The Issue of Biomedicalization of Translating Chinese Medicine
Texts
Pritzker etc. wrote:
One of the most
debated issues in the translation of Chinese medicine is the issue of biomedicalization.
Here, you have many translators arguing that Chinese medicine must be put into
modern medical terms in order to avoid being seen as a relic in the contemporary
global medical world. In other cases, you have translators arguing for a more
traditional approach to translation that captures original meanings in the
framework of classical medicine. In evaluating a translation, it is useful to
ascertain where a translator falls on this spectrum, and whether he or she has
maintained consistency throughout the text. It is not always easy to discern.
In translating a contemporary integrative medical text, for example, many
biomedical terms may have been used in the original Chinese text. In
translation, biomedical terms are therefore appropriate. In the translation of
a classical text, however, the inclusion of biomedical terms often signals an
adaptive translation that could have benefited from the participation of a
more classically trained translator. This is another area in which it is useful
to look for translations created using a team approach, with relevant experts
providing guidance on when and where to relate the language of Chinese
medicine to biomedicine. Relationships do exist here and are important to
convey. However, generally speaking this is not something that the translator
should try to accomplish in language in the context of a translation. When a
translator does seek to link traditional translations with biomedical terms,
one solution that has been proposed involves the inclusion of dual translations
for certain terms. This can most easily be applied to disease names, for
example using the dual translation “wind-fire eye/acute conjunctivitis” in
order to facilitate the link between a traditional condition in Chinese
medicine with a biomedical diagnosis.
The paper is available here.
No comments:
Post a Comment