The pre-eminent authority on the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary (OED), last month issued an update to one of its entries, adding the term “Chinese dragon” to its lexicon for the first time.
The Chinese word long (龍) has for a long time been translated simply as “dragon,” but many commentators opposed this, believing that the traditional Western concept of a dragon is represented by the embodiment of a fearsome, wicked monster that must be killed.
It was deemed unsuitable to use a wicked and inauspicious Western dragon to refer to an auspicious Chinese dragon, so it was recommended that a rectification be made to the entry.
The phonetic transliteration of the Mandarin for “Chinese dragon” can be written long, loong or lung.
There was sound reasoning behind the change. Chinese dragons and Western dragons bring to mind distinct physical traits and there are important differences in the cultural connotations.
Moreover, in terms of symbolism, the two types of dragons are polar opposites, respectively representing benevolence and wickedness.
The long spelling is from China’s Hanyu pinyin system, which is considered the international standard for Romanized Chinese.
The spelling is also used by Encyclopaedia Britannica and Wikipedia.
However, long could be misread as the English word “long,” referring to length, so the OED used “Chinese dragon.”
Culturally specific terminology in English is often derived from transliterations and doing so with such entries is universally applicable.
However, Chinese speakers should not have the final say over how English speakers use their own language.
New terms must be widely recognized by English speakers, which might take a long time.
Dictionary entries are not written in stone by a single person, but become part of a language when terms become common parlance and are broadly recognized by native speakers.
A sense-for-sense translation of long into English should allow connections to be drawn between Chinese and Western dragons, while also providing a synonym to allow more robust descriptions.
As understanding of the East has increased in the West, and amid deconstruction and reinterpretation of cultural signaling in the English language, the traditional definition of “dragon” as a ferocious entity has softened somewhat, influencing the awareness of English speakers.
Neither Webster’s Dictionary, which is widely used in the US, nor the New Oxford English Dictionary — which is distinct from the OED — have the term “Chinese dragon,” yet they have in their definitions for “dragon” descriptions of the benevolence and auspiciousness of the Chinese variety.
Languages evolve and definitions are fluid. The word “dragon,” which used to be negatively tinged, has gradually developed a more positive image.
More Westerners have come to see Chinese dragons as also having an auspicious meaning, and thus the term “dragon” can continue to be used to refer to Chinese dragons without throwing out the Western understanding of the word entirely.
Hugo Tseng is an associate professor and former chair of Soochow University’s literature and English-language department. He has participated in the editing and revision of several English-Chinese dictionaries and reference materials.
Translated by Tim Smith
Wherever one looks, the United States is ceding ground to China. From foreign aid to foreign trade, and from reorganizations to organizational guidance, the Trump administration has embarked on a stunning effort to hobble itself in grappling with what his own secretary of state calls “the most potent and dangerous near-peer adversary this nation has ever confronted.” The problems start at the Department of State. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has asserted that “it’s not normal for the world to simply have a unipolar power” and that the world has returned to multipolarity, with “multi-great powers in different parts of the
President William Lai (賴清德) recently attended an event in Taipei marking the end of World War II in Europe, emphasizing in his speech: “Using force to invade another country is an unjust act and will ultimately fail.” In just a few words, he captured the core values of the postwar international order and reminded us again: History is not just for reflection, but serves as a warning for the present. From a broad historical perspective, his statement carries weight. For centuries, international relations operated under the law of the jungle — where the strong dominated and the weak were constrained. That
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS