Language and cultures

[Guest guest]

There was recently a question raised as to the general ability of

Chinese to convey technical information. I was very interested in the

question because I was a bit uncertain myself as to how well Chinese

expressed technical concepts in a variety of disciplines. Though I am

aware that the Chinese have large technical dictionaries that give

definitions on TCM terms as well as technical dictionaries in all the

major sciences, I have viewed a certain amount of ambiguity in Chinese

expression and I was curious whether there things were expressed more

vaguely than they are in English in technical fields.

 

Naturally, we all know that East Asian cultures must have

sophisticated technical expression because they have advanced

knowledge in medicine, technology, etc in their host languages. In

Taiwan, for example, cell culture of orchids is taken to a very

sophisticated level, as is computer technology. One can safely assume

that their language has a strong ability to convey technical concepts

simply by the quality of their achievements.

 

With regard to literature on Chinese medicine, I have been struck by

the consistency of concepts, the consistency of terms, and the

elaboration of terms in technical dictionaries, which explain the

nuances of the terms in the context of CM. However, I have noticed

that the structure of the language leaves ambiguity in certain ways.

I feel that the terms themselves are quite clear, but it can be hard

to know sometimes whether a sentence is saying A, B, and C vs. A, B,

or C, vs. A, leading to B and C, or A and B leading to C. This crops

up a great deal in materia medicas, for example. It is necessary to

be able to tell from context which of the possibilities is being

expressed, although there are a few times when it is nearly impossible

to say with 100% certainty. Because there is already a certain degree

of interpretation that is sometimes necessary to convey the right

sentence structure, I feel it is advantageous to have the terms

themselves be clearly expressed so that there is not ambiguity on the

meaning of the terms (i.e. tonify) in addition to the sentence

structure.

 

As a result of this ambiguity, I had long wondered whether WM and

other fields in Chinese contained any less precision than English or

other European languages when it came to technical expression.

Knowing that Westerners are frequently viewed in the Orient as a group

of people with a strong degree of cultural arrogance, I wanted to be

cautious as to how to find out whether Chinese technical fields lose

anything in translation. I didn't know whether the widespread use of

English textbooks was meant to give the students access to a wider

world of literature or whether those texts had accuracy that was

unavailable in the source language (specifically Chinese). I wanted

to be cautious not to suggest that their language was unsophisticated

(for clearly it is very sophisticated when it comes to expression of

metaphors and concepts), yet I wanted to find out if it was equally

precise for things like WM.

 

As it turns out, all the technical phrases in a discipline such as WM

are pegged to specific technical terms in Chinese and the specificity

of these concepts in the source language allows them to be translated

into Chinese with equal specificity. Authors don't feel the need to

coin their own phrases for how to explain hemoglobin, for example,

they simply all use the technical term that is their agreed-upon

standard. Thus, they are able to assimilate the entire range of

technical expression and evolve their language to have specificity

where it needs it (i.e., in science) while maintaining flexibility

where it is useful (i.e., in poetry or metaphor).

 

I think that as a subset of the larger population (for many of us on

this list, that population is the larger culture of the US), we are a

very open-minded group. I suspect the vast majority of people on this

list abhor racism or notions of cultural superiority in any form. In

fact, almost by definition, we are a group of people that has a great

respect for Asian knowledge and culture. Yet, we notice the extreme

difference in expression between our respective languages and

speculate whether a language like Chinese has the capacity for the

technical precision that our languages have. I believe that it does,

largely because they have valued having consistent and accurate

transmission of Western concepts and have adjusted their own language

to equal ours in technical accuracy (largely through definitions,

explanations, and coining of new technical phrases by combining

different old words together in unique combos).

 

Despite grammatical differences and the study that Alon is referring

to, I think it is obvious that Japanese must have a very sophisticated

ability to express precise scientific concepts because they are so

advanced with their sciences. Chinese in turn, borrowed a great deal

of WM vocab from the Japanese when creating their technical language

for WM. Realizing the fact that these cultures have at least equaled

the West in science, I think that our inquiry into whether these

languages have the capacity to express precision causes us to walk a

very fine line between open-minded inquiry and what can easily be

perceived as cultural arrogance by the people whose languages we are

questioning. Certainly they must have a very accurate means of

conveying normal information as well, such as the current events as

reported by a newspaper.

 

I understand that the question into transmission of technical

information was not meant to be demeaning to East Asian cultures in

any way, but rather as a truly neutral inquiry into the nature of

language. We must be particularly mindful as to how we express our

inquiry, because America is perceived to have a major superiority

complex in the political realm, and I think we must be doubly mindful

not to come off as though we have a superiority complex in our studies

of other cultures and their languages.

Chinese medicine in the West has suffered from the perceived cultural

superiority of some Chinese people towards us Westerners. Many

Chinese people, even to this day, believe that Westerners are not

capable of grasping the metaphors and subtleties through which Chinese

medicine is expressed. I personally believe that, just as the Chinese

are perfectly capable of producing accurate science, we are capable of

practicing accurate Chinese medicine. I feel that we are completely

capable of understanding the metaphors used, be they political or

naturalistic, confucian or warlike, we can understand authentic CM

with minimal need for interpretation and modification of its contents.

