to be able to call themselves PhDs, but they are all

trying to wangle it so that they don’t have to know Chinese to get the title.

Maciocia judges English word choices on whether his patients or non-

Chinese-speaking peers like them or not. I judge English choices on how

well they represent the Chinese concepts. I don’t think that student,

practitioners and heads of colleges who have no knowledge of Chinese can

possibly help with the task of transmitting Chinese medical concepts.

Those people can only judge what makes sense in their limited view.

Maciocia’s descriptions of Chinese medicine may make perfect sense to

them, but they do not make perfect sense to a Chinese. Many new

translators, most of them clinicians, are adopting a rigorous terminology,

not because they like every word in it, but because, from their knowledge of

the Chinese language and their reading of primary Chinese medical texts,

they know it makes sense.

 

How Western ``authorities’’ gain their authority is a major issue at the

present time, following the suggestion by Ken Rose that the qualifications

received by Dan Bensky and Ted Kapchuk from a school in Macao not

recognized by the then Portuguese authorities may not be quite so

authoritative as they have been taken to be. The Western community of

Chinese medicine is completely foolish if it does not entertain a wide debate

on the mechanisms by which people rise to and maintain positions of

authority. The uproar that Ken Rose triggered rests on the notion that the

``authorities’’ of the establishment of the Western community of Chinese

medicine hold some godlike position that cannot be contested by the

faithful. To me this smacks of the idolatry and oppression of the dark ages

of Europe, with which I have absolutely no affinity.

 

>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.

 

Wiseman: There has been too much sloppy translation in the past. The

West has appropriated Chinese medicine under minimum demands for

rigor. Chinese medicine has been internationalized, but unless the leaders

of the Western community of Chinese medicine recognize that Chinese

medicine comes from China and that ability to read Chinese texts is a

necessity to be called an expert in Chinese medicine, Westerners will always

be considered as unable to understand Chinese medicine in depth.

 

My translation principles are totally, absolutely and completely Sino-

centric. They are source-oriented, which means that willy-nilly they are

designed to help people understand the original concepts of Chinese

medicine. Hence all the fuss about strange terms. Yours are the terms that

are Anglo-centric because you admit you prefer terms that your patients

use. I label my translation as source-oriented; I have explained this concept

and shown how it globally applies to the translation of Chinese medical

terms.

 

>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.

 

Wiseman: I have explained the difference between heat and fire more

clearly than anyone else. Please consult Practical Dictionary. There are

numerous distinctions and complications, but nothing is achieved by

ignoring the differences in translation. If Maciocia uses both the words

``heat’’ and ``fire’’, then he admits that there is a distinction, even if a

blurred one.

 

As far as xie and xie is concerned, sometimes they are the same in meaning,

sometimes they are different, just like ``drain’’ and `discharge’’ in English.

I just keep them separate in translation.

 

I have changed foxy to foxlike following comments on the sexual

associations of foxy. The Chinese just says fox, I wish to convey that in

English. Foxlike is as good as foxy.

 

Using the transciption li in xu li does not involve any inconsistency in my

approach. I have stated my translation principles time and time again.

Ordinary words like bi and tou are translated by the ordinary equivalents

nose and head. Technical terms are translated literally as far as possible.

Western medical equivalents involving concepts specific to Western

medicine should be avoided as translations of Chinese medicine at all costs.

Pinyin can be used where an adequate translation is virtually impossible.

Li has so many meanings that it is difficult to see which meaning applies in

this context.

 

The most important thing is Maciocia’s suggestion that Chinese medical

doctors are not precise in their usage of terms. This is absolutely correct.

If we wish to convey Chinese medical literature faithfully in English, we

need a terminology that is just as precise and just as imprecise as the

Chinese. If Chinese medicine were like Western medicine, with a very

precise terminology, the need for terminological precision would have been

recognized long ago. The fact that Chinese medical terminology is not so

precise is not a reason for ``loose rendering’’ in English; in some instances,

such as in the translation of classical literature, where every word, however

vague, is considered to some degree ``sacred,’’ we need to have a precise

way of rendering in English to keep all the interpretions that open in

Chinese open in English too. Maciocia’s approach to translation would

replace a translation of an ancient text with his interpretation of it. Our

method of translation keeps interpretation quite separate from

interpretation.

