1 Introduction

Traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), as the embodiment of Chinese traditional culture and an integral facet of global civilization, has persevered throughout the ages, leaving a profound impact on a global scale. Suwen Huangdi Neijing delineates TCM as Yi Dao (医道) or “the way of medicine,” thereby emphasizing the intrinsic connection between traditional Chinese medicine and ancient Chinese philosophy, notably the foundational role of “Yin-Yang” in shaping the medical theories expounded in Neijing (Wang Qingqi, 2014, p.2). Consequently, a comprehensive understanding of the implications of “Yin-Yang” within the distinctive context of Neijing becomes paramount.

This research endeavors to scrutinize the alterations in the conceptualization of “Yin-Yang” evident in the English translation of Neijing. Such an undertaking is essential to confront the challenges associated with translating these classical works of Chinese medicine. Through a scholarly exploration of the nuances and adaptations of “Yin-Yang,” this research aims to contribute to the scholarly discourse on the cross-cultural transmission of traditional medical knowledge.

The research conducts a comparative analysis between English versions and the original text of Huangdi Neijing to investigate the transformations in the “Yin-Yang” concept. The primary objectives are twofold: Firstly, what are the changes in the concept of “Yin-Yang” in its English translations of Suwen? Secondly, what perspectives are adopted by translators in the early period, particularly in their role in reproducing and reconstructing the concept of “Yin-Yang”?

2 An Overview Of The Early Translations Of Suwen

Suwen constitutes a significant portion of Huangdi Neijing, encapsulating a wealth of knowledge regarding ancient Chinese medical physiology, pathology, diagnosis, and treatment and prominently featuring the ancient Chinese philosophical principles of Yin-Yang, Wu-xing, etc. Suwen underscores the intimate connection between human beings and nature, emphasizing a holistic perspective that highlights the profound unity within the human body.

According to scholarly investigations, the earliest English excerpt of Huangdi Neijing dates back to 1694, appearing in Chapter 12 of William Wotton’s work Reflections upon Ancient and Modern Learning. The early period of the English translation of Suwen spans from 1694 to 1949, encompassing a total of 7 English versions. Detailed information is provided in the following diagram.

table 1 information on the early translations of huangdi neijing

During the early period, six of the seven English versions were, in essence, the translation of the basic contents or some fragments of Huangdi Neijing, with Ilza Veith’s version being the sole full-fledged translation. Most translators of the early period had limited access to the original text due to language barriers. Consequently, a majority of these translators worked from intermediary sources rather than directly engaging with the primary text. Strictly speaking, the products of their efforts cannot be deemed translations, as they often constitute paraphrased interpretations and commentaries on the content of Huangdi Neijing. However, these translations reflect the focus of the Western people on Huangdi Neijing in the early period.

Translators in this period can be categorized into two distinct groups: those such as Hsieh and Dawson, interpreting Huangdi Neijing from a Western scientific and medical perspective, and others including Morse, Forke, Wong & Wu, and Veith, approaching from a cultural standpoint. These varying translation perspectives gave rise to distinct interpretative approaches. The ensuing analysis will explore the early translators’ interpretations of “Yin-Yang” in Suwen, using it as a case study to unveil the diverse ways in which these scholars approached the comprehension of this fundamental concept.

3 Reproduction Of “Yin-Yang”: An Intertextual Exploration In Chinese Literature And Chinese Philology

The concept of “Yin-Yang” in Huangdi Neijing not only preserves the wisdom of ancient Chinese philosophers but also experiences continued refinement within the context of traditional Chinese medicine. Tracing the evolution of the concept of “Yin-Yang” in ancient Chinese texts reveals that it was applied first to interpret natural phenomena and then became abstract and, in return, was used to explain physiological and pathological phenomena in Huangdi Neijing. In the early translations, especially those by P. M. Dawson, Alfred Forke, and Ilza Veith, the concept of “Yin-Yang” is explained within the subtext. These three translators belong to the cultural group whose translations are intertextualized with the Chinese annotations concerning “Yin-Yang” and reflect the philological research method inspired by commentators in ancient China.

Forke and Dawson’s statements on the origin of the “Yin-Yang” are cases of interpreting the concept of “Yin-Yang” through contextualization. In Forke’s work The World-Conception of the Chinese: Their Astronomical, Cosmological, and Physical-philosophical Speculations, he believes that the oldest references to “Yin-Yang” come from Shijing (《诗经》), Chou-li (《周礼》), and Tso-chuan (《左传》). In the text, he referenced the line “Xiang Qi Yin Yang(相其阴阳)”from the Shijing Liugong(《诗经·刘公》), conveying the examination of the origin of “Yin-Yang”, which means the light and shade of the mountains, rivers, and other natural phenomena (Forke, 1925, p.250-252). Referring to James Legge’s commentary, “Yin-Yang” is interpreted as “light and shade.” With the intertextualization of the origins of “Yin-Yang” in the ancient Chinese text, Forke concludes that “Yin-Yang” represents the “primogenial forces of nature.” (Forke, 1925, p.251)

Dawson’s translation reflects his belief that the “Yin-Yang” theory in Huangdi Neijing is rooted in Daoist philosophy (Dawson, p.60). Dawson has documented in his translation:

The median space, between the heaven above and the earth below, is the theater of communication of the being, by the primordial Being, to the inferior beings... The Su-wen calls this median space The Great Void. It is the hollow of the bellows of Lao-tsze.

Dawson’s narrative, which focuses on the origin of “Yin-Yang” in Chapter 66, “The Grand Treatise on the Origins of the Universe” (《素问·天元纪大论》) of Suwen, is intertextualized with the content of Chapter 5 in Dao De Jing. Through these textual references, Dawson provides insights into the theory of creation and cosmogony as articulated in Suwen. According to Dawson’s annotations, the space between heaven and earth is termed the “Great Void.” It is depicted as the domain where the “primordial Being” coexists and interacts with the “inferior being.” Notably, the concepts of “primordial Being” and “inferior being” are not presented in Suwen, and Dawson alludes to relevant information from Lao-tze. Thus, his English annotations should be understood as an intertextualization with Dao De Jing, expressing that Heaven and Earth show no favoritism, treating all things equally, and sages exhibit no favoritism, treating the people as equals (天地不仁以万物为刍狗) (Wu Genyou, 2021, p.15). 

In summary, early translators of Huangdi Neijing, like Dawson and Forke, demonstrated a relatively fixed mode of understanding and interpreting the text through intertextualization with ancient Chinese literature translated from the intermediary language. For instance, Dawson’s translation intertextualized with Lao-tze’s Dao De Jing is derived from the letter by the French sinologist Léon Wieger, who recommended Suwen to Dawson (Dawson, p.60). Wieger was an expert in Chinese Daoist philosophy, which partly explains why Dawson’s explanation appears in a mixed form without strict citation.

Philology(训诂学) is the discipline dedicated to studying the meanings of words in traditional Chinese texts, representing a method employed for interpreting texts in ancient China (洪诚, 2020, p.8). Based on the form and sound of the character, philology focuses on the meaning of a particular character, offering a linguistic approach to studying ancient texts. Forke adopted a philological approach for the interpretation of “Yin-Yang.”

Forke conducted a comprehensive philological study of “Yin-Yang”, drawing inspiration from the traditional commentaries on Huangdi Neijing. According to his explanation of “Yin-Yang” in his translation, he resorted to An Account of the Structure of Chinese Characters Under 300 Primary Forms, the English edition of Shuowen Jiezi (《说文解字》)，and the Kangxi Dictionary (《康熙字典》). As a German sinologist, Forke lacked expertise in ancient Chinese or the training for philological research; therefore, the philological research in his translation was not rooted in his knowledge system or academic research methods. Instead, it was influenced by the philological studies on “Yin-Yang” found in Chinese annotations.

Forke referred to the English version of the Shuowen Jiezi so that his interpretation of “Yin-Yang” was influenced by Xu Shen’s (许慎) “the six categories of Chinese characters”（六书造字法）, including pictographs（象形）, ideograms（指事）, associative compounds（会意）, phono-semantic compounds（形声）, phonetic loans（假借）, and transformed cognates（转注）（Liu Yan, 2020, p.114). According to Shuowen Jiezi, “Yin means darkness or position, and it is located on the south bank of rivers and the north side of mountains (阴，暗也，水之南，山之北也),” while “Yang means brightness (阳，高明也) and it means facing the sun from a high place”, which influence Forke’s explanation of “Yin-Yang” (Xu Shen, 2022, p. 3128/3129).

