PDA

View Full Version : Linguistics, semantics and techniques



rossl42
9th March 2001, 08:37
I have two questions that work around a particualar issue, each from a very different perspective.

The first relates to the use of differing terminology by different systems to describe the same concepts. Issues that arise include resultant difficulties in communication between those practicing different systems; methodologies to overcome those difficulties (facilitate the useful exchange of ideas); the possible creation of false associations between unrelated ideas; and whether the choice of labels for / groupings of concepts effects their practical application.

The second relates to how the use of different definitions might effect the performance of techniques. For example, the technique uchimata is sometimes defined as a leg technique and sometimes as a hip technique. Do those who define uchimata as a leg throw perform the technique with greater emphasis on the sweeping action, while those who define it as a hip technique place greater emphasis on the lift or wind? My own feeling is that the categorization does effect the application, but I have no evidence beyond my own observations.

Rob
9th March 2001, 09:14
Hi Ross,

Firstly the use of different terminology to describe the same concepts. I would say that this undoubtably leads to confusion but I think that originally kind of the point. If you are learning the 'secrets' of ryu the last thing that you want is for them to be obvious to others outside of the ryu. The second problem I think that stems from this is something we see a lot here on e-budo, which is the use of the same word for different concepts, the classic being Aiki. Being trained in neither Aikido or Daito Ryu Aiki Jiu Jitsu I cannot comment on how either percieve the term Aiki. I can however say with some confidence that when they discuss the terms publically at least they appear to be talking about totally different concepts. I think the only way you can really know for sure whether terms different or otherwise are referring to the same concept would be to train to a high level in both of those ryu. As to the false association again this can only be a problem if people assume that they are talking about the same thing. Of course all too often this does happen.

Regarding wether how a concept or technique is labelled affects how we feel about it. Absolutely, within the style I study some English terms are used and some Japanese. Generally where Japanese is retained it is because there is no true, simple translation. English does not have a word to explain what my understanding and experience of Mushin. On a more practical level, such as your example of Uchi Mata, I tend to agree. How such a technique is labelled and more importantly how the different elements are emphasised will lead to differences in how it is performed.

MarkF
10th March 2001, 10:02
Concepts are just that, concepts. The concept of DR aiki seems to be at the time when one is learned in the the basics, or omote. "Ura" are the inner secrets, arguably, when one, if selected, is taught that which only the few ever learn. The problem with these type of conceptual thoughts and physiological descriptions, is the argument that they are truly "secret." If one believes that, then it truly must be mystical. If not mystical, then what it really is, is a body of techniques one has all ready learned, but has had no base on which to learn them. And again, if secret, then you must always train with the very real probability that you will not be "chosen" to learn these secretive techniques. When omote and ura are mentioned in ju-do, it is simply thought to mean inner and outer. Well??

Tai=posture, and is a basic concept in all Japanese (taijutsu) budo. This is the one basic physical technique[s] we all learn, but are not really taught the meaning of it until well into our studies/training. This is probably true of at least some gendai arts as well as koryu. The lesson of "Tai" in judo, for example, is a basic technique (omote) on which is built the "secrets of the inner workings" of the art (kito-ryu). The founders said as much, and while everyone who wishes can participate, those who are good enough, or "intensely curious (apologies to Albert Einstein)" enough to stay nearby and continue training in that art, or one of the older schools of jujutsu, finally are able to apply the techniques, AND also learn the lesson of a lifetime -- "Use what you know." This is only if you consider aiki to be physiological and a set of techniques, aiki no jutsu. If not, then most of us will never do better than the basic concept put into practice.
*****
I don't think aiki, or its concepts is what you mean. Rather, you are speaking of different sounds or words, IE, terminology for similar techniques according to different schools. I am as confused as anybody because of this.

I find the native tongue to be just grand in explaining a technique or giving them names. Most arts do have different meanings to the same word, and some have different words to describe the same meaning. After all, the names themselves are short descriptions of certain movements of the body. Is "yawara no michi" a better use of language than "ju-do?"