 

To conclude, we are going round in circles here. Maciocia is not fully with

my translation principles. If anyone wishes to argue about translation

principles, they ought to have a complete integrated theory that states how

what kinds of terms should be translated in what ways. Maciocia has not

presented us with any kind of theory. His comments on how to translate

only come out sporadically in answer to criticism laid against him. No other

translator can usefully apply his terminology systematically, because he has

never produced a bilingual list of terms. He may wish not to do this because

his stated notion that Chinese terms are imprecise. If Chinese terms were so

imprecise, then, as I have said before, the Chinese would never produce

dictionaries of 30,000 terms or more. The fact is that they do.

 

To convey the body of knowledge contained in Chinese literature to

Westerners, we somehow have to devise equivalents for terms. This work is

really time-consuming. Sometimes we devise terms that are not perfect, and

it takes time for people to come up with more accurate terms. This work

goes ahead slowly behind the scenes. Uniformed waffle about the

imprecision of Chinese terms will help us little. If we don’t have a

terminology to represent Chinese medical concepts in their precision and

their imprecision, we can only produce a personal interpretation of Chinese

medicine. The personal interpretations of Westerners guided by the idea of

finding terms that are immediately intelligible and pleasing to Westerners is

target oriented translation--distorting the subject matter to please the

reader. I and my collegues are concered with source-oriented translation--

making the reader work harder to understand the detail of the source

literature. Source-oriented translation takes much more effort but it is the

only method of translation by which we can possibly render texts such as

the Shang Hàn Lun and Jin Gui Yao lue in English. It is the only method of

translation that can possibly recreate for the English reader the Chinese

medicine of 2,000 years. Maciocica’s target-oriented translation approach,

which dispenses with all the hardships of bilingual terms lists, is suitable

only for the creation of literature that ultimately represents only one

individual’s understanding of the subject—a drop in the ocean.

 

My advice to Maciocia is when you wish to criticize arguments, be familiar

with the arguments that your criticizing. When you wish to criticize terms,

be familiar with the latest terms of the person you are criticizing. If you

wish to make a contribution to translation, offer a global strategy so others

can understand and examine your theory. If you want anyone to use your

terms, provide a bilingual terms list. If you don’t think a bilingual terms

list

is necessary, explain why Chinese medical dictionaries have over 30,000

clearly defined terms. Explain why you think the terms the Chinese

preserve are not worth dealing with. And please, please explain to readers

how your version of Chinese is superior to one that translates the concepts

of successive generations of Chinese clinical practitioners, if not perfectly,

at least sysystematically and with definitions. These are all major issues

that you have declined to face squarely in the past.

 

Nigel Wiseman

***********************

bob Paradigm Publications

www.paradigm-pubs.com P.O. Box 1037

Robert L. Felt 202 Bendix Drive

505 758 7758 Taos, New Mexico 87571

 

 

 

---

[This E-mail scanned for viruses by Declude Virus]

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

Thanks for this post. I look forward to a long, leisurely read tomorrow at some

point. However, perusing its contents and reflecting on

this brou-ha-ha over the last decade or so, it is my considered opinion that

opposition to Nigel et al.'s work is primarily driven by ego,

money, laziness, and ignorance, and I don't think Nigel or any of the rest of us

are ever going to combat that with reasoned

arguments. The nay-sayers are simply wrong, and either history will eventually

vindicate Nigel or the nay-sayers will eventually destroy

this profession by preventing it from growing up.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

, " Robert L. Felt " <bob@p...>

wrote:

 

from Nigel Wiseman:

 

" Uninformed waffle about the

> imprecision of Chinese terms will help us little. If we don't have a

> terminology to represent Chinese medical concepts in their precision and

> their imprecision, we can only produce a personal interpretation of Chinese

> medicine. "

 

I want to state my support for Wiseman's position here. While I do not know

who is right about the precision of chinese medical terms (zhi vs. yu vs. yu,

for

example), I do know I do NOT want the position of any one author tyranically

imposed upon me and the field. I don't care what terms are used; one needs a

dictionary to understand the nuances anyway. You can translate qi as " farts "

for all I care. I want to be free to develop my own interpretation of nuanced

and multivalent terms, not be stuck with the possibly wrong connotation of

any one author. Gio can argue all he wants that his method is just fine and

students and teachers love it. But if there is a significant minority who feel

different and that minority actually reads chinese, he is automatically wrong

in making his case. If he had used a complete open translation scheme, then

everyone would agree what his terms meant instead of arguing about them.

