# The specialty is infant attachment issues



## Emmy.S

みんなさん、こんにちは。ちょっと質問はありますが。。。

まず、「。。。専門にする」　と　「専攻を持つ」、どちらのほうがいいですか。
たとえば、「大学で心理学を勉強して、＿＿＿＿＿に専門しました」などです。

And secondly, when talking about what the specialty is… I need to say ‘infant attachment issues’, or something to that effect, but I’m aware that such a phrase may not exist in the Japanese lexicon. I’m looking for something that will be easily understood, even if the concept is unfamiliar to the listener. 

I came up with ようじの愛情の問題, but that’s a literal word-for-word translation, and I’m sure it sounds clumsy. 「ようじ」と「しょうに」をくらべたら、どちらはいいですが。それで、「もんだい」はたんじゅんすぎるでしょう。

日本語、日本のワプロまだあまり上手じゃないので、誤り、タイプミスがあればなおしていただけますか。
どうもありがとうございます！

Emmy より


----------



## wathavy

> みんなさん、こんにちは。ちょっと質問は(<-質問*が*)あります。
> 
> まず、「*～を*専門にする」　と　「*～の*専攻を持つ」、どちらのほうがいいですか。
> たとえば、「大学で心理学を勉強して、＿＿＿＿＿に(<-*を*)専門*に*しました*。*」などです。
> 
> And secondly, when talking about what the specialty is… I need to say ‘infant attachment issues’, or something to that effect, but I’m aware that such a phrase may not exist in the Japanese lexicon. I’m looking for something that will be easily understood, even if the concept is unfamiliar to the listener.
> 
> I came up with ようじの愛情の問題, but that’s a literal word-for-word translation, and I’m sure it sounds clumsy. 「ようじ」と「しょうに」をくらべたら、どちらはいいですが。それで、「もんだい」はたんじゅんすぎるでしょう。
> 
> 日本語、日本のワ*ー*プロ(or *タイピング*)*が*まだあまり上手じゃ(<-*では*)ないので、誤り、タイプミスがあればなおしていただけますか。
> どうもありがとうございます！
> 
> Emmy より


Sounds like 幼児(ようじ) is suitable for infant attachment issue. Just because it is new, you don't have to avoid having issues explaining your specialty, I guess.
Quite often than not, infancy tends to be ignored as negligible time for human growth and those become later ,when they grew up, found out to be the trouble cause quite often, I guess.
So, it is good to let a lot of us to recognize how important it is to study which you are studying.

By the way, 日本語は、たいへんお上手になられたと思います。だいぶ、努力されたと思いますが、これからも、一生懸命がんばってくださいね。
私たちも、応援します。

今後ともよろしくお願いします。

Cheers. 

P.S.
I didn't answer your queries but which ever you like will do. And about the study's talk, you can try anything you want, it will be a good exercise if you try the best you can.
I, at least, have been struggling to be so, faith and effort will make your way out, I believe.

Unless, someone wants to say more ....


----------



## Emmy.S

Wathavy, どうもありがとう。色々を教えてくれて、げきれいしてありがとうございます。これからもいっしょけんめいがんばりますよ！


----------



## Wishfull

Hi.
I think academic expression of "infant" is にゅうようじ（乳幼児）　in Japanese.
Because "sudden infant death syndrome" is translated as "にゅうようじ　とつぜんし　しょうこうぐん　(乳幼児突然死症候群）.

I like 
にゅうようじ　の　あいじょう　に　かんする　しょもんだい　（乳幼児の愛情に関する諸問題）
または
乳幼児の愛情に関する諸問題とその影響　（えいきょう）

もんだい＝issue
しょもんだい＝issues　　　If you say しょもんだい, it sounds somehow more academic than just もんだい.

にゅうじ（乳児）＝under 1 year old child(baby)
ようじ　（幼児）＝1-5 years old child
にゅうようじ(乳幼児）＝0-5 years old child
しょうに　（小児）＝0-15 years old child

「大学で心理学を勉強して、＿＿＿＿＿に専門しました」 →　
「*大学で心理学を学び（まなび）、infant attachment issues ・・つまり乳幼児の愛情に関する諸問題・・を専攻しました。」* 
Hope this helps.