Moreover, the philological methods of Shuowen Jiezi inspired Forke in his translation and interpretation of the concept of “Yin-Yang”. He conducted philological studies by initially classifying “Yin” and “Yang” into “simplified Chinese characters” （阴阳）and “ancient Chinese characters”（陰陽）, which belong to the class of phono-semantic compounds and associative compounds respectively. Forke’s philological analysis of “Yin-Yang” describes how the form and sound of the character of “Yin” (阴) and “Yang” (阳) relate to the formation of its meaning. Phono-semantic compounds have two parts: the meaning part and the sound part. The meaning part indicates the meaning or category of the character, while the sound part demonstrates the pronunciation. Forke proposed that the characters “阴” (Yin) and “阳” (Yang) in their simplified form share the meaning part of “阝”, which means “阜” , the earth mound, suggesting that the meaning of “Yin-Yang” is related to “earth.” Er Ya (《尔雅》） records the original meaning of Yin and Yang as “To the south of a mountain is called Yang; to the north is called Yin (山南曰阳，山北曰阴)”. The sound part of “Yang” (昜) refers to the sunny side of the mountain, while the sound part of “Yin” (侌), the shady side, referring to the southern and northern sides of the mountain (Chalmers, 1882, p.18). Then, based on Forke’s philological analysis, he tries to reconstruct the evolution process of the characters “阴” and “阳” . He inferred that the meaning part of “阝” was added later to emphasize the specific meaning of “the bright and shady sides of the mountain.”  (Forke, 1925, p.252)

Associative compounds refer to characters formed by combining two or more individual characters, merging their forms or meanings to express the meaning of the new character. The ancient forms of Yin (侌) and Yang (昜), according to the Kangxi Dictionary, appear without the meaning part of “阝.” Thus, the ancient characters for “Yin”(侌) and “Yang” (昜) belong to associative compounds. “侌” , composed of “今” and “云,” means “clouds covering the sun.” “昜” is composed of “旦” and “勿”. “旦” is the combination of “日” and “一,” depicting the sunrise from the horizon. At the same time, the character pattern of “勿” resembles a “stretching flag.” Therefore, the whole character of “昜” looks like a “rising sun with blazing rays” or “the sun with flaming rays.” (Forke, p.250)

In conclusion, early translators with cultural perspectives like Forke, Veith, and Dawson attempted to reproduce the authentic Chinese understanding of “Yin-Yang” by interpreting the concepts on the linguistic and semantic levels through philology and intertextualization. This is the focus of those cultural translators of Suwen Huangdi Neijing.

4 Semantic Focus And Evolution Of Yin-Yang In Huangdi Neijing

An overview of the interpretations of “Yin-Yang” in the early translations of the Huangdi Neijing elucidates that variations in translators’ perspectives contribute to the shifting meanings observed.

Forke and Veith, the Western translators of the early period, proposed that the concept of “Yin-Yang” stems from the theory of creation and cosmogony of ancient Chinese philosophy. Veith’s assumptions about the origin of “Yin-Yang” in the preface of her translation Yellow Emperor’s Classic of Internal Medicine (1-34) quotes Forke’s explanation of the origin of “Yin-Yang” which intertextualizes with Lieh-tze’s theory of creation and cosmogony in the Warring States period of Chinese history. Through the intertextualization with Liezi Tianrui（《列子·天瑞》）and Zhouyi Qianzaodu（《周易·乾凿度》), Forke compares theories of creation and cosmogony in both Chinese and Western philosophy.

Liezi Tianrui documented the process of the Heaven-Earth division which is said to be the origin of “Yin-Yang”. According to Liezi Tianrui, “In the past, the sages utilized Yin and Yang to govern heaven and earth... The pure and light substance ascends to form the heaven, while the turbid and heavy substance descends to form the earth, and the harmonious qi forms the human body; thus, heaven and earth contain the essence, giving birth to all the living creatures. (昔者圣人因阴阳以统天地[...] 清轻者上为天，浊重者下为地，冲和气者为人；故天地含精，万物化生。) ” (TangJinggao, 1926, p. 2) The theory of creation and cosmogony in Liezi Tianrui, along with the similar statements in Zhouyi Qianzaodu, describes how the Yin and Yang forms the heaven and earth, saying that “the clear and light ascends to form the heaven, the turbid and dark descends to form the earth (清轻者上为天，浊重者下为地),” which is intertextualized with Chapter 5 of Suwen. Veith identifies the “light” (清扬）and the “heavy”（浊重）as one of the sources of the ultimate “dual power” of Yin and Yang.

