美国加州大学东西方医学中心主办的中医翻译与传播学术会议在该校召开，我会副会长兼秘书长李照国教授应邀参加并作主旨发言。下面是该校发布的有关会议公报。 UCLA Center for East-West Medicine and UCLA Confucius Institute Workshop on the Translation and Dissemination of Chinese Medicine Final Report & Summary John Aguilar, L.Ac., DAOM Candidate Sonya Pritzker, Ph.D., L.Ac. On October 21, 2011, the UCLA Center for East-West Medicine (CEWM) and the UCLA Confucius Institute together hosted an international workshop on the translation and dissemination of Chinese Medicine. Bringing together various stakeholders in the translation process, including nearly three dozen scholars, clinicians, and students, the current status of translation, both in China and the U.S., was laid out. This was followed by input from an expert panel on key issues and group discussion focused on investigating current challenges and generating concrete plans and goals to move forward in providing high quality translation and fostering the dissemination of Chinese culture and medicine through text production and education. The day began with a brief introduction by Dr. Ka Kit Hui, Director of the UCLA Center for East West Medicine, which highlighted the CEWM’s commitments to teaching Chinese medicine to U.S. biomedical students, to researching Chinese medicine’s effectiveness for various conditions, to treating and disseminating Chinese medicine and culture to diverse populations in Los Angeles and beyond, and to information-sharing between China and the U.S. This opening framed the workshop in a language of increased communication and collaboration between the U.S. and China in the realm of Chinese medical translation. Dr. Li Zhaoguo, PhD, Professor and Vice Dean of Shanghai Normal University’s Foreign Languages College, and Vice President and Secretary General of the TCM Terminology Committee of the World Federation of Chinese Medical Societies (WFCMS), contributed next with a keynote speech on the history and current status of translation in China. Drawing upon his extensive writing and translation experience – 20 books published and over 100 articles written on the translation of Chinese medicine, with 30 texts translated – Dr. Li emphasized that quality translation is very difficult, and that there are few who can do it well. This difficulty exists for many reasons, such as the unique cultural context within which classical texts were authored, the fact that the language used in many Chinese medical texts is ancient, as well as the reality that many of the concepts are based in abstract classic Chinese philosophy. Regarding translation into English, Dr. Li explained that there are varying approaches, each with a unique set of advantages and disadvantages. One common approach adopts Western medical terms to translate Chinese medical terms. Some common examples of this approach include “diabetes” for “xiāo kě” 消 渴 or “spleen” for pí 脾. The danger here is that, although there is some overlap between the paired concepts, there is much that is lost in the original Chinese. Another common approach that Dr. Li explained involves using many English terms to approximate the original Chinese. While this addresses the fact that Chinese medical concepts are often heavily context-dependent, with no easily mapped one-to-one translation, it also proves to be quite cumbersome in practice. Finally, Dr. Li described simple transliteration, choosing to use pinyin instead of English words, as a last resort for translating Chinese—a great choice for common terms but technically not translation. Dr. Li concluded his speech stating that, although there are many challenges to translation, it is possible to overcome them, and that Chinese and Americans need to work together. Following Dr. Li’s speech, Dr. Sonya Pritzker, PhD, LAc, Assistant Researcher and Clinical Specialist at UCLA’s Center for East-West Medicine, reported on the current state of translation and dissemination of Chinese medicine in the U.S. After a brief review of the history and social context of Chinese medicine in the West, she discussed of some of the major points of tension that characterize the translation of Chinese medicine in the U.S., including debates over biomedicalization, alternative medicine, and te authenticity of classical Chinese medicine vs. “Traditional Chinese Medicine” or TCM. Dr. Pritzker discussed the impact of such tensions on translation and debates about terminology and language. In the debates over standardization that have unfolded over the past 10 years, for example, some participants fear a loss of critical knowledge and the imposition of American alternative medicine ideals and values when language is not standardized according to the principles of classical Chinese medicine. On the other hand, there is the drive to be on par with global medicine. Here, the incorporation of biomedical terms as standards for the translation of Chinese medicine demonstrates the applicability of Chinese medicine as a science in the contemporary world, and prevents it from turning into a cultural relic. Yet other participants invoke the ideals of American freedom in allowing authors to choose the terms they use, and the widely agreed upon fact that perfect translation is impossible, thus