Mikonosuke Kawaishi is the one who describes uchi mata as a hip technique and not a leg sweep. However, in his book, The Seven Katas of Judo, he does say that it is a leg throw (EJ Harrison doesn't make it any easier by explaining what the Kodokan considers uchi mata to be, IE, a leg sweep).

But if you look at the drawings of the throw in Kawaishi's book, it appears genuinely to be a hip throw, and thus, in a different subclass of tachiwaza than what is presented by the Kodokan.

I am no expert on this throw, as it is not very practical for one who lacks the height to make it so, but those who used this throw in the sixties, probably until sometime in the eighties, it is a thrust with the leg to the inside, then a lift of the inside leg of uke, and definitely fits the description of a leg sweep rather than a hip technique. Kawaishi does have the leg thrust, but the drawings appear to use the hip entirely as the fulcrum and lift is accomplishe by the lifting of the hips underneath uke's body, thus if one were to study only this description, it is a hip throw.

If one were to see it in competition today, the lift of the leg in a successful (to Ippon or "end-match") throw, the leg may catch the thigh and then sweeps upward, instead of straight out as in the older version, it does more than sweep the thigh, the leg can sometimes go right up the middle and catch the groin. Some of the lift seen is because of this casualty of hitting the groin (I recommend it since it is not a rule infraction:D ), and the upward lift is so high, as to be a sweeping motion, but what is swept? The closest area before reaching the groin is the thigh, and when done correctly with the correct amount of kuzushi, is beautiful to behold, so no one really cares where it is categorized.
*****

My point is simply to call it what is the accepted term and then return to the native language quickly. If it is "inner thigh sweep" and it translates to that (it does) than that is what it is even if modified. The rest of it is for the student to learn, and anything you expect a student to know at any given level, can be written on paper and memorized. To go beyond this in the first forty years is too much too soon.;)

Mark

George Ledyard
10th March 2001, 13:21
Originally posted by rossl42
I have two questions that work around a particualar issue, each from a very different perspective.

The first relates to the use of differing terminology by different systems to describe the same concepts. Issues that arise include resultant difficulties in communication between those practicing different systems; methodologies to overcome those difficulties (facilitate the useful exchange of ideas); the possible creation of false associations between unrelated ideas; and whether the choice of labels for / groupings of concepts effects their practical application.

The second relates to how the use of different definitions might effect the performance of techniques. For example, the technique uchimata is sometimes defined as a leg technique and sometimes as a hip technique. Do those who define uchimata as a leg throw perform the technique with greater emphasis on the sweeping action, while those who define it as a hip technique place greater emphasis on the lift or wind? My own feeling is that the categorization does effect the application, but I have no evidence beyond my own observations.

My own feeling about this is that it isn't important. Use of language imparts a verbal association to a technique. If someone else uses that term the student will automatically associate that term with what he already understands that term to mean. This may have little or no relationship to the actual technique being described.

Saotome Sensei barely used technical terminology at all when demonstrating technique. Consequently I am familiar with and can execute many, many techniques for which I have no actual name. Sensei didn't call them anything he just did them. My assistant chief instructor, Kevin Lam, is a student of Imaizumi Sensei. Imaizumi Sensei places a lot of emphasis on learing all the correct Japanese terminolgy. Consequently, I often find myself teaching a technique and asking him to tell the class what it is called. I don't find that it hurts my ability nor does it interefere with my ability to teach. The lack of a term for something means that the students can't make an assumption about what I am doing simply based on a name but must look at what I am really doing.

Joseph Svinth
11th March 2001, 05:01
In psychology, an unbridled passion for naming things is called the Rumpelstiltskin effect. Here it is defined as the delusion that naming something gives you power over it.

In health care, the Rumpelstiltskin effect is the name given to a psychosomatic condition in which the patient, upon being told all the symptoms of a disease, immediately manifests them.

And in astrology, the Rumpelstiltskin effect is described as a logical error resulting from devoting more attention to naming things than doing them.

My point? While definitions are important, fixating on them is not