Expert: Dan Smith - 2/3/2011

Question
QUESTION: I am involved with writing about Zhineng Qigong theory. (Qigong is similar to Tai Ch'i.) I would like quidance on capitalisation of certain terms that are used, which my instinct tells me to capitalise but which others don't think should be. One such term is "true self". This term has a particular theoretical understanding built into it, based in part on some traditional Chinese beliefs about human consciousness and being, but specific to the theories of ZQ as developed by the founder Professor Pang Ming. When I write "True Self", I am referring to a specific theoretical understanding of an aspect of human beings and it seems to me I should capitalise, to distinguish this from some other notion of true self that a reader might have. Similarly, Prof. Pang talks about our Reference Framework. We all work within a frame of reference, but Prof. Pang has written up his own theoretical understanding of this framework within which all our experiences and ideas are evaluated, judged, etc. He has developed theories that are based on a mix of traditional Chinese ideas and practices together with modern Western science. Should concepts that are part of his theories be capitalised, and if not then how do I distinguish them? Here is an actual sentence I am re-wording for my Chinese teacher: "Key points of Zhineng Qigong theory, such as the concepts of the True Self, yiyuanti and the Reference Framework, will be outlined."  (Yiyuanti is a term developed by Prof. Pang to describe the source of our consciousness; I use it as a common noun - even though it also has a theory behind it, it seems different to me because it is a term specific to ZQ, unlike the other two terms.) A further query relates to the term Reference Framework, which others say should be written as frame of reference - what do you think? It seems to me it ceases to refer to a particular theory if written this way. I have checked lots of grammar rules but haven't found anything useful, so very grateful if you can help.

ANSWER: Just because a term is backed by a theory does not make it a proper noun. I would not capitalize these things. When the concepts are introduced in an essay, they should be defined, but thereafter they're just ordinary nouns. When discussing Prof. Pang's theories, it is appropriate to use his terminology. Thus, it should be reference framework rather than frame of reference.

But back to capitalization, people who write about evolution, gravity, or relativity do not normally capitalize those terms in ordinary text.

Hope this helps.

---------- FOLLOW-UP ----------

QUESTION: Thanks for your quick response. Regarding the wordings "reference framework" versus "frame of reference", it's not possible to compare the Chinese with these two possible translations, because of differences in how the two languages are written. So I see it as a choice of whichever best expresses the idea of a particular theory about the way people function rather than a more general notion of people thinking within certain parameters. Do you think there is any difference between these two translations in that regard? As for the multi-word concepts, I realise they are not proper nouns but I'm still not sure how to make it clear that those words together represent a particular concept (they are often mentioned without clarification).

Answer
Once the concept for the terms is introduced and defined in the essay, it is neither necessary nor desirable to keep on explaining it.

Unless you are the translator, I would go with whatever term for "reference framework" the author or translator used in the original text. If you are the translator, use whichever English phrase seems to you to capture the author's meaning in the original language. And then stick to that phrase throughout. I would agree that "frame of reference" seems to indicate a more general manner of personal perception than a particular theoretical construct.