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
The gutting of Voice of America (VOA) and Radio Free Asia (RFA) by US President Donald Trump’s administration poses a serious threat to the global voice of freedom, particularly for those living under authoritarian regimes such as China. The US — hailed as the model of liberal democracy — has the moral responsibility to uphold the values it champions. In undermining these institutions, the US risks diminishing its “soft power,” a pivotal pillar of its global influence. VOA Tibetan and RFA Tibetan played an enormous role in promoting the strong image of the US in and outside Tibet. On VOA Tibetan,
Former minister of culture Lung Ying-tai (龍應台) has long wielded influence through the power of words. Her articles once served as a moral compass for a society in transition. However, as her April 1 guest article in the New York Times, “The Clock Is Ticking for Taiwan,” makes all too clear, even celebrated prose can mislead when romanticism clouds political judgement. Lung crafts a narrative that is less an analysis of Taiwan’s geopolitical reality than an exercise in wistful nostalgia. As political scientists and international relations academics, we believe it is crucial to correct the misconceptions embedded in her article,
Sung Chien-liang (宋建樑), the leader of the Chinese Nationalist Party’s (KMT) efforts to recall Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) Legislator Lee Kun-cheng (李坤城), caused a national outrage and drew diplomatic condemnation on Tuesday after he arrived at the New Taipei City District Prosecutors’ Office dressed in a Nazi uniform. Sung performed a Nazi salute and carried a copy of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf as he arrived to be questioned over allegations of signature forgery in the recall petition. The KMT’s response to the incident has shown a striking lack of contrition and decency. Rather than apologizing and distancing itself from Sung’s actions,
US President Trump weighed into the state of America’s semiconductor manufacturing when he declared, “They [Taiwan] stole it from us. They took it from us, and I don’t blame them. I give them credit.” At a prior White House event President Trump hosted TSMC chairman C.C. Wei (魏哲家), head of the world’s largest and most advanced chip manufacturer, to announce a commitment to invest US$100 billion in America. The president then shifted his previously critical rhetoric on Taiwan and put off tariffs on its chips. Now we learn that the Trump Administration is conducting a “trade investigation” on semiconductors which
RSS