----------



## Flaminius

Emmy.S said:


> みんなさん、こんにちは。ちょっと質問*が*あります*。*
> 
> まず、「*・・・*専門にする」　と　「専攻を持つ」*では*、どちらのほうがいいですか。
> たとえば、「大学で心理学を勉強して、＿＿＿＿＿に専門しました」などです。



Three dots at the centre of a hypothetical grid that houses one Japanese character (・・・) have the function of place holder and and express interruption.  Using 。 for the same purposes is a common practise on the 'Net but I don't recommend it as a standard writing convention.

Second, the correct expressions are 「・・・を専門にする」 and 「・・・を専攻する」.  They can both be an academic discipline or a sub-branch of a discipline such as cognitive behavioural psychotherapy within psychology.  Your example "＿に専門しました" is ungrammatical.



> And secondly, when talking about what the specialty is… I need to say ‘infant attachment issues’, or something to that effect, but I’m aware that such a phrase may not exist in the Japanese lexicon. I’m looking for something that will be easily understood, even if the concept is unfamiliar to the listener.





> I came up with ようじの愛情の問題, but that’s a literal word-for-word translation, and I’m sure it sounds clumsy. 「ようじ」と「しょうに」をくらべたら、どちら*が*いいです*か*。それ*から*、「もんだい」はたんじゅんすぎ*ない*でしょう*か*。
> 
> 日本語、日本のワ*ー*プロ*は*まだあまり上手じゃないので、誤り、タイプミスがあればなおしていただけま*せん*か。
> どうもありがとうございます！
> 
> Emmy より


Infant is usually 幼児 in psychology.  小児 is for medicine as in 小児科 for paediatrics and 小児ICU for PICU.

Translating technical terms or technical usage of ordinary words can benefit from existing attempts such as the ones stored in this database.  For example, it shows that _Attachment_ by John Bowlby has been translated into 『愛着行動』.  Unless you have objections to what Bowlby says about infant attachment, 幼児の愛着行動 can be a good translation for you.

Edit:
Looking at Wishfull's post, I find 乳幼児 is a more academic term than 幼児.


----------



## Morrow

Emmy.S said:


> I’m aware that such a phrase may not exist in the Japanese lexicon. I’m looking for something that will be easily understood, even if the concept is unfamiliar to the listener.


This is not the right thing to start with.  

It is your responsibility to make your point clear, especially when you _know_ that the Japanese language may not have a good counterpart.

Actually, suffice it to say,"I will call infant attachment X," whatever X may be in Japanese.  It doesn't matter what you mean by X.  What really counts is what you mean by "infant attachment." 

What do you mean by infant?  Is it, for example, from age one month to one year?

And what do you mean by attachment?  The verb "attach" is a three-valency verb: X attach Y to Z.  So_ what_ variable goes into _what_ slot?

Probably, (1) is what you mean by infant attachment (Let's forget about tense and aspect here).
(1) who an infant *is* attach*ed *to

Theoretically, however, (2a) and (2b) are just as possible.
(2) a. who an infant attach*es* *it*self to
     b. who an infant attach*es **him*self or *her*self to

So which do you mean?   The choice represents how you see an infant.  It reflects your cognition of an infant's competence and/or propensity.

Grammatically, "infant attachment" refers to emotional relationships between infant and somebody else.  But if what you're dealing with includes how the relationships develop or how they affect the infant, you need to make it clear too.

In western culture, people may have *a language*, but in our culture, people are "being had" by* language*.  We are not culturally trained to start a conversation or argument by defining a keyword or keywords.  As a result, people will often speak of "love," for instance, without each knowing what the other really means by that word.

However, if you are someone who speaks of "専門/専攻" and want to be treated as such, you need to do what is necessary to ensure that you are one.

Morrow


----------



## Emmy.S

Wishfull, Flaminus and Morrow, thank you very much for your contributions. Using your advice, I think the best phrase may be 乳幼児の愛着行動の諸問題を専門にしています. 

Wishfull, your definitions of the specific age groups were interesting, and will be of great use in the future. 


Flaminus-- I should have thought to search the database; it was really helpful. Thank you also for correcting my post. If you don't mind, I just have one more question...