Although Forke and Veith attribute the origin of “Yin-Yang” to the theory of creation and cosmogony in ancient Chinese philosophy, their translation and explanation reveal a hidden Western philosophical perspective. Forke claims that Lieh-tze (列子) is the first philosopher in Chinese history to propose the theory of creation and cosmogony, and China does not have the myth of creation. These statements made by Forke are inaccurate because China has a long history of the theory of creation and cosmogony. Lieh-tze’s theory is only one of the profound philosophical theories of creation. Furthermore, China has the tradition of conveying the theory of creation through mythology, such as the myth of Pangu (盘古) and Nvwa (女娲).

 Inspired by the theory of creation and cosmogony, Forke divided the generation of the universe into four phases: the Great Revolution（太易）, the Great Inception (太初), the Great Beginning (太始) and the Great Homogeneity（太素）. Veith quotes Forke’s explanation of the origin of “Yin-Yang” in the preface of her translation:

According to Professor Alfred Forke, Lieh-tze, the oldest author who proposes a theory of creation, “...starts from chaos (浑沌）, in which the three primary elements of the universe - force, form, and substance - were still undivided. This first stage is followed by a second, the great inception（太初）, when force becomes separated, then by a third, the great beginning（太始）, when form appears, and a fourth, a great homogeneity（太素）, when substance becomes visible. Then the light and pure substances rise above and form heaven, the heavier and coarser sink down and produce the earth.

The quotation is the translation from Liezi Tianrui regarding the theory of creation and cosmogony:

Liezi said, “In ancient times, the sages governed heaven and earth using Yin and Yang. If the visible is born from the invisible, how does heaven and earth come into existence? Therefore, it is said there is the Great Evolution (太易）, the Great Inception（太初）, the Great Beginning（太始）, and the Great Homogeneity（太素）. The Great Evolution is when the Qi is yet unseen; the Great Inception is the beginning of the Qi; the Great Beginning is the commencement of form; the Great Homogeneity is the initiation of substance. Qi, form, and substance are united and not yet separated, hence it is termed “the chaos” (混沌）. “The chaos” refers to all things being blended together and not yet distinct from each other. It is unseen when looked at, unheard when listened to, and impenetrable when sought after; therefore, it is called “Yi” (易). Without definite form, Yi transforms and becomes the One, One transforms and becomes Seven, Seven transforms and becomes Nine; then the Nine transforms back to one. One is the beginning of form. The clear and light substance rise to become heaven, the turbid and heavy substance descend to become earth, and the harmonious breath becomes a human. Thus, heaven and earth contain essence, giving birth to all things.” 

A comparison between Forke’s translation and the original text from Liezi Tianrui highlights inaccuracies in the translation and explanation of Forke and Veith. Notably, the translation of “气” (qi) as “force” is deemed inaccurate as it falls short of capturing the comprehensive meaning of “气,” a fundamental concept in traditional Chinese philosophy. Moreover, translating “气” as “force” introduces a level of vagueness into the interpretation.

Veith’s quotation is based on Forke’s explanatory text, summarizing Lieh-tze’s theory of creation and cosmogony. However, Forke’s translation is not faithful to the original text at the semantic level. Forke describes “The Chaos” (浑沌) as the fusion of three essential elements – force, form, and substance, undivided and inseparable, and then followed by “the Great Inception”（太初）, “the Great Beginning”（太始）and “the Great Homogeneity”（太素）. This categorization does not align with the original text of Lieh-tze Tianrui. According to the theory of creation and cosmogony in Liezi Tianrui, “The Chaos” (浑沌) is not part of the four primary phases of the universe’s creation. According to Liezi Tianrui, “Qi, form, and substance are united and not yet separated, hence it is termed ‘The Chaos’ ”. Therefore, “The Chaos” is considered to be another period beyond the four essential phases of “the Great Evolution” (太易）, “the Great Inception”（太初）, “the Great Beginning”（太始）, and “the Great Homogeneity”（太素）.