It doesn't need to be Westernized, to be turned into WM lingo nor

new-age fluff, it simply needs to be presented as it is.

 

I am an advocate of Wiseman terminology simply because I feel it has

the greatest potential (short of learning Chinese itself) to convey

the intricacies and nuances of Chinese expression, intact with all its

traditional metaphors and intact with all its traditional theory.

Where the theory is vague, I don't think we need to impose a more

clear interpretation based on our Western ideas; where the theory is

complex, I don't think we need to simplify it. We just need to see it

as it is with no one standing in the middle. For this reason, I favor

translation of primary sources for core texts. I think there is

plenty of room to offer interpretations that illustrate things in

different words to expand understanding and clarity, but I think the

way CM is the most clear is ultimately when we see it just as it is.

Not as we want it to be, not in a way that makes it easier to read,

just as it is. Once we learn authentic CM as it is understood by the

Chinese, we are free to go off and make new discoveries, take it in

new directions, etc, but I think we should start with as authentic a

foundation as possible.

 

It is obvious that the success that Asian nations have had with

Western sciences has been due to the fact that they agree on

terminology and thus have a way to express things clearly in each

field. They would never be at their current position of rivaling or

surpassing Western nations with science if they spent all their time

fighting turf wars between camps that think their terms are the best.

I think we should be grateful that we have an open source standard

available that forms a solid foundation from which we can deviate,

personalize, or use without disagreement as we choose. We respect our

Asian colleagues and their achievements to evolve their languages to

accommodate special terminology and elaborate technical dictionaries

for every field, so why is there so much resistance within our

community to have a standard? Most cultures have viewed

standardization of WM terms in their native languages as a great

benefit, so why do we in the West perceive standardized language for

CM as such a great threat?

 

Anyway, I think that is more than my 2 cents. I am probably up to 10

cents by now on this topic, so I better shut up.

 

Eric Brand

[Guest guest]

Eric -

 

Thank you. Well said.

 

Marnae

 

At 03:18 AM 11/1/2004, you wrote:

 

 

>There was recently a question raised as to the general ability of

>Chinese to convey technical information. I was very interested in the

>question because I was a bit uncertain myself as to how well Chinese

>expressed technical concepts in a variety of disciplines. Though I am

>aware that the Chinese have large technical dictionaries that give

>definitions on TCM terms as well as technical dictionaries in all the

>major sciences, I have viewed a certain amount of ambiguity in Chinese

>expression and I was curious whether there things were expressed more

>vaguely than they are in English in technical fields.

>

>Naturally, we all know that East Asian cultures must have

>sophisticated technical expression because they have advanced

>knowledge in medicine, technology, etc in their host languages. In

>Taiwan, for example, cell culture of orchids is taken to a very

>sophisticated level, as is computer technology. One can safely assume

>that their language has a strong ability to convey technical concepts

>simply by the quality of their achievements.

>

>With regard to literature on Chinese medicine, I have been struck by

>the consistency of concepts, the consistency of terms, and the

>elaboration of terms in technical dictionaries, which explain the

>nuances of the terms in the context of CM. However, I have noticed

>that the structure of the language leaves ambiguity in certain ways.

>I feel that the terms themselves are quite clear, but it can be hard

>to know sometimes whether a sentence is saying A, B, and C vs. A, B,

>or C, vs. A, leading to B and C, or A and B leading to C. This crops

>up a great deal in materia medicas, for example. It is necessary to

>be able to tell from context which of the possibilities is being

>expressed, although there are a few times when it is nearly impossible

>to say with 100% certainty. Because there is already a certain degree

>of interpretation that is sometimes necessary to convey the right

>sentence structure, I feel it is advantageous to have the terms

>themselves be clearly expressed so that there is not ambiguity on the

>meaning of the terms (i.e. tonify) in addition to the sentence

>structure.

>

>As a result of this ambiguity, I had long wondered whether WM and

>other fields in Chinese contained any less precision than English or

>other European languages when it came to technical expression.

>Knowing that Westerners are frequently viewed in the Orient as a group

>of people with a strong degree of cultural arrogance, I wanted to be

>cautious as to how to find out whether Chinese technical fields lose

>anything in translation. I didn't know whether the widespread use of

>English textbooks was meant to give the students access to a wider

>world of literature or whether those texts had accuracy that was

>unavailable in the source language (specifically Chinese). I wanted

>to be cautious not to suggest that their language was unsophisticated

>(for clearly it is very sophisticated when it comes to expression of

>metaphors and concepts), yet I wanted to find out if it was equally

>precise for things like WM.

>

>As it turns out, all the technical phrases in a discipline such as WM

>are pegged to specific technical terms in Chinese and the specificity

>of these concepts in the source language allows them to be translated

>into Chinese with equal specificity. Authors don't feel the need to

>coin their own phrases for how to explain hemoglobin, for example,

>they simply all use the technical term that is their agreed-upon

>standard. Thus, they are able to assimilate the entire range of

>technical expression and evolve their language to have specificity

>where it needs it (i.e., in science) while maintaining flexibility

>where it is useful (i.e., in poetry or metaphor).