I had originally written はたんじゅんすぎるでしょう (leaving off the か was a typo), and you corrected this to たんじゅんすぎ*ない*でしょう*か*. Would you be so kind as to explain, if possible, why the second is preferable? Was my original attempt tautological? Just curious, is all…


And Morrow, I apologise if my question seemed vague. I’m still relatively new to the forum concept, but I will know to be more specific next time. 
The phrase I was looking for concerned the relationship between an infant (generally aged less than 18 months, but may be up to five years) and the person caring for him/her (usually the mother or father). I believe that乳幼児の愛着行動の諸問題is appropriate in this context, but I thank you for your input. 


みんなさん、手伝いにかんしゃします。ありがとうございました！

Emmy


----------



## Morrow

Emmy.S said:


> I believe that乳幼児の愛着行動の諸問題is appropriate in this context


I'm not criticizing you, Emmy (if you don't mind being called so).
But if you are a postgraduate or postdoctoral researcher, I think you have to do something before you "believe" something.  You might want to ask yourself why a "cross-examination" is believed to be necessary in your culture.

Have you asked someone you can trust to put "乳幼児の愛着行動の諸問題" into English and seen if it really works yourself?  

"乳" in "乳幼児" literally means "milk."  It is only acceptable when your paper actually covers infants who are aged "less than 18 months" as well.

"行動" is OK, because it means observable reactions in the realm of 心理学(psychology).   

"諸問題" might be problematic.  It is no problem if what you mean by "issues" is "problems," or something to be solved.  However, if it is "subjects," or something you're going to discuss, you better stop to think about your next move.  Usually, "問題" doesn't correspond in meaning to "subject(s)."
I must admit, however, that it sometimes (or often) happens that Japanese people point out "問題(problems)" without providing any possible solutions.  So actually, you have two choices when "subjects" is what you have in mind: like Japanese people, you can just enumerate "problems(問題)" and not give your solution(s) to your readers, or as a westerner, you can (_or_ should) choose something that means what you actually mean:something for "subjects."

"諸" can be misleading too.  This means "many" or "all."  "諸" will make your potential readers expect that you have dealt with many, or hopefully, all of the, problems (_or _subjects) that are related to "infant attachment."  If you are actually coping with a specific area or some areas, it would be wise to drop "諸" together with "問題."

Finally, it might help you to remind yourself that it is not always necessary to literally translate the title of your paper.  The focus point is not always the same between the two languages (Check the titles of movies in both languages and you'll have some idea).  


Emmy.S said:


> The phrase I was looking for concerned *the relationship between* an infant ... and the person caring for him/her (usually the mother or father).


If this is it, then you could also consider this to be possible:
(i) (乳)幼児の愛着[行動/関係/スタイル] 
(ii) (乳)幼児の社会・情緒的発達
(iii) (乳)幼児から見た[親子/人間]関係(の構築)
(iv) (乳)幼児の人間関係調整能力の発達

What matters is your "focus in English."   You need to know that the translation method does not "always" meet what you want.

Morrow

You might know this:
犬は人につき、猫は家につく(Dogs are attached to their people but cats are attached to their home).  But so far as the Japanese language is concerned, it is a challenge, if not impossible, to apply the idea of "attachment" to infants.


----------



## Emmy.S

Morrow said:


> What matters is your "focus in English." You need to know that the translation method does not "always" meet what you want.


 
I agree (I was just reading one of the other posts re: なるほど and thinking the same thing!). I'm not writing the research paper in Japanese; I merely wanted to know the approximate translation for 'infant attachment issues', after struggling to explain it to several Japanese friends.  
Hence in this case, the translation does not need to be perfect, but intelligible nonetheless. 




Morrow said:


> You might know this:
> 犬は人につき、猫は家につく(Dogs are attached to their people but cats are attached to their home). But so far as the Japanese language is concerned, it is a challenge, if not impossible, to apply the idea of "attachment" to infants.


 
I suspected this may be the case. Hopefully I will be able to use examples etc. to illustrate the notion of 'attachment' in infants. 

Thanks again for your time and assistance; it's greatly appreciated.


