Late last year, Chunjie (春節) was added to UNESCO’s Representative List of the Intangible Cultural Heritage of Humanity. While this recognition was a moment of pride for Chinese culture, it also reignited a long-standing debate: How should Chunjie be translated into English?
For decades, the holiday has been variously rendered as “Spring Festival,” “Chinese New Year” or “Lunar New Year,” each term carrying its own cultural and political implications. However, as the world becomes more interconnected, the question of which translation to use has become more than a linguistic curiosity — it is a matter of cultural identity and global influence.
Three main English translations are in use, with “Spring Festival” being the most favored, followed by “Chinese New Year” and “Lunar New Year.” The preference for “Spring Festival,” a verbatim rendition of Chunjie, reflects a desire to highlight the holiday’s unique cultural significance rather than framing it solely as a “new year” celebration. After all, Chunjie is deeply rooted in Chinese traditions, from family reunions and feasts to the iconic red envelopes, firecrackers and dragon dances. By adopting this straightforward literal translation, the holiday’s distinctiveness could be better conveyed.
In contrast, English-speaking countries tend to favor “Chinese New Year.” Major English dictionaries, including Oxford and Merriam-Webster, list “Chinese New Year” as the primary term, followed by “Lunar New Year” and “Spring Festival.” This preference is also reflected in large language corpora, such as the News on the Web corpus, which tracks over 20 billion words from English-language media.
The dominance of “Chinese New Year” in the English-speaking world underscores the holiday’s association with Chinese culture. However, it also raises questions about inclusivity, as the term implicitly centers China in a celebration that is also observed by other cultures, such as in Vietnam and South Korea.
In recent years, “Lunar New Year” has gained traction as more inclusive than “Chinese New Year.” This shift is partly driven by efforts from countries such as South Korea and Vietnam. Both nations have long-celebrated lunar new year traditions, but have increasingly pushed for the use of “Lunar New Year” to distance themselves from the Chinese-centric framing.
While “Chinese New Year” remains the most common term, its growth rate has almost plateaued out. Meanwhile, “Lunar New Year” has seen a significant uptick in usage, particularly in English-language media. This reflects a broader cultural and political movement toward de-Sinicization, as countries with historical ties to China seek to reclaim their narratives.
Amid these debates, some scholars and media outlets have advocated for using the Pinyin-transliterated “Chunjie” as the primary English term. Historical precedents offer valuable insights. This approach aligns with the way other traditional festivals are translated, such as Japan’s Tanabata (Lovers’ Day) and Obon (Festival of the Dead), South Korea’s Seollal (Korean New Year), or Vietnam’s Tet (Vietnamese New Year). Given these examples, the transliteration of Chunjie is not only natural but also consistent with global practices.
As the Year of the Snake approaches, let us embrace this opportunity to assert our cultural voice on the global stage. By adopting “Chunjie” as the primary term, supplemented by “Spring Festival” and “Chinese New Year,” we can ensure that our traditions are represented authentically and respectfully. After all, language is not just a tool for communication — it is a vessel for culture, history and identity.
Hugo Tseng holds a doctorate in linguistics, and is a lexicographer and former chair of the Soochow University English Department.
Congratulations to China’s working class — they have officially entered the “Livestock Feed 2.0” era. While others are still researching how to achieve healthy and balanced diets, China has already evolved to the point where it does not matter whether you are actually eating food, as long as you can swallow it. There is no need for cooking, chewing or making decisions — just tear open a package, add some hot water and in a short three minutes you have something that can keep you alive for at least another six hours. This is not science fiction — it is reality.
In a world increasingly defined by unpredictability, two actors stand out as islands of stability: Europe and Taiwan. One, a sprawling union of democracies, but under immense pressure, grappling with a geopolitical reality it was not originally designed for. The other, a vibrant, resilient democracy thriving as a technological global leader, but living under a growing existential threat. In response to rising uncertainties, they are both seeking resilience and learning to better position themselves. It is now time they recognize each other not just as partners of convenience, but as strategic and indispensable lifelines. The US, long seen as the anchor
Kinmen County’s political geography is provocative in and of itself. A pair of islets running up abreast the Chinese mainland, just 20 minutes by ferry from the Chinese city of Xiamen, Kinmen remains under the Taiwanese government’s control, after China’s failed invasion attempt in 1949. The provocative nature of Kinmen’s existence, along with the Matsu Islands off the coast of China’s Fuzhou City, has led to no shortage of outrageous takes and analyses in foreign media either fearmongering of a Chinese invasion or using these accidents of history to somehow understand Taiwan. Every few months a foreign reporter goes to
The war between Israel and Iran offers far-reaching strategic lessons, not only for the Middle East, but also for East Asia, particularly Taiwan. As tensions rise across both regions, the behavior of global powers, especially the US under the US President Donald Trump, signals how alliances, deterrence and rapid military mobilization could shape the outcomes of future conflicts. For Taiwan, facing increasing pressure and aggression from China, these lessons are both urgent and actionable. One of the most notable features of the Israel-Iran war was the prompt and decisive intervention of the US. Although the Trump administration is often portrayed as
RSS