Drawing upon the relevant statements on the theory of creation and cosmogony in Zheng Xuan’s (郑玄）Commentary on Yiwei Qianzaodu（《易纬乾凿度》）, the creation of the universe is divided into seven phases, “the Great Evolution” (太易）, “the Great Inception”（太初）, “the Great Beginning”（太始）, “the Great Homogeneity”（太素）, “the Chaos”（浑沌），”the Heaven and the Earth”（天地）and “the Myriad Beings”（万物）. The first four phases are identical with that in Liezi Tianrui. The fifth phase is “the Chaos”（浑沌）, where “Qi, form, and substance” merge into “The One” (太一). The sixth phase is “the Heaven and the Earth”(天地) , which is generated from “The One” (太一) as “the clear and light substance rise to become heaven, and turbid and heavy substance descend to become earth”. The seventh phase is “Myriad Beings” (万物) originated from the “Heaven and Earth”(天地). The last three phases signify the theory of creation and cosmogony from Zhouyi (《周易》）that “One begets two, two begets three, and three begets myriad beings” (一生二，二生三，三生万物)（Zheng Xuan, 1985,p. 2-3).

Obviously, in Forke’s translation, he conflates two similar theories of creation and cosmogony from both Liezi Tianrui and Zhouyi Qianzaodu , equating the phase of “the Great Evolution” (太易) with the phase of “the Chaos” (浑沌). However, according to the original text of Liezi Tianrui and Zouyi Qianzaodu, “the Great Evolution” (太易) and “the Chaos” (浑沌) are two distinctive phases. Consequently, Veith, by adopting Forke’s explanation, presents an inaccurate translation in relation to the origin of “Yin-Yang”.

Despite the inaccuracies revealed through the comparative analysis of Forke and Veith’s translations with the original text, these misinterpretations of the origin of “Yin-Yang” underscore disparities in connotations between the East and the West. This reflects the distinctions in the theories of creation and cosmogony in Eastern and Western philosophies.

Forke applies the term “force” to translate “气” (Qi), the Chinese philosophical concept. This choice indicates the absence of the similar concept in Western philosophy, leading to a lack of an equivalent term in English. Thus, translators of Huangdi Neijing frequently resort to the technique of transliteration, rendering “气” as “Qi/Chee” phonetically. Furthermore, the seemingly “mistranslation” of “气” reflects Forke’s mode of connotation, given that “Force” is a concept in the Western philosophy, which can be dated back to ancient Greek philosophy before it became a term in physics. The ancient Greek philosopher Parmenides proposes the idea that “there is thus only one object of thought, namely ‘what is’, which is whole, continuous and immobile” (Shand, 2003, p.136), and “to think is to heed essentials where ‘knowing’ resides” (Schuwer&Rojcewicz, 1992, p.3). His opponents argue that things move infinitely and the concept that “Force” is the source of the motions of everything. The concept of “Force” significantly influenced later philosophers including Plato and Aristotle. Consequently, the concept of “Force” as the fundamental cause of motion became one of the core concepts in Western philosophy. According to Forke’s explanation, “Force” emerges in the phase of “Great Inception” (太初), followed by the other two essential elements, “Form” and “Substance.” Based on Liezi Tianrui, “Qi” (气) is considered the fundamental element that shapes everything in the universe. In this context, “Qi” (气) serves as a comparable function to the concept of “Force” in western philosophy. According to Western philosophy, it is “Force” that originates the growth of “all things” from nothing because “force” is the fundamental cause of motion. Additionally, based on Forke’s theory, the universe starts from “the chaos,” and then the “three essential elements” gradually separate. This concept bears resemblance to the Western scientific concept of the creation and cosmogony, notably the “Big Bang theory.” Thus, the interpretation of the meaning of “Yin-Yang” underwent changes in the early translations of Huangdi Neijing.

The concept of “Yin-Yang” has undergone reproduction and reconstruction in the early translations of Huangdi Neijing, reflecting a blended perspective that incorporates elements from both Chinese and Western philosophy. In addition, Huangdi Neijing categorizes the human body using the “Yin-Yang” framework, assigning characteristics such as the heart belonging to Yang and the kidney belonging to Yin. This reflects a systematic perspective within the text. The analysis of the early translations of Huangdi Neijing concerning the connection between the human body and “Yin-Yang” unveils a distinctive perspective rooted in Western medicine. Translators apply the term of Western medicine to explain concepts from Chinese traditional medicine. To summarize the relationship between “Yin-Yang” and the human body, two fundamental concepts emerge: firstly, “Yin-Yang” functions as the method and principle for classifying the human body, such as the organs and meridians; secondly, the interaction of Yin and Yang is employed to explain the operation of the human body, pathology, and clinical manifestations.