freeing an author to choose the term they feel is most appropriate for the given context. Other language debates that Pritzker addressed included the heated debates over Chinese language instruction. In these debates, many scholars and educators have argued that Chinese should be a part of the U.S. curriculum in Chinese medicine for several reasons. Their reasons include access to the wealth of material in Chinese, the need for more translators in the field, and the need to respect Chinese culture. Others have argued against the need for Chinese, however, and Pritzker described their reasons as including the notion that because American patients don’t speak Chinese, there is no need to learn. Other reasons include the lack of space in the current American curriculum in Chinese medicine, and the impression that there is already a sufficient amount of translated texts available. Dr. Pritzker went on to emphasize some realities of the current situation, such as the fact that there are existent a plurality of terms, and there is no central authority to dictate what is taught or what terms are chosen. There is also the fact that this is a very small market within which multiple publishers must compete for the sale of textbooks. Lastly, there is the reality that the World Health Organization is standardizing terms with the ICD 11. Finally, she discussed her own research on the anthropology of translation in Chinese medicine, and demonstrated the multiple ways in which translation unfolds through the authoring of texts, but also through the ways in which teachers and students interpret these texts in the classroom and for patients in the clinic. Asking, “if translation involves everyone, how do we get everyone involved in translation?”, Pritzker concluded by discussing the reasoning behind the UCLA workshop. She finished with a list of several key matters that were on the day’s agenda, including the issue of Chinese language education in masters, doctorate, and continuing education contexts; the issue of publication, and the networking of translators across international organizations; and the issue of further funding for research and development. Following her speech, and a round of introductions by all workshop participants, Dr. Pritzker presented questions to a panel of experts in various aspects of the Chinese medical field. Each question was reflective of the history of translation issues and “tensions” and invited the panelists to help unravel those complications and lead the way to progress. The first panel included experts on education in Chinese medicine, including Bob Damone, Academic Dean at Pacific College of Oriental Medicine (PCOM), Tsueyhwa Lai, Instructional Coordinator at Oregon College of Oriental Medicine (OCOM), Brenda Hood, Associate Professor at National College of Natural Medicine (NCNM), and Mao Shing Ni, Co-founder of Yo San University. Questions posed to the first panel included: • Should language (English or Chinese) and/or translation be a required part of at least DOCTORAL-level training in Chinese medicine in the U.S. and China? • Should language (English or Chinese) and/or translation be included in MASTERS-level training in Chinese medicine in the U.S. and China? • How might we go about creating a core curriculum for translation studies for the doctoral or masters level students of Chinese medicine? • What kinds of incentives might we develop to encourage more teachers to learn about Chinese language and translation? • Should a core curriculum for translation studies include cultural studies as well? • How might we participate in the dissemination of Chinese medical knowledge by creating a language/culture curriculum for American K-12 students or university students? The first question, “Should Chinese language be taught as part of doctoral studies in Chinese medicine?”, received unanimous responses to the affirmative. The panelists recognized that Chinese language reflects a different way of thinking about the world and the body, and that advanced studies should empower students to access the unique source material directly, as translated English can never fully convey the original. The second question addressed whether language studies should be part of the entry-level master’s degree training and, if so, what the curriculum would look like. The panelists discussed the difficulties of incorporating language into their already full masters curriculum, especially when many of the teachers in such programs do not themselves speak Chinese. Various incentive programs were discussed in order to ensure that at least some basic Chinese medical vocabulary be woven through the masters program, as opposed to having isolated single classes in Chinese medical language. It was agreed that this curriculum, which should certainly include content on cultural studies, would be something that would have to be further developed in order to be taught to teachers who are currently working in the schools. Further questions followed up on the themes of curriculum content and methods of development. Although time ran out before panelists were able to fully address the issue of K-12 education, there was consensus throughout the day that