WFCMS Terminology Meeting in Beijing

[Guest guest]

Conference Report

 

The following is my informal report on the World Federation of

Societies¡¯ (WFCMS) terminology conference this

past weekend in Beijing. WFCMS is an organization that supports

communication between many different professional societies involved

with Chinese medicine worldwide. WFCMS will make recommendations on

terminology to China¡¯s State Administration of TCM (SATCM) when the

SATCM meets to discuss the issue of English terminology standards

for Chinese medicine this summer. The meeting was co-sponsored by

People¡¯s Medical Publishing House (PMPH, ren min wei sheng chu ban

she), a large Chinese medical publisher that is beginning to produce

English texts for the Western market. Several Western

representatives were invited to Beijing to consult with local

experts to exchange ideas on principles of term selection as well as

the terms themselves.

 

The meeting was overall very cohesive and productive, and most

parties were generally pleased with the outcome. Among the Western

experts invited, Paul Unschuld and Nigel Wiseman were in attendance,

while Giovanni Maciocia and Dan Bensky were unable to attend.

Additional advisors included Sapir Roni from Israel, three

representatives from the NCCAOM: Bryn Clark, Daniel Jiao, and Kory

Ward-Cook, as well as two representatives from Australia, David

Storey and Charlie Xue. With the exception of David Story and Kory

Ward-Cook, all had a sound knowledge of Chinese medicine. Kory

Ward-Cook, the CEO of the NCCAOM, has a background in Western

medicine; in the discussions, she advocated accuracy in disease

names and preferred to not see CM diseases translated into WM

disease names if the names were not accurate. The political reasons

behind Mr. Storey¡¯s high-level involvement in the meeting were

unclear, since he lacked an understanding of Chinese language or

Chinese medicine; Mr. Storey advocated changing the names of the

traditional relationships of medicinals into pharmacological terms

(i.e., instead of saying medicinal A " kills " medicinal B, we should

say that it " inhibits " medicinal B).

 

Given that we had only three days together as a group, 660 terms

were selected from the WFCMS¡¯ working database of terms to serve as

examples of how terms should be selected and which principles should

govern their selection. A detailed list of the principles that we

agreed upon are outlined at the bottom of this summary.

 

The issue of literal translations vs. biomedical interface terms was

an important feature of the debate. Participants who translate

traditional medical works and historical texts insisted that

traditional concepts and metaphors remain intact in the English

translation, while participants who were primarily concerned with

modernized Chinese medicine favored biomedicized terminology over

literal translation. To resolve this difference, a system of

biomedical interface terms was recommended, giving translators the

ability to apply a linked terminology system differently if they are

translating scientific articles vs. translating traditional medical

works. This was one of the most significant achievements of the

meeting. Debate on this topic was heated at times. Those favoring

scientific terminology feel that Chinese medicine is evolving into

the modern world of global medicine and its traditional metaphors

and terminology hamper its acceptability in the scientific community

and Western culture as a whole. By contrast, those favoring

retention of traditional concepts and metaphors maintain that

preservation of these concepts is necessary for traditional works,

while biomedicized terminology is appropriate only for modern

integrative works. However, the overall consensus was that literal

translations should be used for the bulk of the terms, with

biomedical interface terms included for situations were an accurate

correlation could be made (mostly in disease names).

 

While the individual terms chosen are not final, a number of terms

are worth mentioning in discussion. Again, these terms are not

finalized and the recommendations of the WFCMS must be pass through

the SATCM before they will become the national standard for the

PRC. By and large, all the term recommendations came from a

database that compiled approximately 20 different bilingual term

lists, all of which originated in the PRC, with the exception of the

terminology used in the Practical Dictionary of

(PD). This is a significant flaw in the initial selection process,

because little attention was given to the actual terminologies that

are in practical use in the West beyond the PD. The Chinese

delegates showed lack of awareness of the prevalence of PD

terminology in the West, so generally the term selection process

would have been more complete if Western trends of use were taken

into account at a greater level. Notably absent from the initial

working term lists were the terminology systems used by Dr. Paul

Unschuld, Eastland Press, Art of Medicine Press, and Pangolin

Press. So although I felt that the group¡¯s meetings ended up

selecting generally appropriate terms, I felt that the initial

survey of which terms were actually in use and accepted by

Westerners was inadequate.

 

During the discussions of individual terms, a number of long-

standing errors were corrected. Examples include correction of

¡°five elements¡± to ¡°five phases¡± and the correction of

¡°meridians¡± to ¡°channels.¡± We were divided into three groups to

discuss principles and individual terms, with one group covering

disease names, one group covering basic theory and diagnosis, and a

third group covering medicinal nomenclature.

 

The room that I was in covered the topic of disease names, and we

generally adopted literal translations with optional biomedical

interface terms where appropriate. The literal names were by and

large derived from Wiseman and Feng¡¯s PD, and appropriate

biomedical terms were chosen based upon accuracy and correlations

that were clarified by a number of Chinese experts, who proved to be

invaluable in clarifying the meaning of some of the more difficult

terms. Our group consisted of Dr. Nigel Wiseman, Dr. Wang Kui, Dr.

Zhu Jianping, Dr. Liu Liang, Dr. Liu Shui, and Dr. Nie Huimin.

While Dr. Zhu and Dr. Nie primarily provided expertise based on the

meaning of the Chinese words, Drs. Wiseman, Wang, and Liu (Liang)

were bilingual representatives who discussed the merits of the

various terms and principles. The group agreed that biomedical

interface terms should be chosen only when they are accurate, and I

was impressed at the group¡¯s dedication to maintaining accuracy and

refraining from inappropriate biomedicalization of traditional

disease concepts. When correspondence terms were chosen, they were

included in parentheses following the literal (typically PD)

translation, so we were pleased that both approaches were approved

rather than losing the traditional disease categories.

 

In the room that discussed basic theory and diagnosis, Dr. Unschuld

appears to have made a significant mark on the preservation of basic

concepts and principles. Again, I do not know what the final

outcome of all the individual terms will be, but I was pleased to

see that the draft of the terminology generally represented careful

retention of many important concepts. However, the group spent an

inordinate amount of time discussing grammatical construction, which

would have been wholly unnecessary if the opinion¡¯s of native

English speakers predominated on the subject of English grammar.

Specifically, the Chinese favored the use of gerund phrases instead

of sentences. In other words, ¡°the heart governs the blood and

vessels¡± was perceived to be inappropriate by the Chinese, who

favored ¡°heart governing blood and vessels. " Unfortunately, this

debate reached its peak on the third day, when the entire group was

called to vote on which grammatical form was more appropriate.

Given that many voters did not speak any English, the notion that a

vote could be used for a simple issue of English grammar

(particularly when those voting were primarily non-native speakers,

several of whom did not speak any English at all) was ludicrous to

the point that one of the Western participants walked out of the

meeting in protest. At this point, all the native speakers were

stunned that such a ridiculous procedure was even suggested, but

fortunately the meeting did not degenerate further and got quickly

back on track after lunch.

 

In the group that decided upon medicinal names, a two-tiered system

was endorsed, pegging pinyin to Latin pharmaceutical names.

Formulas are to use pinyin followed by the English name in

parentheses. While this is relatively straightforward, it was a bit

surprising that few attendees were aware of the fact that English

names have already been developed and accepted in the West for most

of the formulas, and that literal translation is generally accepted

as the norm; it is not a new experiment in nomenclature.

Additionally, the guidelines of the PRC typically call for pinyin

syllables to be joined together, with the ending words tang

(decoction), wan (pill), and san (powder) to be changed to English.

In other words, the new standard would be guizhi decoction, sini

powder, xiaochaihu decoction, etc. Unfortunately, I think that the

WFCMS has blundered in this aspect of their preliminary

recommendations, because the naming standards used by most

Westerners separate the pinyin syllables to make them easier to

read. Thus, we write jin yin hua instead of jinyin hua, and I think

the WFCMS would be wise to follow what is already a widely-accepted

norm in the field. Additionally, there is no confusion caused by

keeping the ¡°tang¡± in gui zhi tang, since anyone who can remember

gui zhi can remember that a tang is a ¡°soup¡± and a ¡°san¡± is a

powder. Calling a formula liuwei dihuang pill (Six Ingredient

Rehmannia Pill) is inferior to calling it liu wei di hu¨¢ng wan (Six

Ingredient Rehmannia Pill), simply because the latter is already a

standard in the profession and the former is redundant with the word

¡°pill.¡± Furthermore, the formula is rarely taken in pill form, so

saying that ¡°a decoction of liuwei dihuang pills was taken¡­¡±

implies that pills were boiled, whereas saying " a decoction of liu

wei di huang wan was taken¡­¡± does not imply that ready-made pills

were cooked into a decoction. But this is simply an error of

ignoring existing trends in the West when creating English standards

in terminology.