1. T. Hsieh’s translation of Huangdi Neijing focuses on how the concept of “Yin-Yang” is utilized to categorize the visceral organs and meridians of the human body. Through his essay “A Review of Ancient Chinese Anatomy” in 1920, this translator wants to prove that China has a long history of anatomy, which is fully demonstrated in his translation of Huangdi Neijing as the backup evidence. Hence, he adopted terms from Western anatomy to translate related concepts into traditional Chinese medicine to eliminate the cultural and knowledge barrier.   

The intention of Hsieh’s translation is evident in his rendering of Yin as the “female principle” and Yang as the “male principle.” (Hsieh, p.113). However, Hsieh’s translation is not accurate. Given that Hsieh is a Chinese scholar with a profound knowledge of traditional Chinese Medicine and Modern Western Medicine, it can be inferred that his translation is not solely rooted in his knowledge but influenced by his aim to demonstrate the long history of anatomy in China. Hence, his translation technique serves to concretize the abstract concepts of Yin and Yang, making them more accessible to Western readers, especially those without the background knowledge of Traditional Chinese Medicine.

Furthermore, when explaining how “Yin-Yang” is applied to divide the human body, Hsieh quotes the original text of Chapter 4 in Suwen Jin Kui Zhen Yan (《素问·金匮真言第四》):

These principles are distributed quite differently in the body. The exterior is male and the interior female; the back male and the abdomen female; the viscera male and the parenchymatous organs are female (Hsieh, p.117).

In the translation above, Hsieh translates “藏” as “viscera” and “府” as “parenchymatous organs,” both of which are terms of Western anatomy, clearly differing from the connotations of “藏府” in traditional Chinese medicine. The translation of “藏府” has been a long-lasting issue in the English translation of Chinese medical terms, not only because the theory of Zang-Fu (脏腑理论）is fundamental in the Huangdi Neijing but also because the concept of “藏府” is a metaphor by essence, where “藏” means “a cabinet used to store things” and “府” means “a mansion or a warehouse used to collect items.” According to Huangdi Neijing, the viscera (藏) belongs to Yang, and the parenchymatous organs (府) belong to Yin. According to the interpretation in Neijing Jiangyi (《内经讲义》）, one of the most critical commentaries of Huangdi Neijing in modern China, the viscera (藏), like the “cabinet” storing and discharging the essence (精) and Qi (气) , belongs to Yin; in contrast, parenchymatous organs (府) playing the leading role in transporting and transforming the essence and Qi belongs to Yang (Cheng Shide, 1984, p.8). The translation of Hsieh is not accurate. In Western medicine, the viscera and parenchymatous organs refer to organs with specific physiological functions that play essential roles in the human body. However, in Huangdi Neijing, “viscera（藏）” includes five specific viseras: the heart, lungs, liver, spleen, and kidneys; and “parenchymatous organs（府）” in traditional Chinese medicine refer to the gallbladder, stomach, large intestine, small intestine, bladder, and triple burner （三焦）. Therefore, the term “viscera” and “parenchymatous organs” fail to convey the theoretical and cultural connotations of “藏” and “府” in traditional Chinese medicine.

Hsieh’s translation of Huangdi Neijing reflects a perspective rooted in Western anatomy. Translators adopting the perspective of Western anatomy tend to apply terms of Western medicine to translate relevant terms of traditional Chinese medicine. The differences between the two distinctive medical systems often cause inaccuracy in translation. Some later translators, employing the terminology of Western medicine, tended to elucidate the differences between Chinese and Western medicine in the subtexts of their translations.

5 Conclusions

Through the reproduction and reconstruction of the meaning of “Yin-Yang” in the early English translations of Suwen Huangdi Neijing, a macroscopic perspective on the early translations has been achieved. The early translators of Huangdi Neijing can be broadly categorized into two groups: those with a medical background and those with a cultural focus. Each group of translators brings their unique techniques, viewpoints, and purpose of translation to the extensive undertaking of translating Huangdi Neijing for the western world.

