Subjectivity in Translation: Ḥunayn Ibn Isḥāq’s Ninth-Century Interpretation of Galen’s “Ego” in His Commentary on the Hippocratic Aphorisms

In: Oriens
View More View Less
  • 1 The University of Manchester

This article provides a quantitative analysis of Ḥunayn Ibn Isḥāq’s ninth-century translation of Galen’s Commentary on the Hippocratic Aphorisms. It focuses in particular on the use of first person forms in both source and target texts. The present study categorises these forms into five semantic groups; namely (a) the personal expression of stance, (b) endophoric reference, (c) frame marking, (d) the expression of personal experience and (e) the impersonal expression of intersubjectivity. By employing these categories, the author shows that while Ḥunayn increases the use of personal forms in his translation, he does this to highlight the subjectivity of Galen’s text or enliven the translation, without making the text more subjective.

Abstract

This article provides a quantitative analysis of Ḥunayn Ibn Isḥāq’s ninth-century translation of Galen’s Commentary on the Hippocratic Aphorisms. It focuses in particular on the use of first person forms in both source and target texts. The present study categorises these forms into five semantic groups; namely (a) the personal expression of stance, (b) endophoric reference, (c) frame marking, (d) the expression of personal experience and (e) the impersonal expression of intersubjectivity. By employing these categories, the author shows that while Ḥunayn increases the use of personal forms in his translation, he does this to highlight the subjectivity of Galen’s text or enliven the translation, without making the text more subjective.

1. Introduction

This article explores the first person pronouns and verb forms in Galen’s (d. ca. 216) second-century Greek Commentary on the Hippocratic Aphorisms and in the ninth-century Arabic translation of this text by Ḥunayn Ibn Isḥāq (d. 873).1 The first person forms in these two texts serve five different semantic functions, with varying degrees of subjectivity, namely (a) the personal expression of stance, (b) endophoric reference, (c) frame marking, (d) the expression of personal experience and (e) the impersonal expression of intersubjectivity. By examining both the function and the frequency of the personal forms, I demonstrate that the style of Ḥunayn’s translation is significantly more personal than Galen’s commentary, but not more subjective. The outcomes of this study seem to indicate diverging conventions regarding the expression of subjectivity and stance in scientific writing among two influential scholarly communities in the second and ninth centuries AD.

Many studies of personal forms in academic texts focus on stance and subjectivity in modern English.2 Some, however, focus on historical texts, such as Douglas Biber’s study on stance and development of stance markers in England across time,3 and Susan Fitzmaurice’s work on stance in early eighteenth-century English.4 Irma Taavitsainen examined the extent of personal communication within medieval English medical texts.5 She engages in an analysis of first person pronouns and verbs and their semantic function similar to the present study, through which she demonstrates that medieval English medical texts were less emotive than other genres from the same period, although still showed personal features.

Dwight Atkinson describes early seventeenth-century English scientific writing as involved and author-centered, which according to him was related to what he calls a contemporary genteel discourse. The gentleman “represented a moral and social ideal” around which British society revolved, “and from which power flowed.”6 The presence of these authors in their work gave their statements credibility and authority. However, Foucault has argued that since the middle ages “the doctor has gradually ceased to be himself the locus of the registering and interpretation of information, and because, beside him, outside him, there have appeared masses of documentation, instruments of correlation, and techniques of analysis, which, of course, he makes use of, but which modify his position as an observing subject in relation to the patient.”7

There are fewer similar studies of Ancient Greek and Arabic texts. Caroline Petit has studied Galen’s method of discourse, arguing that Galen employed a personal style obtained by the frequent use of first person-pronouns and verbs.8 She writes that the first-person is “massively present” in Galen’s writings.9 Uwe Vagelpohl analysed Ḥunayn’s translation of the Epidemics, and shows that Ḥunayn adds personal forms to mark Galen’s arguments.10

The present study provides a systematic overview of nearly all personal forms in Galen’s Commentary on the Aphorisms and its Arabic translation, as well as an analysis of their semantic function. Galen’s commentary on the Aphorisms was an influential, widespread text in the medieval period, and is extant in all its seven books in both the Greek source text and Arabic translation. The digital versions of both texts enable a distant reading using search options on the TLG for Galen’s text11 and Sketch Engine12 for the preliminary Arabic edition prepared by Taro Mimura, as well as a close reading of individual instances. This method allows for a systematic demonstration of Ḥunayn’s method of personalisation, which provides further insight into his translation techniques.

2. Theoretical Framework

This study relies on Benveniste’s view on subjectivity in language,13 as well as the pragmatic perspectives of scholars such as Finegan and Taavitsainen.14 According to Benveniste, subjectivity is “the capacity of the speaker to posit himself as a ‘subject.’ ”15 Language enables a subject to become a subject by saying “I,” since the subject, “the ego,” as Benveniste argues, really is ‘he who says “ego.” ’16 This subjectivity is primarily “brought out” by the personal pronouns. Explicit markers of subjectivity in Galen’s text are thus expressions of his authorial ego, such as “I,” or “we,” if “we” is used to refer to the author alone, and in languages such as Greek and Arab where the pronoun can be omitted, first person verb forms themselves. Benveniste writes:

The personal pronouns provide the first step in this bringing out of subjectivity in language. Other classes of pronouns that share the same status depend in their turn upon these pronouns. These other classes are indicators of deixis, the demonstratives, adverbs, and adjectives, which organise the spatial and temporal relationships around the “subject” taken as referent: “this, here, now,” and their numerous correlatives, “that, yesterday, last year, tomorrow,” etc. They have in common the feature of being defined only with respect to the instances of discourse in which they occur, that is, in dependence upon the I which is proclaimed in the discourse.17

The present study primarily considers the first person pronouns and their related verb forms. A systematic analysis of deixis, all expressions depending on the subject of the text, goes beyond the scope of this study. However, I will give some anecdotal examples below which demonstrate that Ḥunayn recognised and marked subjective experiences in Galen’s text, such as “we call this,” which he clarified in his translation with “as the Greeks call it.”

While in Benveniste’s view all first person pronouns are subjective, some personal forms have a more explicit subjective function than others. Not each use of “I” is as strong a reflection of the ego, or contributes to the construction of an authorial self. While subjectivity always first uses the “I” to express itself, the “I” does not always have a subjective function in written discourse. This subjective function involves the more narrowly defined sense of subjectivity which Finegan expresses as the “expression of self and the representation of a speaker’s … perspective or point of view in discourse.”18 In addition to the expression of the personal viewpoint of the author, this definition of subjectivity is also reflected in, as Taavitsainen formulates it, “the emotive and evidential components that pertain to the truth-value of the statement.”19 These components are what scholars define as stance, the authorial attitude towards an utterance.20 While all personal forms in the text are subjective in Benveniste’s sense of the word, only some of them are subjective according to Finegan and Taavitsainen. Expressions of stance, personal argument, and experience have a more subjective function than other expressions, such as endophoric markers, in that they reveal more about the experience and opinion of the author himself. Stance is also visible in other, impersonal, attitudinal expressions, such as “easily,” and “clearly.”

Personal forms that have a cohesive rather than a subjective function are endophoric markers such as “as I have shown,” and “we will discuss later.” Fitzmaurice calls these “linguistic markers that have less to do with participants’ self-expression and more to do with speakers’ concern for the actual conduct of interaction.”21 Similarly, Fox Tree and Schrock write that the personal phrase “I mean,” a phrase which Ḥunayn uses regularly as we shall see presently, functions both as a regulator of conversation as well as an expression of authorial involvement.22 Another instance of a non-subjective use of personal forms is the intersubjective use of the plural pronoun, an example of which is Galen’s use of the phrase “our body” when he refers to the human body in general.