 

Overall, I think a lot of good progress was made at the conference.

I am strongly in favor of a biomedical interface system that allows

for the development of both traditional and integrative modern

literature. Since both aspects are richly represented in the

Chinese medicine of China, I think that a similar degree of

knowledge should be preserved in English and I am happy to see that

the WFCMS endorses such an approach. However, I think that rather

than creating a new terminology system from scratch, the WFCMS would

do well to take note of existing trends in Western terminology

systems and simply approve systems that follow similar methodology

to that endorsed by WFCMS.

 

On a personal note, I was highly impressed with the input of the

representatives from the NCCAOM. On numerous occasions, Bryn Clark

and Daniel Jiao offered excellent examples and arguments that

clarified important issues in translation and terminology, and their

input was invaluable to the meeting as a whole. Since it was my

first time seeing a personality behind what has always been a

faceless organization to me, I was very pleased to realize that the

people involved in the NCCAOM have a significant interest in

preserving the integrity of Chinese medicine, and I also found them

to be free of political bias where terminology was concerned.

Similarly, Sapir Roni, the Israeli representative, voiced a number

of valuable insights throughout the weekend discussions and his

contributions were greatly appreciated by the group.

 

 

Below are the principles agreed upon by the delegates (formatting

lost in CHA post):

 

Principles for English Translation of Basic Terms

In

 

Accurate, clear and elegant expression is guiding principle in the

English translation of terms in Chinese medicine.

The principles for the English translation of basic terms in Chinese

medicine are as follows:

 

*Equivalent: The English translations should fit the original

meaning of the Chinese terms.

 

*Terms should be as concise as possible without distortion of

meaning. Avoid lengthy interpretative statements that unnecessarily

paraphrase the meaning of terms.

 

*Identity: For two or more Chinese terms that are recognized as

absolute equivalents, a single rendering in the target language is

acceptable.

 

*Reverse translation: Translation should preserve the relationship

between the Chinese and English terms clearly. Ideal translations

can be translated from the target language back to the original

language with minimal loss of accuracy.

 

*Some currently accepted terms, although not in full compliance with

these principles, may be considered acceptable. However, some words

in common use that fail to accurately express the basic Chinese

meaning should be changed. For example, the word ¡°channel¡± is

preferable to ¡°meridian.¡±

 

In addition, regarding the continued discussion of the names of

diseases, medicinals, and formulas, it is recommended that:

 

1. If the Chinese term closely corresponds to a specific

Western medical term, it is acceptable to use multiple terms, i.e.,

·ç»ðÑÛ wind-fire eye (acute conjunctivitis). However, it is

preferable to keep terms to a minimum, with no more than two

equivalents for a given Chinese term. While biomedical interface

terms may be chosen to supplement traditional medical terms, but the

following points should be observed: a) If the concept is identical

and no specialized knowledge or equipment is required for

understanding the Chinese term, a single equivalent may be used

(examples include dysentery, diarrhea, and malaria). b) If the

concept is essentially the same but modern knowledge or equipment is

required to understand the biomedical phrase, a biomedical interface

term should be chosen for scientific works, while a term that

preserves the original meaning of the Chinese concept should be used

for historical or traditional works (ex. wind-fire eye vs. acute

conjunctivitis).

 

2. Chinese medicinals should utilize two names: Pinyin and

Latin pharmaceutical names.

 

3. Formulas should use a multiple term standard: Pinyin

followed by the English name in parentheses. The Pinyin names will

follow the standards laid down by the 2005 edition of the

Pharmacopoeia of the People's Republic of China.

 

4. An additional consideration that has arisen is the need to

arrive at a satisfactory conclusion to the grammatical construction

of a variety of term phrases. For example, should gerund forms of

terms such as ¡°kidney governing water¡± be used, or should this

phrase instead be expressed as an independent clause such as ¡°the

kidney governs water?¡±