Chinese medicine, and particularly Chinese medical language, could play an important role in the dissemination of Chinese culture in the K-12 context. The next panel addressed issues in publishing, and included experts such as Eric Brand, Author and Translator at Paradigm Publications, Robert Felt, Editor and Director at Paradigm Publications, Marilyn Allen, Editor at Acupuncture today, and Jonathon Schell, Director of the Chinese Medicine Database. Questions posed to this panel included the following: • How can we enhance communication across the many different sectors of the Chinese medical publishing industry? Is this necessary? • How can we participate in the dissemination of high-quality material on Chinese medicine to diverse populations? • Can we, at this juncture, find a way to move beyond the terminology/standardization debates? • How might we improve the availability of Chinese-language texts for U.S. translators and publishers? • How might we collaborate to develop an assessment method for judging the quality and relevance of new texts coming from China and/or the U.S.? The topic of publishing is of central importance in American Chinese medicine, as the field is so small and provides limited financial support for the publishing of texts and materials. With this in mind, the first question posed to the publication panel asked whether greater communication amongst the small handful of Chinese medical publishing companies would be of benefit. The panelists pointed out that because each company had its own unique area of focus, e.g., modern versus classical texts, the current nature of interactions amongst was appropriate, although Bob Felt did bring up some challenges facing the publishing industry, especially in terms of creating and ensuring the creation of high-quality material. These challenges include a lack of central authority or decision-making power, a competitive marketplace where there is also a continuous problem with pirating, and the presence of large publishers who have little stake in ensuring quality productions. Over the last decade, there has been sometimes heated debate over whether there should be a standardized list of Chinese medical terms. Over the past three years, the intensity of the debates has considerably subsided. It was thus asked of this panel whether this debate still continued or whether it had resolved itself. In response, the panelists noted the powerful influence of money, by way of sales of textbooks, in dictating what English terms are chosen to convey the original Chinese. It was further revealed that, with such a small market, the students of Chinese medicine were exerting great influence over chosen terms, and thus the content of published texts, and that there may be a conflict between ease of access to the material and fidelity with source material. Time was limited in discussing the questions of availability and collaboration in more detail, but after lunch, all workshop participants were invited to split up into three groups representing distinct areas of the field – Education, Publishing, and Clinical Practice. The education group, all members being in agreement with the importance of at least some Chinese medical Chinese instruction, discussed potential curriculum and textbooks. There currently exists a variety of multiple series of books, each varying in their approach to learning the language, some more terminology based, others with greater emphasis on actual reading of source materials. With this pool of potential texts, discussion turned to the need for the creation of specific learning objectives for students who are already very busy and ideas for encouraging more teachers to learn Chinese, for instance, in an online “boot camp”. Salary incentives were also mentioned, as were potential standard lists of terms to be learned and stock teaching materials that could be readily shared amongst schools. A list of all teachers could be generated to facilitate the above. In teaching a new language to Americans, an inherently challenging endeavor, it was strongly advised the courses be made a strict requirement. A need for a core group of leaders to discuss and potentially create a standard curriculum was mentioned, with one Chinese medical doctoral student investigating that idea for her capstone project. The group focusing on the publishing side of the field addressed the challenges of having a limited market to support the creation of a diverse array of textbooks. Taking advantage of the newest technology, e.g., e-books (electronic books), apps for smart phones, and micropayment systems, was brought up multiple times as a necessary step for survival of the field. Several participants also emphasized the opportunity to expand beyond mere clinical texts for Chinese medical students, into the wider field of mainstream academia. For instance, material could be developed for PhD students pursuing grants and looking at creating texts on electronic records and public safety, current political hot topics. Lastly, the desire to become more involved with institutions in China was expressed. The group discussing clinical interaction emphasized the need for the ability of practitioners of