This varying degree of subjectivity which personal verb forms express calls for an analysis of the different purposes for which Galen uses personal forms in his commentary. An analysis of these functions shows how subjective his use of these forms is, and also allows for a more sensitive understanding of Ḥunayn’s way of translating them. To this analytical end, I divide the personal forms in the commentary into five types. The first is category A of personal affect and stance, which includes all verbs that express authorial opinion and attitude towards his utterances. Forms of this type have a clear subjective function. Taavitsainen calls this an “egocentric category” with features that “are clearly self-oriented.”23 Biber and Finegan define affect as “the expression of a broad range of attitudes, including emotions, feelings, moods, and general dispositions.”24 In the present study, this category includes epistemic modal verbs expressing uncertainty, such as “I believe (arā),” “I assume (aḥsabu),” as well as expressions of certainty such as “we know (naʿlamu).” Stance is also expressed by the use of modal adverbs, such as “possibly,” and “likely.”

Category B consists of endophoric markers, such as “as I said before,” which contribute to the cohesion of the commentary. While these forms are personal, their primary function is cohesive rather than subjective.

Category C consists of frame markers. Ken Hyland defines these as verbs which “explicitly refer to discourse acts or text stages,” such as “ ‘we aim to’, ‘we argue’, ‘we conclude’.”25 In this study, frame markers are mostly performative verbs which introduce authorial arguments, explanations, and conclusions, as well as nominative pronouns which mark contrast between the words of the commentator and those of the author on which he comments.

Another subjective category, D, is that of verbs that express personal actions, such as experiments and medical performances. I show that Galen tends to communicate these experiences using first person singular verb forms. Taavitsainen found the same for medieval English medical texts. She argues that “[t]he process of doing scientific experiments is explained as a personal experience, and the author communicates as an individual.”26

Finally, category E consists of intersubjective verbs and pronouns which refer to shared, general objects and knowledge such as “our” in “our body.” These are instances in which the “we” does not refer to the author himself alone, but to a shared subjectivity between author and reader (as in “as we have seen above”), physicians in general (“if the patient is weak we must increase the diet”), or even a shared human experience (in the case of, again, Galen’s “our body”). As I will show below, Ḥunayn is careful to recognise when Galen uses “we” or “our” in this way. He translates these instances impersonally for the sake of clarity, or changes “we” into “the Greeks” when he thinks the “we” only applies to the Greek experience. As we will see below, Ḥunayn employs different translational techniques depending on what function the first person forms have in the text.

Obviously, some functions overlap. For example, “I assume” is a discourse act, but also an epistemic stance marker. Technically, “we call x y” (in the general sense of “x is called y”) is a speech act, but it is also intersubjective. Each of these ambiguous cases I have judged according to their most prominent function in the text, as their categorisation in the discussion below will demonstrate.

The categorisation of personal forms according to these functions facilitates an appreciation of the extent to which each author employs a personal style. Verbs of categories E and D are arguably less personal than the epistemic stance markers of category A or those verbs that express personal experiences in category D. Moreover, this analysis shows that Ḥunayn employs different translational techniques depending on what function the first person forms have in Galen’s text.

The first part of this article discusses the personal pronoun and verb forms that occur in Galen’s commentary, and the second part provides an analysis of these forms in Ḥunayn’s translation.

3. Subjectivity in Galen’s Commentary

In his commentary on the Aphorisms, Galen uses a personal writing style, attested to by a high number of personal pronouns (89 singular and 182 plural, in the different cases) and over 200 first person verb forms.27 Unlike English, Greek can leave out pronouns functioning as subject, and when added they place a certain emphasis on the subject. Table 1 shows the different cases in which the pronouns occur and their frequency.

An analysis of the purpose for which Galen uses these forms shows that he mainly uses the nominative pronouns “I (ἐγώ),” and “we (ἡμεῖς),” with verbs that introduce his arguments and emphasise his own viewpoints in contrast to those of Hippocrates (verbs from category C), and also with verbs that express his experience as a physician (category D). For example, in the following sentence from Book One, Galen contrasts himself with Hippocrates by saying that he has explained the Hippocrates’ passage more elaborately than he has. Thus, he emphasises his personal fund of knowledge and his capability as a commentator.

Table 1Table 1

ὁ τοίνυν Ἱπποκράτης ἐπειδὴ προὔκειτο κατὰ τόδε τὸ βιβλίον αὐτῷ σύντομόν τε καὶ ἀφοριστικὴν ποιεῖσθαι τὴν διδασκαλίαν, οὐχ οὕτως διῆλθεν τὸν λόγον ὡς ἐγὼ νῦν.28

Hippocrates then, since he has set out to make the teaching in his book brief and aphoristic, has not explained the passage thus as I [have] now[.]29

In this case, the Arabic translation translates the pronoun “I” as explicitly to create the same contrast between the author and Hippocrates:

‮فلمّا كان غرض أبقراط في هذا الكتاب أن يستعمل في تعليمه اللإيجاز ومذهب الفصول، لم يشرح قوله في هذا الكتاب كما شرحته أنا في هذا الموضع.‬‎

Since Hippocrates’ goal in this book was to use a concise and aphoristic method of teaching, he has not explained his saying in this book as I have explained it in this place[.]

Galen never explicitly uses the first person singular pronoun to refer to previous or succeeding parts in the text. The plural pronoun “we” does sometimes occur as part of an endophoric reference, but is mostly used to signify Galen’s personal arguments. The genitive singular pronoun occurs only twice, as an agent to passive constructions, such as “the books written by me.” The plural genitive pronoun occurs more frequently in these constructions, for example in the phrase “what is written by us (γεγραμμένον ὑφ’ ἡμῶν).” It also occurs as part of genitive absolutes, such as “since we know (γινωσκόντων ἡμῶν).” Galen moreover tends to refer to “the body” with the personal phrase “our body,” which Ḥunayn tends to translate impersonally with “the body.”

Table 2Table 2

Galen also regularly uses the accusative pronoun “us” in phrases such as “Hippocrates has taught us.” The dative pronouns “by me” and “by us” occur as agents to passive perfect verbs (Table 2). Galen uses this construction especially frequently (42 times) as part of the epistemic stance marker “it seems to me (μοι δοκει),” which marks a certain degree of reservation towards a truth statement.

Besides these pronouns, one can obtain a more comprehensive insight into Galen’s use of first person forms when looking at the first person verb forms themselves. Table 3 shows the most prominent first person verb forms (occurring four times or more) in Galen’s commentary. Galen uses over 185 active first person verb forms, with a preference for plural forms. His most frequent verbs are verbs of saying (λέγω and φημί) and knowing (οἶδα).

Despite the similar semantic meaning of most of these verbs, a closer look shows that they have different functions within the commentary. The most frequent singular form is ἔφην (“I said”), which occurs 15 times as part of Galen’s common endophoric formula ὡς ἔφην (“as I said”). In contrast, Galen uses the present tense form λέγω (“I mean,” “I say”), as a frame marker to introduce arguments and explanations (8 times). For example, Galen uses “I mean” as a discourse act in the following argument from his comment on Aphorisms ii.23:

Table 3Table 3

λέγω δ’ ἀνωμάλους ἐχόντων τὰς κινήσεις, ὅσαι τισὶν ἡμέραις σφοδρωθέντα μετὰ ταῦτα ἀσήμως ἐῤῥᾳστώνησαν, εἶτ’ αὖθις ἐξαυξηθέντα τὴν συνέχειαν ἔλαβεν.30

By “diseases with irregular movements” I mean those that become slightly less painful after having been very intense for some days, and then, having increased again, adopt coherence.