----------



## Flaminius

Hi,

Another thing about 愛着 is that it is more a feeling than a behaviour in ordinary Japanese.  E.g., 住み始めたころは田舎だと思っていたが、三年もいるとこの街に愛着がわいてきた。  In contrast, _attachment_ in English includes a behavioural pattern:
Melanie is my cat but she always cuddles herself up on my boyfriend's lap.  She is so attached to him.

愛着行動 is a way to bridge the gap.  You can use it as your shorter translation if you are coming from the same or similar background and interests as this Bowlby.  It's a translation for academics with similar readings and research interests as yours.  By the way, I chose not to translated "issues" in my previous post, thinking it is equivalent to topics, points, arguments, or subjects.



> I merely wanted to know the approximate translation for 'infant attachment issues', after struggling to explain it to several Japanese friends.


This request cannot be met by a shorter translation I have mentioned above.  Even English-speaking friends with no background in psychology wouldn't understand "infant attachment issues" the way you understand it.  If you have a good English paragraph for explanation, consider using it for the Japanese friends.



> I had originally written はたんじゅんすぎるでしょう (leaving off the か was a typo), and you corrected this to たんじゅんすぎ*ない*でしょう*か*. Would you be so kind as to explain, if possible, why the second is preferable? Was my original attempt tautological? Just curious, is all…


単純すぎるでしょうか vs. 単純すぎないでしょうか
I preferred the latter because ない gives to the sentence an implied conviction that 問題 is too plain.  I think you wouldn't have asked this if you had not been tipped to the "too plain" side.



Morrow said:


> You might know this:
> 犬は人につき、猫は家につく(Dogs are attached to their people but cats are attached to their home). But so far as the Japanese language is concerned, it is a challenge, if not impossible, to apply the idea of "attachment" to infants.


If terminological exactitude need not be pursued as rigorously as in the academe, the idea of attachment can be talked about infants without much difficulty:
E.g.,
[乳幼児が親にもつ]愛着からの動作、行動パターン、しぐさ
[乳幼児が親に]なついていることを示す動作、行動パターン、しぐさ


----------



## Morrow

Emmy.S said:


> struggling to explain it to several Japanese friends


You should have said it first. 
Then it all comes down to "親近感/親しみ/好感," (although in my view, this idea is closer to "to like" than to "to be attached to.")**1*

You could just say, "My interest is in 子供が(成長の過程で)周囲の大人の誰に(どんな風に)親近感を持つのか."

なつく(which comes from "馴れ付く") may also serve the purpose, though I think the possible object of "なつく"**2* is someone (who is grown up) other than biological and legal parents: "翔太はすぐに実の母親になついた" sounds strange to me, but it is OK if it appears in a negative sentence as in "翔太は、実の母親にもなつかなかった."

(i) うちの子は、人見知りが激しくて、なかなか人になつかなくて困っています。
(ii)洋子もようやく新しいお母さんになついた。

This might be a cultural difference.

You say, "God is love."  And you might say or think, "What connects people is love."  

But as I see it, in this culture, what governs the people is not "to love" but "to like."  "愛着" is a possible word for "attachment," but historically and culturally, "愛着" is something you had to grow out of, especially when Buddhism had a strong influence on the Japanese people, because you can't "悟りを得る" so long as you are attached to someone or something.

"To love" may be unconditional but "to like" could be conditional.  "親近感," "親しみ" and "好感" are, again in my view, all something that is founded on "信頼感."  In this sense, I'd say that what connects people in Japan is trust, credibility or something like that. (Only mothers can love children unconditionally, or only some mothers can love (some of ) their children unconditionally.)

This may be a reason why it is a great challenge to try to find the exact counterpart of "attachment" in the Japanese language.   

Morrow
NB*1 I must admit that this might be misleading.
People may say, "'to love' means 'to like very much', and 'to be attached to' is also 'to like very much,' so the difference there is between 'to love/to be attached to' and 'to like' is not the difference in quality but the difference in quantity or degree."  I'd like to keep this matter pending.

NB*2 "なつく" is a word that behaves differently. Verbs ending in "-つく" like "ねつく(寝付く)" and "こげつく(焦げ付く)" normally have derivative nouns as in  "寝つき" and "焦げつき."  But it seems to be impossible to say,"子供の*なつき*についての研究."


----------