>

>I think that as a subset of the larger population (for many of us on

>this list, that population is the larger culture of the US), we are a

>very open-minded group. I suspect the vast majority of people on this

>list abhor racism or notions of cultural superiority in any form. In

>fact, almost by definition, we are a group of people that has a great

>respect for Asian knowledge and culture. Yet, we notice the extreme

>difference in expression between our respective languages and

>speculate whether a language like Chinese has the capacity for the

>technical precision that our languages have. I believe that it does,

>largely because they have valued having consistent and accurate

>transmission of Western concepts and have adjusted their own language

>to equal ours in technical accuracy (largely through definitions,

>explanations, and coining of new technical phrases by combining

>different old words together in unique combos).

>

>Despite grammatical differences and the study that Alon is referring

>to, I think it is obvious that Japanese must have a very sophisticated

>ability to express precise scientific concepts because they are so

>advanced with their sciences. Chinese in turn, borrowed a great deal

>of WM vocab from the Japanese when creating their technical language

>for WM. Realizing the fact that these cultures have at least equaled

>the West in science, I think that our inquiry into whether these

>languages have the capacity to express precision causes us to walk a

>very fine line between open-minded inquiry and what can easily be

>perceived as cultural arrogance by the people whose languages we are

>questioning. Certainly they must have a very accurate means of

>conveying normal information as well, such as the current events as

>reported by a newspaper.

>

>I understand that the question into transmission of technical

>information was not meant to be demeaning to East Asian cultures in

>any way, but rather as a truly neutral inquiry into the nature of

>language. We must be particularly mindful as to how we express our

>inquiry, because America is perceived to have a major superiority

>complex in the political realm, and I think we must be doubly mindful

>not to come off as though we have a superiority complex in our studies

>of other cultures and their languages.

>Chinese medicine in the West has suffered from the perceived cultural

>superiority of some Chinese people towards us Westerners. Many

>Chinese people, even to this day, believe that Westerners are not

>capable of grasping the metaphors and subtleties through which Chinese

>medicine is expressed. I personally believe that, just as the Chinese

>are perfectly capable of producing accurate science, we are capable of

>practicing accurate Chinese medicine. I feel that we are completely

>capable of understanding the metaphors used, be they political or

>naturalistic, confucian or warlike, we can understand authentic CM

>with minimal need for interpretation and modification of its contents.

> It doesn't need to be Westernized, to be turned into WM lingo nor

>new-age fluff, it simply needs to be presented as it is.

>

>I am an advocate of Wiseman terminology simply because I feel it has

>the greatest potential (short of learning Chinese itself) to convey

>the intricacies and nuances of Chinese expression, intact with all its

>traditional metaphors and intact with all its traditional theory.

>Where the theory is vague, I don't think we need to impose a more

>clear interpretation based on our Western ideas; where the theory is

>complex, I don't think we need to simplify it. We just need to see it

>as it is with no one standing in the middle. For this reason, I favor

>translation of primary sources for core texts. I think there is

>plenty of room to offer interpretations that illustrate things in

>different words to expand understanding and clarity, but I think the

>way CM is the most clear is ultimately when we see it just as it is.

>Not as we want it to be, not in a way that makes it easier to read,

>just as it is. Once we learn authentic CM as it is understood by the

>Chinese, we are free to go off and make new discoveries, take it in

>new directions, etc, but I think we should start with as authentic a

>foundation as possible.

>

>It is obvious that the success that Asian nations have had with

>Western sciences has been due to the fact that they agree on

>terminology and thus have a way to express things clearly in each

>field. They would never be at their current position of rivaling or

>surpassing Western nations with science if they spent all their time

>fighting turf wars between camps that think their terms are the best.

> I think we should be grateful that we have an open source standard

>available that forms a solid foundation from which we can deviate,

>personalize, or use without disagreement as we choose. We respect our

>Asian colleagues and their achievements to evolve their languages to

>accommodate special terminology and elaborate technical dictionaries

>for every field, so why is there so much resistance within our

>community to have a standard? Most cultures have viewed

>standardization of WM terms in their native languages as a great

>benefit, so why do we in the West perceive standardized language for

>CM as such a great threat?

>

>Anyway, I think that is more than my 2 cents. I am probably up to 10

>cents by now on this topic, so I better shut up.

>

>Eric Brand

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including

>board approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a

>free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

indeed.

 

 

 

, Marnae Ergil <marnae@p...>

wrote:

> Eric -

>

> Thank you. Well said.

>

> Marnae

>

> At 03:18 AM 11/1/2004, you wrote:

>

>

> >There was recently a question raised as to the general ability of

> >Chinese to convey technical information. I was very interested in the

> >question because I was a bit uncertain myself as to how well Chinese

> >expressed technical concepts in a variety of disciplines.