In addition to μοι δοκεῖ, Galen uses verbs of knowing, such as οἶδα and γινώσκω, to mark epistemic stance. For instance, to express the fact that he does not know something, Galen typically uses the singular phrase “I do not know (οὐκ οἶδα).” He does so for example in this sentence from his comment on Aphorisms vii.40:

διὰ τί δὲ ἐξαίφνης γινόμενα ταῦτα μελαγχολικὰ ὑπάρχειν φησὶν οὐκ οἶδα.31

Why [Hippocrates] says that these [symptoms] are melancholic when they happen suddenly I do not know.

Galen uses the form ἴσμεν (“we know”), which is the most prominent we-form in his commentary, to refer to knowledge he presumes is shared between him and the reader. However, even with this intersubjective function, ἴσμεν is still an epistemic stance marker, as it signals Galen’s stance towards his prepositions. The subjective function of some of Galen’s other first person plural verb forms is more debatable. For instance, Galen sometimes uses the verb λέγομεν (“we say,” or “we call”) to introduce his own argument or explanation. However, he more frequently uses it intersubjectively (category E) in instances where the “we” refers to a larger community sharing the same experience. Such forms Ḥunayn translates with impersonal passive constructions, to clarify that they are not merely an expression of Galen’s opinion nor of a Greek experience, but more objective truth statements. Consider for example the following sentence from Galen’s comment on Aphorisms iv.2, in which Galen uses the form λέγομεν:

Αὐτόματα κενοῦσθαι λέγομεν ἐκ τοῦ σώματος ὅσα χωρὶς τοῦ πρᾶξαί τι τὸν ἰατρὸν ἐκκρίνεται.32

We call purging from the body “spontaneous” when it happens without a doctor doing anything in particular.

Ḥunayn translates this sentence with a passive construction:

‮يقال إنّ الشيء يستفرغ من تلقاء نفسه من البدن إذا كان استفراغه يكون من غير أن يكون الطبيب فعل شيئاً.‬‎

It is said that something is purged from the body “spontaneously” if its purging happens without the doctor doing anything.

Galen tends to use singular verb forms to express personal experiences (category D). The following paragraph from Book Six illustrates this:

τὸ μὲν γὰρ ὅτι πάντως εἰσί τινες τῶν ὀδυνωμένων ὀφθαλμοὺς, οἱ μὲν ἀκρητοποσίαις, οἱ δὲ λουτροῖς ὠνηνάμενοι, πιστεύων Ἱπποκράτει ἐπεπείσμην. οὐ γὰρ ἂν ἔγραψεν αὐτὸ μὴ θεασάμενος, οὐ μὴν ὑπό γε τῶν διδασκάλων τινὸς ἐθεασάμην ποτὲ τοιοῦτον βοήθημα προσενεχθὲν κάμνοντι. ζητήσας οὖν πάσας τὰς διαθέσεις, ἐφ’ αἷς ἀναγκαῖόν ἐστιν, οὐ κατὰ τὸν ὀφθαλμὸν μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ κατ’ ἄλλα μόρια γίνεσθαι τὰς ὀδύνας, εἶτ’ ἐμαυτὸν πείσας εὑρηκέναι. τοὐντεῦθεν ἐσκεψάμην αὐτῶν τὰ γνωρίσματα, κἀπειδὴ καὶ περὶ τούτων ἐπείσθην, ἐτόλμησα προσαγαγεῖν τὰ βοηθήματα τοῖς ὀδυνωμένοις·33

For I believed Hippocrates, and was persuaded that some of those with eye pain absolutely [benefit] from drinking pure wine, and some of them [benefit from] bathing. For Hippocrates would not write this if he had not seen it, even though I have not seen any of my teachers administer a similar treatment to a patient [with eye pain]. Therefore, I searched for all the cases in which pains occur necessarily, not only in the eye but also in other organs, until I convinced myself I had discovered them all. I then searched for their symptoms, and when I was sure that I knew them as well, I proceeded to use this type of treatment for patients with eye pain.

Galen regularly (about 80 times) uses both first person forms to mark epistemic stance, especially the phrase μοι δοκεῖ and the personal forms of οἶδα. Roughly an equal amount of times he uses endophoric markers, which arguably have a less subjective function. Frame markers (around 60), verbs of personal experience (around 40), and intersubjective we-forms (less than 40) are each less frequent.

4. Subjectivity in Ḥunayn’s Translation

Ḥunayn uses personal forms more than three times more frequently than Galen. His translation contains over 730 of these forms, while Galen’s use of them lies around 200. Unlike Galen, Ḥunayn prefers singular forms over plural forms. While in Arabic, as in Greek, the nominative pronoun is usually omitted, Ḥunayn still uses it considerably more than Galen, using anā (“I”) 52 times, and naḥnu (“we”) 35 times, besides his use of pronominal suffixes.

Ḥunayn’s personal style is arguably part of a translation strategy which aims to render the Greek text as correctly and clearly as possible. A closer examination of the functions of the personal verb forms in Ḥunayn’s translation will explain in detail why Ḥunayn uses these forms with such regularity. I will show that by his frequent use of personal forms, Ḥunayn does not necessarily make Galen’s text more subjective. Rather, he carefully emphasises the fact that Galen’s text is subjective. Table 4 shows all first person verb forms which occur four times or more in Ḥunayn’s translation.

Table 4Table 4

The form aʿnī (“I mean”) accounts for a high number of Ḥunayn’s personal forms. Besides this form, he uses epistemic stance markes such arā (“I believe”), endophoric markers such as waṣafnā (“we have described”), and verbs of personal experience such as waǧadnā (“we found”). Finally, he even uses naǧidu (“we find”) with an intersubjective meaning. I shall now discuss each of these semantic functions, starting with Ḥunayn’s most frequent category; that of endophoric markers.

4.1. Category B: Endophoric markers

Most of Ḥunayn’s first person verbs (about 286) are endophoric markers, and not stance markers as in Galen’s commentary. Ḥunayn preserves most of Galen’s first person endophoric markers. For example, Galen’s most frequent endophoric phrase “as I said (ὡς ἔφην),” Ḥunayn mostly translates with kamā qultu. When this phrase does not translate ὡς ἔφην, five times it translate an impersonal, passive verb form, as in book one, where kamā qultu qablu translates “as has been previously said (ὡς προείρηται).”34 I will give more examples below of Ḥunayn’s tendency to both activise and personalise Galen’s impersonal passive constructions. Ḥunayn adds the plural “as we have said (kamā qulnā)” to the text five times in Book One alone. For example, in his comment on Aphorisms i.2, he writes:

‮فقوله هذا إنّما هو كما قلنا في كيفية ما يستفرغ.‬‎

He says this, as we said, about the quality of what is being purged.

Here, the Greek source text is impersonal:

ὁ μὲν δὴ λόγος αὐτῷ νῦν ἐστι περὶ ποιότητος τῶν κενουμένων.35

His statement is about the quality of what is being emptied.

Ḥunayn translates Galen’s other endophoric markers, such as “we said (εἴπομεν),” and “we have shown (ἐδείξαμεν),” with grammatically similar forms such as qulnā and bayyannā. In the following translation from Book One, Ḥunayn’s first person plural verb forms correspond to the same forms in Galen:

ἀλλὰ τῆς μὲν ποιότητος τὰς διαγνώσεις ἔμπροσθεν εἴπομεν, ἡνίκα τὸν ἀφορισμὸν ἐξηγούμεθα.36

But the symptoms of the quality [of the purging] we have mentioned before, when we explained the aphorism.