Chinese medicine to be able to translate technical terms into a language their patient’s can understand. In interactions with biomedical professionals, it was thought that Chinese medical practitioners should maintain their professional integrity, resisting the urge to simply choose biomedical terms as one-for-one replacements for the Chinese concepts. They further explored the ideas of making available in Chinese medical clinics basic term sheets for patients and, possibly, a standard database of metaphors and analogies to assist practitioners in interacting with patients (though, this was also recognized as a basic skill that could be developed in the master’s level training). Overall, translation of a culturally unique and temporally distant system of medicine, rooted in abstract philosophies, is recognized as being very challenging, especially in the U.S., where biomedicine is the dominant mindset and system of healthcare. This workshop brought together experts, scholars, and students to engage in discussion on how to move forward with high quality rendering of this medicine into the English language for training and education purposes, as all as the day-to-day clinical reality of practitioners, and how to support these endeavors with a strong publishing industry. In each of these areas multiple ideas were generated: • To build on the basic language skills offered in some schools, more comprehensive learning objectives are needed to establish a solid curriculum for either masters or doctoral level training. • A core group of leaders could be gathered to create a curriculum • In support of the above, the trend towards first professional doctoral training should be augmented with various avenues and incentives for teachers to learn basic Chinese, in order to pass it on their students, such as salary incentives and intensive, online “boot camps” of language acquisition. • Publishing could extend beyond both, the Chinese medical field looking at academia, in general, and the ink and paper text, investigating the latest technologies and conventions on developing information and making money. Several specific overall actions and next steps in order to facilitate the development of these diverse goals include: (1) The formation of a core group of instructors who are working independently in various U.S. Chinese medical schools to develop their own Chinese language curriculums. This group would work together to combine insights and create a unified curriculum for teaching Chinese in masters programs in Chinese medicine. This same curriculum could be adapted and expanded as a “sub-curriculum” for masters students who want to extend their Chinese study, and for doctoral students who will need various levels of training in Chinese in order to access contemporary Chinese journal material as well as classical texts. The core curriculum could also be used to develop introductory and intermediate courses in Chinese medical language to students and practitioners seeking to earn CEUs (continuing education units). CEU courses could be offered in both the U.S. and China, perhaps at Shanghai Jiaotong University. Curriculum Development would have to begin with a certain amount of support for the time that each participant would devote towards the effort, as well as for the recruitment and organization of interested doctoral candidates, who might be available to do some of the administrative work. There would also have to one more face-to-face meeting where instructors could get together to discuss the curriculum, contribute to a textbook, and connect with professors in translation studies and applied linguistics to ensure that current best practices in teaching foreign languages are adhered to. (2) The organization of a continuing education forum for professional translators already engaged with the work of translating Chinese medical texts. Several online forums exist for this purpose already, but the development of a summer program at UCLA, where translators could come and learn from other scholars and specialists in translation studies, comparative literature, and applied linguistics, would provide an excellent venue for the further development of translation in Chinese medicine. Brainstorm more opportunities to develop international collaboration in the field of translation and publishing, which would include cooperation between clinical practitioners who are interested in publishing materials for their patients, scholars interested in developing their translation skills, and publishers looking for innovative ways to expand their markets. Chief among these priorities is the formulation of some potential research and development grant proposals that appeal to various U.S. and Chinese organizations such as the NIH National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, the Chinese Ministry of Health, the UCLA Confucius Institute and potentially others. Each of these overall goals is immensely realizable, especially given the enthusiasm and commitment of workshop participants. While there is still much work to do on this project, a feeling of the success of the day was unanimous, and participants are all excited about the future. |
||||||||
|
