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.
Why is Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) not a “happy camper” these days regarding Taiwan? Taiwanese have not become more “CCP friendly” in response to the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) use of spies and graft by the United Front Work Department, intimidation conducted by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) and the Armed Police/Coast Guard, and endless subversive political warfare measures, including cyber-attacks, economic coercion, and diplomatic isolation. The percentage of Taiwanese that prefer the status quo or prefer moving towards independence continues to rise — 76 percent as of December last year. According to National Chengchi University (NCCU) polling, the Taiwanese
US President Donald Trump’s return to the White House has brought renewed scrutiny to the Taiwan-US semiconductor relationship with his claim that Taiwan “stole” the US chip business and threats of 100 percent tariffs on foreign-made processors. For Taiwanese and industry leaders, understanding those developments in their full context is crucial while maintaining a clear vision of Taiwan’s role in the global technology ecosystem. The assertion that Taiwan “stole” the US’ semiconductor industry fundamentally misunderstands the evolution of global technology manufacturing. Over the past four decades, Taiwan’s semiconductor industry, led by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), has grown through legitimate means
Today is Feb. 28, a day that Taiwan associates with two tragic historical memories. The 228 Incident, which started on Feb. 28, 1947, began from protests sparked by a cigarette seizure that took place the day before in front of the Tianma Tea House in Taipei’s Datong District (大同). It turned into a mass movement that spread across Taiwan. Local gentry asked then-governor general Chen Yi (陳儀) to intervene, but he received contradictory orders. In early March, after Chiang Kai-shek (蔣介石) dispatched troops to Keelung, a nationwide massacre took place and lasted until May 16, during which many important intellectuals
Tomorrow is the 78th anniversary of the 228 Incident. On Monday, at a meeting with the Overseas 2-28 Survivors Homecoming Group at the Presidential Office, President William Lai (賴清德) spoke of the importance of protecting the nation’s freedom and sovereignty. The 228 Incident is in the past, but the generational trauma exists in the present. The imperative to protect the nation’s sovereignty and liberty from Chinese Communist Party (CCP) aggression will remain for the foreseeable future. The chaos and budget cuts in the legislature threaten the endeavor. The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have worked together to