‮وقد وصفنا العلامات التي يستدلّ بها على كيفية الاستفراغ قبل في تفسيرنا للفصل.‬‎

We have already described the symptoms by which the quality of the purging is judged before in our explanation of the aphorism.

However, the translation of Galen’s personal endophoric markers does not fully account for the high number of these verbs in Ḥunayn’s translation. Where do these other forms come from? The answer lies in the fact that Ḥunayn consistently transforms Galen’s passive constructions into active sentences. He tends to make passive constructions with a first person agent (constructions such as “it is shown by us (ἡμῖν δέδεικται)” and “it is said by us (εἴρηται ἡμῖν)”) active. He typically translates the former with the plural active “we have shown (bayyannā)” and the latter with “we have said (qulnā).” More importantly, Ḥunayn tends to translate passive verb forms that occur without a personal agent, such as “it has been shown (δέδεικται),” with personal active forms as well. He does this for example in his translation of the following passive clause from Aphorisms i.1. Ḥunayn translates the phrase “as is shown in the commentary to this book (ὡς ἐν τῇ κατ’ ἐκεῖνο τὸ βιβλίον ἐξηγήσει δείκνυται)” with the active sentence “as we will clarify in our commentary on this book (kamā sa-nubayyinu fī tafsīrinā li-ḏālika l-kitābi).”37 Another example is the form waṣafnā (“we described”), which renders a Greek first person verb form in only five of the 14 times it occurs in Book One. It translates a passive impersonal Greek construction in the nine remaining instances.

Ḥunayn also activises passive participles. For example, in this sentence from Galen’s commentary on Aphorisms i.1, Ḥunayn uses “the things that we have mentioned (al-ʾašiyāʾ alatī ḏakarnāhā)” to translate “the things that have been mentioned (τῶν εἰρημένων).”

‮وليس يعسر أن تتبّين صّحة كلّ واحد من هذه الأشياء التي ذكرناها بإيجاز واختصار.‬‎

It is not difficult for the truth of these things that we have mentioned to be shown briefly and concisely.

ὅτι δ’ ἀληθές ἐστιν ἕκαστον τῶν εἰρημένων, οὐ χαλεπὸν ἐπιδεῖξαι διὰ βραχέων.38

That each of the things that have been mentioned are the truth, is not difficult to be shown in short statements.

Ḥunayn’s active, personalised endophoric markers do not necessarily make his translation more subjective. By using these forms he does not, for instance, add authorial stance or personal experiences. The personal forms in his translation rather assign the referential acts in the commentary more obviously to the author, Galen. Thus, besides their cohesive function of connecting text segments, their function in Ḥunayn’s translation is also to stress the subjectivity of the text and to clarify the role of the author in these sentences.

4.2. Category C: Frame markers

Ḥunayn uses frame markers in more than 200 instances, roughly as much as the total amount of first person verb forms in Galen’s text. Many of these markers in Ḥunayn’s text do not have a Greek equivalent. For example, Ḥunayn’s most prominent first person verb form aʿnī does translate Galen’s frame marker λέγω (“I mean,” “I argue”). However, this form occurs only eight times in Galen’s commentary while Ḥunayn uses its Arabic equivalent 116 times. In most of the remaining instances there is either no equivalent in the Greek at all, or Ḥunayn uses aʿnī to translate the impersonal Greek τουτέστι (“that is”). Ḥunayn thus uses it to transform impersonal Greek phrases to personal Arabic sentences. He does this for instance in this sentence from Book One:

σκοπὸς δὲ τοῦ ποσοῦ τῆς κενώσεως οὐ τὸ πλεονάζον μόνον, ἀλλὰ καὶ ἡ φύσις ἂν εἴη, τουτέστιν ἡ δύναμις τοῦ κενουμένου ἀνθρώπου.39

The objective of purging should not only be [determined] according to what is superfluous, but also according to the nature, that is the strength of the man who is purged.

‮وليس ينبغي أن يكون الغرض في تقدير ما يستفرغ مقدار كثرة الشيء الغالب فقط دون طبيعة البدن. أعني بالطبيعة قوّة بدن الانسان الذي يستفرغ.‬‎

The objective of purging should not only be determined according to the quantity of what is superfluous, irrespective of the nature of the body. By “nature” I mean [here] the strength of the body of the person who is being purged.

However, while Ḥunayn makes this sentence personal, his “I mean” here does not add authorial stance to the text, but merely functions to introduce the reformulation of the word “nature.” In fact, Ḥunayn’s “I mean” only introduces a subjective argument when Galen also does so in the Greek, by using a form such as λέγω. This expression often does not have a subjective function, but is rather a habitual phrase, which tends to stress that some impersonally expressed explanations in the Greek are actually subjective explanations by Galen himself.

In the case of other verbs which Galen uses to express authorial discourse acts, such as “I define (διοριοῦμαι),” Ḥunayn’s translation grammatically mirrors the Greek. In the following example from the comment on Aphorisms i.15, Galen argues that Hippocrates has not been clear enough about what he means by “spring,” and that he himself will define it more clearly. By his explicit use of the pronoun ἐγὼ and the personal verb form διοριοῦμαι, Galen creates a contrast between himself and Hippocrates. Ḥunayn literally translates both the pronoun and the verb form:

διὸ καὶ περὶ τοῦ ἦρος, ἀδιοριστότερον εἰπόντος Ἱπποκράτους ἐγὼ διοριοῦμαι, πρῶτον μὲν ὅτι κατὰ τὴν ἀρχὴν ὅμοιόν ἐστι μᾶλλον κράσει χειμῶνος ἢ θέρους, ἐπὶ δὲ τῆς τελευτῆς ἔμπαλιν. εἶθ’ ὅτι πολλάκις μὲν οἷον χειμῶνος γίνεται ψυχρὸν εἶθ’ ὅτι δὲ οἷόν περ θέρος θερμόν.40

Because Hippocrates has spoken very vaguely about the spring, I define it clearly, first, that at the beginning it is more similar in its temperature to winter than summer, and towards the end the opposite. And that it either frequently becomes cold like winter, or warm like summer.

‮ولذلك إذ كان أبقراط لم يحدّد قوله في الربيع التحديد الذي ينبغي فإنّي أنا أحدّه فأقول أوّلاً إنّ الربيع في أوّله أشبه في مزاجه بالشتاء منه بالصيف وفي آخره بالعكس. ثمّ أقول إنّ الربيع ربّما كان أيضاً بالجملة بارداً يشبه الشتاء، وربّما كان حاراً يشبه الصيف.‬‎

Therefore, since Hippocrates did not define “in spring” the way he should have, I define it. I say first that the beginning of spring is more like winter than summer, in terms of its temperament, and its end the opposite. Furthermore, I say that spring might be completely cold, similar to winter, and it might be warm like summer.

This example also shows two instances in which Ḥunayn adds “I say.” He uses this frame marker to emphasise that the definitions are Galen’s, and also, as Uwe Vagelpohl argues in his study of the translation of the Epidemics, to “clarify the flow of Galen’s argument.”41 The form aqūlu occurs 59 times in Ḥunayn’s translation with a similar function. Although it mostly does not have a Greek equivalent, it explicitly marks arguments that already are marked as Galen’s in the Greek text. Therefore, Ḥunayn’s use of aqūlu does not make his translation more subjective either. Instead, it stresses that Galen’s commentary is in fact subjective.

Ḥunayn sometimes changes the grammatical number of Galen’s verb forms. For instance, in Galen’s comment on Aphorisms vi.46, Ḥunayn translates the plural “ἐροῦμεν (we will argue),” with the singular “aṣifu (I describe)”:

νῦν δ’ ἡμεῖς ἐροῦμεν ὅσα χρήσιμά εἰσιν εἰς τὸν προκείμενον ἀφορισμόν.42

We will now say what is necessary about the present aphorism.