 

While you might not understand a wiseman term at first glance, the danger is

that you will think you understand a Gio term at first glance (the collapsing of

stagnation and depression into one concept, when they are often, but not

always, meant to reflect nuances or even stark differences - who gets to decide

when?). But if one owns the PD, then there really never is any discrepancy

about what the translator meant (what the original author meant can be

debated for ever). It may be more cumbersome and for many terms,

ultimately an unnecessary pursuit, but what audience is to decide when this

matters and when it is superfluous? those who do not read chinese or those

that do. If you call your work a translation or compilation of chinese texts, I

expect this type of translation which is standard in EVERY technical field in

the

world except our own. If you call your work interpretive, do as you please,

but make it clear to those same uninformed students and teachers and

regulators that your work is idiosyncratic and is NOT regarded to be an

accurate reflection of chinese source mateiral by the bulk of the world's

authorities on this subject. I think that is fair.

 

Oh, I can't help that point out that many of the same people on this list who

have long argued for translation standards in the past have been currently

arguing against using other sorts of standards to guide practice and education

(such as research or official PRc documents). I find this dichotomy interesting

as many of wiseman's dictionary definitions would appear to be based upon

these same modern PRC standards. Perhaps some of the chinese readers on

this list who are familiar with such standards such as Bob Flaws and Marnae

could comment.

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

But if one owns the PD, then there really never is any discrepancy

about what the translator meant (what the original author meant can

be debated for ever). >>>

 

 

I think you've come to the heart of all our arguments when you begin

to distinguish between what the translator meant and what the

original meant!

 

The translation should be as transparent as possible to the

*meaning* of the original. If the personality of the translator

makes the original opaque, then there are major problems. Take, for

example, if the original text used the character " pang " but the

original didn't literally mean " bladder " , but meant something like

lower abdomen or pelvic floor as inferred by the context, then the

translator would create an obfuscation to literally translate it

bladder. The translation should always be in service to the original

and not to a translator's preconceived notion of " precision. "

 

But . . . if you want to create a standard for the 21th century---

where there was none earlier in English or Chinese---using Wiseman

for the very arguments you raise about teaching and trying to have a

more direct connection between language and diagnosis, then you

would probably find less resistance and greater utilization.

 

While I understand that many say if you present your own glossary

that is also acceptable, it doesn't seem like someone other than

Wiseman's gloss is really welcome from the postings here.

 

Just my observations.

 

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Why do you assume that many people on this list oppose standards of

practice in education used in mainland China? Has anyone said, " I am

against the PRC standards " ? Is it a clear-cut, black or white,

acceptance or rejection? Has a poll been taken?

 

Perhaps the question should be, why don't we examine the PRC standards,

discuss them, and decide as a profession if they are appropriate?

 

 

On Nov 21, 2003, at 1:23 PM, wrote:

 

> Oh, I can't help that point out that many of the same people on this

> list who

> have long argued for translation standards in the past have been

> currently

> arguing against using other sorts of standards to guide practice and

> education

> (such as research or official PRc documents). I find this dichotomy

> interesting

> as many of wiseman's dictionary definitions would appear to be based

> upon

> these same modern PRC standards. Perhaps some of the chinese readers

> on

> this list who are familiar with such standards such as Bob Flaws and

> Marnae

> could comment.

[Guest guest]

If he had used a complete open translation scheme, then

everyone would agree what his terms meant instead of arguing about them.

>>>I thought he did not translate his materials, or did he

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

I haven't seen any other glosses, and would be very interested in them.

I understand Larre and Rochat de la Valle have a dictionary, but it

Chinese-French. I'd still like to have a copy.

 

 

On Nov 21, 2003, at 2:30 PM, James Ramholz wrote:

 

> While I understand that many say if you present your own glossary

> that is also acceptable, it doesn't seem like someone other than

> Wiseman's gloss is really welcome from the postings here.

>

> Just my observations.