Sun, May 25, 2025 page8

• Leveraging translation in uniting countries

  • By Hugo Tseng 曾泰元
  • • 
    • 
    • 

  The translation of culture-specific Chinese terms has long been a challenge for experts, with culinary terms being among the most difficult.

  On April 29, CNN published a feature titled “Husband-and-wife lung slices? Why translating Chinese food names into English is ‘an impossible task.’” The article explored the complexities of Chinese-to-English translation.

  For more than two decades, the English translation of culture-specific Chinese terms has been a focus of my research, and I have published extensively on the topic. CNN’s report aligns with my long standing view: Transliteration should be the primary approach for Chinese dish names, supplemented by semantic translation. Among semantic strategies, literal translation — rendering the original verbatim — is the most commendable.

  Borrowing has been the most common method of translation. It has two main forms: loanword and transliteration. If the source and target languages share the same script, loanword is used — for example, English “espresso” from Italian espresso. If the scripts differ, transliteration is used — such as English “jiaozi” from Chinese jiaozi (餃子).

  Semantic translation conveys meaning rather than form. It prioritizes fluency and naturalness, often departing from the original wording — for example, translating shizitou (獅子頭) as “meatball.” However, a literal translation could also be used, even if the result seems puzzling — such as translating shizitou as “lion’s head.”

  In the past, overly literal translations were criticized as linguistically inept. Today, such translations are increasingly valued for preserving the original cultural context and thought patterns. Their awkwardness can even carry charm, sparking curiosity and engagement. The English idiom “armed to the teeth” was translated into Chinese as wuzhuang dao yachi (武裝到牙齒) — a phrasing that gained popularity for its vivid imagery. Literal translations might seem unsophisticated, but they enrich the target language and culture, whereas overly polished translations risk erasing distinct flavors.

  Translating fuqi feipian (夫妻肺片) as “husband-and-wife lung slices,” yuxiang qiezi (魚香茄子) as “fish-fragrant eggplant” and fotiaoqiang (佛跳牆) as “Buddha jumping over the wall” might initially baffle English speakers, but could ultimately foster appreciation. Through that, the cultural depth of Chinese cuisine might gradually enter the global consciousness, broadening linguistic and cultural horizons of the English language.

  University of Hong Kong professor Isaac Yue (余文章) and British food writer Fuchsia Dunlop said that Chinese dishes are difficult, if not impossible, to translate due to China’s rich and layered culinary history imagery and ingredients or techniques with no English equivalents.

  Dunlop suggested borrowing directly from Chinese through transliteration, or using the Latin alphabet for Chinese terms.

  The correspondent echoed the experts’ view that translation is not merely a tool for surface-level communication. It also subtly shapes cultures and fosters mutual understanding. If we assume that transliteration or literal translation would confuse audiences, we underestimate the transformative power of translation. Opting only for idiomatic, instantly comprehensible translations might facilitate communication, but forfeits the chance to showcase cultural richness.

  Rather than retreating into an information cocoon, we should embrace the chance to share our profound culinary heritage. With growing cultural confidence, why not leverage translation to project cultural influence, engage the English-speaking world and deepen cross-cultural understanding?

  Hugo Tseng has a doctorate in linguistics, and is a lexicographer and former chair of Soochow University’s English Department.
• Most Popular

  • 1

    Palmeiras hopes for club cup win

  • 2

    Magnitude 6.4 earthquake hits Hualien County

  • 3

    Taiwan to see nine extended holidays in 2026

  • 4

    Pegatron ranks last in Greenpeace report

  • 5

    Hegseth outlines Chinese threat