‮وأمّا في هذا الموضع فإنّي أصف ما يحتاج إليه منه في تفسير هذا الفصل.‬‎

As to this passage, I [here] describe what is necessary for the explanation of this aphorism.

4.3. Category A: Stance

The most frequent way Galen marks personal stance is the construction “it seems to me (μοι δοκεῖ).” Ḥunayn mostly translates this with the verb form arā (“I see” or “I believe”). He occasionally also translates it with “I say (aqūlu),” or “I think (aẓunnu),” and sometimes with the prepositional construction ʿindī (“in my opinion”). An example of the latter is found in the comment on Aphorisms ii.21, where Hippocrates says that drinking relieves hunger. Galen carefully explains how one should understand the word “hunger”:

ὅσοι δ’ ἡγοῦνται τὸν καλούμενον βούλιμον εἰρῆσθαι λιμὸν νῦν ὑφ’ Ἱπποκράτους, ἀλογώτερόν μοι δοκοῦσιν ἀκούειν τοῦ λόγου[.]43

They who believe that what is now said by Hippocrates about hunger refers to what is called ‘Boulimos’, seem to me to understand his argument very irrationally.

‮فأمّا من ظنّ أنّ أبقراط إنّما عنى في هذا الموضع بالجوع العلّة التي يسمّيها اليونانيون بوليموس فقد بعد جدًّا عندي عن فهم ما أراد أبقراط.‬‎

Who thinks that Hippocrates meant here by ‘hunger’ the disease which the Greek call ‘būlīmūs’, is very far, in my opinion, from understanding what Hippocrates meant.

It is also worth noting the translation of deixis in this sentence, when Ḥunayn translates Galen’s seemingly neutral τὸν καλούμενον, “what is called,” with “the disease which the Greeks call.”

Ḥunayn renders other instances of stance in Galen’s text with equal accuracy. For example, he loyally translates the Greek stance marker “we know (ἴσμεν),” with either a perfect or imperfect tense of “to know (naʿlamu/ʿalimnā).” The same is true for the singular “I know (οἶδα),” which he either translates with aʿlam or adrī (both mean “I know”). Moreover, when Galen adds an implicit stance marker, as he does in his comment on Aphorisms i.1, Ḥunayn renders this explicitly. In this passage, Galen writes that it is “among the difficult things” to know what Hippocrates intends in the first aphorism. Ḥunayn emphasises this qualification by adding the phrase “it is difficult for us to know (yaʿsuru an naʿlama)”:

Ὅτι μὲν οὖν οὗτος ὁ λόγος, εἴθ’ εἷς ἀφορισμός ἐστιν εἴτε δύο, προοίμιον ὑπάρχει τοῦ παντὸς συγγράμματος ὡμολόγηται σχεδὸν ἅπασι τοῖς ἐξηγησαμένοις αὐτόν. τί δὲ βουλόμενος ὁ Ἱπποκράτης ἐχρήσατο τοιούτῳ προοιμίῳ τῶν ἀπορωτάτων ἐστί. τάχα δ’ ἂν εὕροιμεν αὐτὸ, τὰ κατὰ μέρος ἅπαντα τοῦ λόγου προδιασκεψάμενοι.44

That this passage, whether it is one aphorism or two, serves as an introduction to this whole book, is agreed upon by nearly all those who have interpreted it. What Hippocrates meant when he used this introduction is something very difficult. However, we may find it, when we examine all of this passage part by part.

‮قال جالينوس: قد اتّفق جلّ من فسّر هذا الكتاب على أنّ هذا القول فصلاً واحداً كان أو فصلين فهو صدر لهذا الكتاب كلّه، لكنّه يعسر أن نعلم ما الذي أراده أبقراط باستعماله هذا الصدر. ولعّلنا نقف على ذلك إن نحن تقدّمنا فعلمنا فبحثنا عن جميع ما في هذا القول شيئاً شيئاً.‬‎

Galen said: Most commentators on this book agreed that this passage, whether one takes it as one aphorism or two, introduces the whole book. However, it is difficult for us to know what Hippocrates meant by using this introduction. Perhaps we will discover this, once we first learn and inquire into everything in this passage one by one.

In three instances, Ḥunayn leaves Galen’s expressions of stance untranslated. In the following example from Galen’s commentary on Aphorisms Book One, Ḥunayn does not translate Galen’s phrase “as much as I can (εἰς ὅσον δύναμαι),” with a similar first person form in Arabic:

ἐγὼ δ’ εἰς μόρια τέμνων ἐξηγοῦμαι εἰς ὅσον δύναμαι σαφηνείας ἕνεκα.45

I then, having divided it into parts, explain as much as I can for the sake of clearness.

‮وأمّا أنا فإنّي إنّما جزّئته وفسّرته جزئاً جزئاً ليكون أبين وأوضح.‬‎

And as far as I am concerned, I have divided it and explained it part by part, so that it would be clear and explicit.

Ḥunayn possibly left out εἰς ὅσον δύναμαι because he conceived this expression as an unnecessary emphasis on Galen’s limitations, and possibly because it was not present in the source text from which Ḥunayn made his translation.

Finally, Ḥunayn 16 times uses the verb form aḥsabu (“I think,” “I assume”), especially in paragraphs in which he adds his own ideas to the translation.

4.4. Category D: Verbs of Personal Experience

At several places in his commentary, Galen relates of his own experiences and actions as a physician. In these cases, he usually uses first person verb forms, such as “we have seen this among patients.” Ḥunayn preserves these forms, as he does in the following sentence, where he translates the Greek plural πεπειράμεθα (“we have tried out”), with the Arabic ǧarrabnā.

καὶ ἡμεῖς πάνυ πολλάκις πεπειράμεθα τῶν τοιούτων κενώσεων ἰσχυρῶς ὠφελουσῶν.46

And we have tested these ways of purging many times [and found that they] are extremely useful.

‮وقد جرّبنا هذا الاستفراغ مرارًا كثيرة لا تحصى فوجدناه ينفع منفعة قوية.‬‎

And we have tried this purging on numerous occasions and we found it to be extremely useful.

Galen uses plural and singular forms with this function intermittently. In the following example, he uses the singular “εὗρόν (I have discovered),” which only occurs once in the commentary. Ḥunayn translates it with “waǧadtu (I have found),” a form that occurs about 18 times in his commentary:

εὗρόν γε μὴν ἔν τισι τῶν ἀντιγράφων καὶ ταύτην γεγραμμένην.47

I have found this passage [about melancholy] also in one of his previous writings.

‮وقد وجدت في نسخة من النسخ في عداد أمراض أصحاب هذا السنّ الوسواس السوداوي.‬‎

I have found melancholy [mentioned] in one of the manuscripts about the diseases of people of this age.

The most prominent verb expressing personal experience in Ḥunayn’s translation is the verb “to see,” which he uses in both plural (raʾaynā, 18 times) and singular (raʾaytu, 33 times), to translate the personal Greek forms ἐθεασάμην, “I have seen” (5 times), τεθέαμαι, “I have seen” (3 times), εἴδομεν, “we have seen” (4 times), ἑωράκαμέν, “we have seen” (3 times), and τεθεάμεθα, “we have seen” (once). By way of illustration, in the following sentence from Galen’s comment on Aphorisms iv.72, Ḥunayn translates ἐθεασάμην with raʾaytu:

ἐθεασάμην γοῦν ἐγὼ σπανιάκις τὸ τοιοῦτον σημεῖον ἐν ἄλλαις ἡμέραις παρὰ τὴν τετάρτην.48

In a few instances, I have seen this symptom [occur] on other days than the fourth.