Through the detailed analysis of the reinterpretation process of the concept of “Yin-Yang,” translators with cultural focus tend to reinterpret and reconstruct the concept of “Yin-Yang” through two methods: Firstly, those translators with cultural focus tend to resort to the rich commentary and explanation on both the ancient and modern China, which helps to build a “thick” cultural context. Through a carpet analysis on the textual level, translators of this kind reconstruct the meaning of “Yin-Yang” with intertextualization and attempt to capture the essence of “Yin-Yang” through their translation. Secondly, cultural translators apply the analysis method of philology, the traditional method to study the meaning of a text in ancient China, to analyze the form and meaning of “Yin-Yang” in order to reproduce and reconstruct the meaning of “Yin-Yang”. Exploring the semantic hierarchical relationships between “Yin-Yang” and other related concepts, translators with cultural focus reconstruct and reproduce an authentic image of “Yin-Yang” in the western world.

Furthermore, factors like differences in the cultural background and the translators’ purpose in the early period had a significant impact on the translation of Huangdi Neijing. Early translators show two distinctive perspectives of translation: the Western philosophical perspective and the Western anatomical perspective. Different translation perspectives determine the techniques applied by translators, contributing to the transformation of the concept of “Yin-Yang” in translation. An in-depth analysis of the early translations reveals that translators, guided by the benchmark of increasing the efficiency of transmitting traditional Chinese medicine, tend to intentionally incorporate terms from Western medicine to translate those of traditional Chinese medicine. For instance, translators with a background in traditional Chinese medicine might deliberately use Western anatomical terminology to translate Chinese medical terms, aiming for improved cross-cultural communication effects. However, these intentional adjustments, made with the goal of enhancing clarity, coexist with unintentional misunderstandings and knowledge gaps.

Reference

[1] Wotton, W. 1694. Reflections upon Ancient and Modern Learning. London: S. Leak, for Peter Buck.  

[2] Dawson, P.M. 1925. “Su-wen, the Basis of Chinese Medicine”. Annals of Medical History VII, Vol.1. pp.59-64.

[3] Forke, A. 1925. The World-Conception of the Chinese, Their Astronomical, Cosmological, and Physical-philosophical Speculations. London: A. Probsthain.

[4] Morse, W. R. 1934. Clio Medica: A Series of Primers on the History of Medicine XI: Chinese Medicine. New York: Paul B. Hoeber Inc.

[5] Veith, I. 1949. Huang Ti Nei Ching Su Wen: The Yellow Emperor’s Internal Medicine. Baltimore: The Williams & Wilkins Company.

[6] Wang, Qingqi. 2014. 黄帝内经文化专题研究(Culture Studies on the Huangdi Neijing). Shanghai: Fudan University Press.

[7] Laotze, Wu Genyou. (trans.) 2021. 道德经 (Dao De Jing). Changsha: Yuelu Press.

[8] Hong, Cheng. 2020. 训诂学 (Philology). Nanjing: Phoenix Publishing House.

[9] Liu,Yan. 2020. 现代汉语概论(Introduction to the Modern Chinese). Shanghai: Shanghai Educational Publishing House.

[10] Xu, Shen, Tang, Kejing. (trans.). 2022. 说文解字 (Shuowen Jiezi). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.

[11] Chalmers, J. 1882. An Account of the Structure of Chinese Characters under 300 Primary Forms. London: Trubner & CO.

[12] Tang, Jinggao. 1926. 列子 (Liezi). Beijing: The Commercial Press.

[13] Hsieh, E. T.1921. “A Review of Ancient Chinese Anatomy”. The Anatomical Record, Vol2. pp. 97-127.

[14] Cheng, Shide. 1984. 内经讲义(Neijing Jiangyi or Explanation on Huangdi Neijing). Shanghai: Shanghai Scientific & Technical Publishers.

[15] Zheng Xuan (Han Dynasty). 1985. 易纬乾凿度 (Yiwei Qianzaodu). Beijing: Zhonghua Book Company.

[16] Shand, J. (edit.). 2003. Fundamental of Philosophy. London & New York: Routaledge.

[17] Schuwer, A. & Rojcewicz, R. (trans.), Heidegger, M. 1982. Martin Heidegger’s Parmenides. Indiana: Indiana University Press.