‮وقد رأيت مراراً ليست بالكثيرة هذه العلامة قد ظهرت في أيّام أخر غير الرابع.‬‎

In a few instances, I have seen this symptom appear during days other than the fourth.

Ḥunayn also uses “we have seen” also when Galen does not, for example when he intends to clarify that Galen is the one who has witnessed a particular phenomenon, when Galen uses an impersonal passive construction in his commentary. For instance, the passive form ὦπται (“it has been seen”), in Galen’s comment on Aphorisms v.13, Ḥunayn translates active, with raʾaynā (“we have seen”):

πολλάκις γὰρ ὦπται πτύσις αἵματος ἀφρώδους ἄνευ πλήθους γεγενημένη.49

For many times a spitting of a small amount of frothy blood has been seen.

‮و ذلك أنّا قد رأينا مراراً كثيرة من قذف من رئته دمّاً زبدياً ليس بالكثير.‬‎

For we have often seen someone spit a small amount of frothy blood from his lungs.

Ḥunayn furthermore uses raʾaynā to translate impersonal forms such as “it appears (φαίνεταί),” and frequently, too, as an addition to the text.

The verb form naǧidu (“we find”), is Ḥunayn’s most prominent first person plural form (62 times). Ḥunayn sometimes uses this form to narrate his personal experience, especially in those parts of his translation where he adds paragraphs with his own thoughts, which he introduces with “qāla Ḥunayn (Ḥunayn says).” He does so for instance in his comment on Aphorisms vi.32, which is an aphorism about lisps. In this comment, Ḥunayn uses naǧidu up to six times to relate of the types of lips he has encountered, or which “we find the Greeks did not know.” However, as we will see below, Ḥunayn also frequently uses this form to personalise Greek passive constructions.

4.5. Category E: Impersonal verbs

One category of first person forms Ḥunayn impersonalises rather than personalises. These are forms which Galen uses to express intersubjective, shared experiences, such as “our body.” Ḥunayn generally translates this particular phrase impersonally, as he does in the following sentence from the commentary on Aphorisms Book One:

εὐμετάβλητον γὰρ ἡμῶν τὸ σῶμα καὶ ῥᾳδίως ἀλλοιούμενον.50

For our body is easily changed and readily altered.

‮وذلك لأنّ البدن سريع الاستحالة سهل التغيّر.‬‎

For the body changes quickly and easily transforms.

Ḥunayn does the same when he translates the phrase “none of us (οὐδεὶς ἡμῶν),” with “none of the people (laysa aḥadun mina n-nāsi),” as in the following example from Book One:

οὐδεὶς γὰρ ἡμῶν ἱκανός ἐστι συστήσασθαί τε ἅμα καὶ τελειῶσαι τὴν τέχνην …51

For none of us is competent to acquire and at the same time complete this art …

‮وذلك أنّه ليس أحد من الناس يقوى على أن يستخرج هذه الصناعة ويستتمّها عن آخره …‬‎

For none of the people [not a single person] is able to accomplish this art and fulfil it completely …

Hunayn often translates verbs related to medical actions, which Galen expresses in first person, such as “we should give [food] (δώσομεν [τροφὴν]),” with the third person singular passive form yuʿṭā (“it should be given”). Admittedly, this form could easily be read with a nūn of the first person as well. It is possible, then, that this example is the result of a scribal alteration, as there are instances in which this verb is unambiguously used in a first person form “we give (nuʿṭī).”

Two further examples involving personal forms deserve attention. Ḥunayn translates a first person plural verb in Greek with a second person singular in Arabic. In this brief passage from Galen’s commentary on Aphorisms Book I, it is possibly that Ḥunayn understands Galen’s “we” as intersubjective, as a shared experience between reader and author.

Εἰ τῶν ἔμπροσθεν εἰρημένων αὐτῷ περὶ διαίτης ἀναμνησθείημεν, ἐναργεστέρα ἡμῖν ἡ χρεία φανεῖται νῦν τῶν λεγομένων.52

If we remember the things that were said before by him about diets, the clear need of these words now becomes clear to us.

‮إن كنت ذاكراً لما تقدّم قول أبقراط في تدبير الغذاء فإنّ الحاجة إلى ما قاله في هذا الفصل يكون عندك أبين.‬‎

If you remember what preceded Hippocrates’ passage about diets, then the need for what he says in this aphorism should be clear for you.

By using the second person singular, Ḥunayn urges the reader more emphatically to remember the preceding passages.

Finally, in the case of at least one verb Ḥunayn does the opposite: he personalises an objective, impersonal Greek phrase with a first person form that has no subjective function. This is the form naǧidu (“we find”), which was discussed earlier in relation to its personal meaning. For instance, when Galen refers to something written in another book, he sometimes uses a passive construction, such as “this is written (ταυτὶ γέγραπται).” Ḥunayn translates this with naǧidu, for example in Galen’s commentary on Aphorisms Book Six, “we find this statement written (fa-naǧidu hāḏā l-qawla maktūban).” In translations such as this, the personal form naǧidu does not have a subjective function.

5. Conclusion

The systematic study of the personal forms in Galen’s commentary and Ḥunayn’s translation demonstrates that the Arabic text is considerably more personal, even when taking into account the fact that Ḥunayn impersonalises some of the personal forms in Galen. Galen uses personal forms for different purposes, for instance to create a contrast between himself and Hippocrates, and to emphasise his own opinion. He also uses these forms to express his personal experiences, and also more idiomatically to refer to other places in the text. Finally, some personal forms in Galen’s commentary have a general, intersubjective function. Ḥunayn loyally follows Galen’s use of personal forms with these functions, except of verbs in category (e), which he tends to impersonalise.

An analysis of the different functions shows that the majority of the personal forms in Galen’s text consists of stance markers, while in Ḥunayn’s translation endophoric markers are most prominent. For all semantic groups, except category (e) of objective personal forms, Ḥunayn adds a considerable amount of personal forms to otherwise impersonal sentences in the source text. He especially tends to transform impersonal passives, or other impersonal constructions, into active personal constructions. This tendency accounts for a considerable amount of the personal forms in his translation of Galen’s Aphorisms commentary. Moreover, Ḥunayn adds numerous “I mean”-phrases, possibly out of habit, but perhaps also to enliven the text by expressing authorial involvement.

In this article, I have argued that Ḥunayn’s main reason for adding personal forms is to clarify the subjectivity of Galen’s text, and to stress the instances in which opinions or actions are actually Galen’s (at least according to Ḥunayn’s interpretation), when Galen uses a passive or impersonal expression in Greek. The Greek reader communities in the second century seemed used to impersonal, passive expressions, whereas Arabic audiences in the ninth century appear to have appreciated active sentences. The fact that Ḥunayn’s translation is more personal does not mean that his text is more subjective. In his translation, Ḥunayn emphasises the subjectivity of Galen’s text and clarifies whenever statements or actions belong to him. Aside from the instances in which Ḥunayn adds his own opinion to particular comments, his personal forms highlight rather than create a subjective voice in Galen’s commentary.

Bibliography

Atkinson, Dwight. Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 1675–1975. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1999.

Benveniste, Emile. “Subjectivity in Language.” Problems in General Linguistics 1 (1971): 223–30.

Biber, Douglas. “Historical Patterns for the Grammatical Marking of Stance: A Cross-Register Comparison.” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5 (2004): 107–36.

Biber, Douglas. and Edward Finegan. “Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect.” Text 9 (1989): 93–124.

Finegan, Edward. “Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: an Introduction.” In Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives. Edited by Dieter Stein and Susan Wright, 1–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005.

Fitzmaurice, Susan. “The grammar of stance in early eighteenth-century English epistolary language.” In Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use. Edited by Charles Meyer and Pepi Leistyna, 107–32. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2003.

Foucault, Michel. The Archaeology of Knowledge. Translated by Rupert Swyer. London: Tavistock Publications Ltd., 1972.

Fox Tree, Jean E. and Josef C. Schrock. “Basic Meanings of you know and I mean.” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002): 727–47.

Galen. Tafsīr Ǧālīnūs li-fuṣūl Abuqrāṭ. Translated by Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq (d. 873). Edited by Taro Mimura. The University of Manchester, 2012–2017. doi: ab.1234/ref:cdef/5678.

Harwood, Nigel. “ ‘Nowhere has Anyone Attempted … In this Article I Aim to Do Just That’, a Corpus-based Study of Self-promotional I and We in Academic Writing Across Four Disciplines.” Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005): 1207–31.

Hyland, Ken. “Authority and Invisibility: Authorial Identity in Academic Writing.” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002): 1091–1112.

Hyland, Ken. “Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 30 (1998), 437–55.

Kilgarriff, A. et al. “The Sketch Engine: Ten Years On.” Lexicography (2004): 1–30.

Kuo, Chih-Hua. “The Use of Personal Pronouns: Role Relationships in Scientific Journal Articles.” English for Specific Purposes 18 (1999), 121–38.

Kühn, Karl G. Galeni Opera Omnia, 20 vols. Leipzig: Libraria Car. Cnoblochii, 1821–1833.

Martínez, Iliana A. “Native and Non-Native Writers’ Use of First Person Pronouns in the Different Sections of Biology Research Articles in English.” Journal of Second Language Writing 4 (2005): 174–90.

Petit, Caroline. “Galien et le discours de la méthode: rhétorique(s) médicale(s) à l’ époque romaine (Ier–IIe siècle de notre ère).” In La rhétorique médicale à travers les siècles: actes du colloque international de Paris, 9 et 10 octobre 2008, edited by Joel Coste, Danielle Jacquart, and Jackie Pigeaud, 49–75. Paris: Droz, 2012.

Taavitsainen, Irma. “Subjectivity as a Text-type Marker in Historical Stylistics.” Language and Literature 3 (1994): 197–212.

Vagelpohl, Uwe. Galeni In Hippocratis Epidemiarum Librum I Commentariorum IIII Versionem Arabicam/Galen Commentary on Hippocrates’ Epidemics Book I Parts IIII: Edition of the Arabic Version [CMG Suppl. Or. V.1]. Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014.

Webb, Christine. “The Use of the First Person in Academic Writing: Objectivity, Language and Gatekeeping.” Journal of Advanced Nursing 17 (1992): 747–52.

1

For Ḥunayn’s translation I have relied on the preliminary edition prepared by Taro Mimura, Hiroshima University: Galen, Tafsīr Ǧālīnūs li-fuṣūl Abuqrāṭ, trans. Ḥunayn ibn Isḥāq (d. 873), ed. Taro Mimura (The University of Manchester, 2012–2017), doi’s: Commentary on Book i, http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/51689293; Commentary on Book ii, http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/51689327; Commentary on Book iii, http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/51689446; Commentary on Book iv, http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/51931732; Commentary on Book v, http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/51931800; Commentary on Book vi, http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/51931843; Commentary on Book vii, http://dx.doi.org/10.3927/51931881. All Arabic texts in this article are from this edition.

2

For example, see Nigel Harwood, “ ‘Nowhere has Anyone Attempted … In this Article I Aim to Do Just That’, a Corpus-based Study of Self-promotional I and We in Academic Writing Across Four Disciplines,” Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005): 1207–31. Iliana A. Martínez, “Native and Non-Native Writers’ Use of First Person Pronouns in the Different Sections of Biology Research Articles in English,” Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005): 174–90. Ken Hyland, “Authority and Invisibility: Authorial Identity in Academic Writing,” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002): 1091–112. Chih-Hua Kuo, “The Use of Personal Pronouns: Role Relationships in Scientific Journal Articles,” English for Specific Purposes 18 (1990): 121–38. Christine Webb, “The Use of the First Person in Academic Writing: Objectivity, Language and Gatekeeping,” Journal of Advanced Nursing 17 (1992): 747–52.

3

Douglas Biber, “Historical Patterns for the Grammatical Marking of Stance: A Cross-Register Comparison,” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5 (2004): 107–36.

4

Susan Fitzmaurice, “The grammar of stance in early eighteenth-century English epistolary language,” in Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use, eds. Charles Meyer and Pepi Leistyna. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2003, 107–32.

5

Irma Taavitsainen, “Subjectivity as a Text-type Marker in Historical Stylistics,” Language and Literature 3 (1994): 197–212.

6

Dwight Atkinson, Scientific Discourse in Sociohistorical Context: The Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London 1675–1975 (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum 1999), xxvi.

7

Michel Foucault, The Archaeology of Knowledge, trans. Rupert Swyer (London: Tavistock Publications Ltd. 1972), 33.

8

Caroline Petit, “Galien et le discours de la méthode: rhétorique(s) médicale(s) à l’ époque romaine (Ier–IIe siècle de notre ère),” in La rhétorique médicale à travers les siècles: actes du colloque international de Paris, 9 et 10 octobre 2008, ed. by Joel Coste, Danielle Jacquart, and Jackie Pigeaud. Paris: Droz, 2012, 49–75.

9

Petit, “Galien et le discours,” 59.

10

Uwe Vagelpohl, Galeni In Hippocratis Epidemiarum Librum I Commentariorum IIII Versionem Arabicam/Galen Commentary on Hippocrates’ Epidemics Book I Parts IIII: Edition of the Arabic Version [CMG Suppl. Or. V.1] (Berlin: De Gruyter, 2014).

11

Karl G. Kühn, Galeni Opera Omnia, 20 vols. (Leipzig: Libraria Car. Cnoblii, 1821–1833). “Thesaurus Linguae Graecae: A Digital Library of Greek Literature,” Thesaurus Linguae Graecae, last accessed 4 January 2017, http://stephanus.tlg.uci.edu.

12

Adam Kilgarriff et al., “The Sketch Engine: Ten Years On,” Lexicography 1 (2014): 1–30. Sketchengine, last accessed 4 January 2017, http://www.sketchengine.co.uk.

13

Emile Benveniste. “Subjectivity in Language,” Problems in General Linguistics 1 (1971): 223–30.

14

Edward Finegan, “Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: an Introduction,” in Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives, eds. Dieter Stein and Susan Wright (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2005), 1–16. Taavistainen, “Subjectivity as a Text-type Marker”.

15

Benveniste, “Subjectivity in Language,” 224.

16

Ibid. Italics in original.

17

Ibid., 226.

18

Finegan, “Subjectivity and Subjectivisation,” 1.

19

Taavitsainen, “Subjectivity as a Text-type Marker,” 198.

20

For example, see Biber, “The Grammatical Marking of Stance.”

21

Fitzmaurizce, “The Grammar of Stance,” 428.

22

Jean E. Fox Tree and Josef C. Schrock, “Basic Meanings of you know and I mean,” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002): 727–47.

23

Taavistainen, “Subjectivity as a Text-type Marker,” 202.

24

Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan, “Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect,” Text 9 (1989): 93–124, 94.

25

Ken Hyland, “Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse,” Journal of Pragmatics 30 (1998): 437–55, 442.

26

Taavistainen, “Subjectivity as a Text-type Marker,” 205.

27

As attested to in Kühn, Galeni Opera Omnia.

28

Kühn, Galeni Opera Omnia, 17b:412.

29

The English translations of the Greek and Arabic passages in this article are the author’s.

30

Kühn, Galeni Opera Omnia, 17b:509.

31

Ibid., 18a:42.

32

Kühn, Galeni Opera Omnia, 17b:655.

33

Ibid., 18a:45–6.

34

Kühn, Galeni Opera Omnia, 17b:786.

35

Ibid., 358.

36

Kühn, Galeni Opera Omnia, 17b:443.

37

Ibid., 350.

38

Kühn, Galeni Opera Omnia, 17b:353.

39

Kühn, Galeni Opera Omnia, 17b:364.

40

Ibid., 424.

41

Vagelpohl, Epidemics Book I, 55.

42

Kühn, Galeni Opera Omnia, 18a:75.

43

Ibid., 17b:501.

44

Kühn, Galeni Opera Omnia, 17b:346.

45

Ibid., 378.

46

Kühn, Galeni Opera Omnia, 17b:445.

47

Ibid., 645.

48

Kühn, Galeni Opera Omnia, 17b:759.

49

Ibid., 798.

50

Kühn, Galeni Opera Omnia, 17b:346.

51

Ibid., 352.

52

Kühn, Galeni Opera Omnia, 17b:381.

  • 2

    For example, see Nigel Harwood, “ ‘Nowhere has Anyone Attempted … In this Article I Aim to Do Just That’, a Corpus-based Study of Self-promotional I and We in Academic Writing Across Four Disciplines,” Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005): 1207–31. Iliana A. Martínez, “Native and Non-Native Writers’ Use of First Person Pronouns in the Different Sections of Biology Research Articles in English,” Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005): 174–90. Ken Hyland, “Authority and Invisibility: Authorial Identity in Academic Writing,” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002): 1091–112. Chih-Hua Kuo, “The Use of Personal Pronouns: Role Relationships in Scientific Journal Articles,” English for Specific Purposes 18 (1990): 121–38. Christine Webb, “The Use of the First Person in Academic Writing: Objectivity, Language and Gatekeeping,” Journal of Advanced Nursing 17 (1992): 747–52.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Douglas Biber, “Historical Patterns for the Grammatical Marking of Stance: A Cross-Register Comparison,” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5 (2004): 107–36.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Susan Fitzmaurice, “The grammar of stance in early eighteenth-century English epistolary language,” in Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use, eds. Charles Meyer and Pepi Leistyna. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2003, 107–32.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Irma Taavitsainen, “Subjectivity as a Text-type Marker in Historical Stylistics,” Language and Literature 3 (1994): 197–212.

  • 9

    Petit, “Galien et le discours,” 59.

  • 12

    Adam Kilgarriff et al., “The Sketch Engine: Ten Years On,” Lexicography 1 (2014): 1–30. Sketchengine, last accessed 4 January 2017, http://www.sketchengine.co.uk.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Edward Finegan, “Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: an Introduction,” in Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives, eds. Dieter Stein and Susan Wright (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2005), 1–16. Taavistainen, “Subjectivity as a Text-type Marker”.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Benveniste, “Subjectivity in Language,” 224.

  • 17

    Ibid., 226.

  • 18

    Finegan, “Subjectivity and Subjectivisation,” 1.

  • 19

    Taavitsainen, “Subjectivity as a Text-type Marker,” 198.

  • 21

    Fitzmaurizce, “The Grammar of Stance,” 428.

  • 22

    Jean E. Fox Tree and Josef C. Schrock, “Basic Meanings of you know and I mean,” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002): 727–47.

  • 23

    Taavistainen, “Subjectivity as a Text-type Marker,” 202.

  • 24

    Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan, “Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect,” Text 9 (1989): 93–124, 94.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Ken Hyland, “Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse,” Journal of Pragmatics 30 (1998): 437–55, 442.

  • 26

    Taavistainen, “Subjectivity as a Text-type Marker,” 205.

  • 35

    Ibid., 358.

  • 37

    Ibid., 350.

  • 40

    Ibid., 424.

  • 45

    Ibid., 378.

  • 47

    Ibid., 645.

  • 49

    Ibid., 798.

  • 51

    Ibid., 352.

  • 2

    For example, see Nigel Harwood, “ ‘Nowhere has Anyone Attempted … In this Article I Aim to Do Just That’, a Corpus-based Study of Self-promotional I and We in Academic Writing Across Four Disciplines,” Journal of Pragmatics 37 (2005): 1207–31. Iliana A. Martínez, “Native and Non-Native Writers’ Use of First Person Pronouns in the Different Sections of Biology Research Articles in English,” Journal of Second Language Writing 14 (2005): 174–90. Ken Hyland, “Authority and Invisibility: Authorial Identity in Academic Writing,” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002): 1091–112. Chih-Hua Kuo, “The Use of Personal Pronouns: Role Relationships in Scientific Journal Articles,” English for Specific Purposes 18 (1990): 121–38. Christine Webb, “The Use of the First Person in Academic Writing: Objectivity, Language and Gatekeeping,” Journal of Advanced Nursing 17 (1992): 747–52.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 3

    Douglas Biber, “Historical Patterns for the Grammatical Marking of Stance: A Cross-Register Comparison,” Journal of Historical Pragmatics 5 (2004): 107–36.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 4

    Susan Fitzmaurice, “The grammar of stance in early eighteenth-century English epistolary language,” in Corpus Analysis: Language Structure and Language Use, eds. Charles Meyer and Pepi Leistyna. Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2003, 107–32.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 5

    Irma Taavitsainen, “Subjectivity as a Text-type Marker in Historical Stylistics,” Language and Literature 3 (1994): 197–212.

  • 9

    Petit, “Galien et le discours,” 59.

  • 12

    Adam Kilgarriff et al., “The Sketch Engine: Ten Years On,” Lexicography 1 (2014): 1–30. Sketchengine, last accessed 4 January 2017, http://www.sketchengine.co.uk.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 14

    Edward Finegan, “Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: an Introduction,” in Subjectivity and Subjectivisation: Linguistic Perspectives, eds. Dieter Stein and Susan Wright (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2005), 1–16. Taavistainen, “Subjectivity as a Text-type Marker”.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 15

    Benveniste, “Subjectivity in Language,” 224.

  • 17

    Ibid., 226.

  • 18

    Finegan, “Subjectivity and Subjectivisation,” 1.

  • 19

    Taavitsainen, “Subjectivity as a Text-type Marker,” 198.

  • 21

    Fitzmaurizce, “The Grammar of Stance,” 428.

  • 22

    Jean E. Fox Tree and Josef C. Schrock, “Basic Meanings of you know and I mean,” Journal of Pragmatics 34 (2002): 727–47.

  • 23

    Taavistainen, “Subjectivity as a Text-type Marker,” 202.

  • 24

    Douglas Biber and Edward Finegan, “Styles of Stance in English: Lexical and Grammatical Marking of Evidentiality and Affect,” Text 9 (1989): 93–124, 94.

    • Search Google Scholar
    • Export Citation
  • 25

    Ken Hyland, “Persuasion and Context: The Pragmatics of Academic Metadiscourse,” Journal of Pragmatics 30 (1998): 437–55, 442.

  • 26

    Taavistainen, “Subjectivity as a Text-type Marker,” 205.

  • 35

    Ibid., 358.

  • 37

    Ibid., 350.

  • 40

    Ibid., 424.

  • 45

    Ibid., 378.

  • 47

    Ibid., 645.

  • 49

    Ibid., 798.

  • 51

    Ibid., 352.

Content Metrics

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 118 0 0
Full Text Views 246 62 4
PDF Views & Downloads 58 34 6