Comparing Chinese and Central and Eastern European Dragon Cultures: Toward the International Communication of Chinese Loong Culture

Main Article Content

Yixuan Sun

Keywords

Chinese Loong culture, intercultural communication, symbolic interactionism, Romania, Loong translation

Abstract

Addressing the long-standing misreading of Chinese Loong in Western countries as a result of its translation as dragon, this study adopts symbolic interactionism as its theoretical framework and employs a questionnaire survey, using Romania as a representative case of Central and Eastern Europe, to examine the cultural differences between Chinese and Central and Eastern European traditions and their implications for the international communication of Chinese Loong culture. The findings show that Chinese participants hold significantly more positive perceptions of Chinese Loong than do Central and Eastern European participants; the negative impressions associated with local dragon traditions among Central and Eastern European respondents tend to transfer to their evaluations of Chinese Loong; and acceptance of the term Loong and intercultural empathy both demonstrate a robust positive correlation with positive perceptions of Chinese Loong, making them key predictors of positive cross-cultural perceptions. On this basis, the study proposes strategies, including the gradual promotion of Loong, respect for cultural differences, and multi-channel digital communication, with the aim of shifting the communication of Chinese Loong culture in Central and Eastern Europe from misreading to empathy.

Abstract 12 | PDF Downloads 7

References

  • [1] Li, H. (2011). Cong Zhong-Xi “long” wenhua chayi kan kuawenhua jiaoji [Intercultural communication from the perspective of Chinese-Western differences in dragon culture]. Qinghai Shehui Kexue [Qinghai Social Sciences], (4), 139-142.
  • [2] Huang, J. (2006). Guanyu “long” de yingyi ming xiugai wenti [On revising the English translation of “long”]. Shehui Kexue [Journal of Social Sciences], (11), 161-169.
  • [3] Zhang, Q. (2024). Fuhao hudonglun de shehui lilun: Yi Bulumo wei zhongxin de kaocha [The social theory of symbolic interactionism: An examination centered on Blumer]. Shehui Kexue [Journal of Social Sciences], (4), 13-23.
  • [4] Xinhua News Agency. (2024, January 28). Jiachen longnian qianxi, danci “Zhongguo long” bei shoulu jin Oxford English Dictionary [Ahead of the Jiachen Year of the Dragon, the term “Chinese dragon” is included in the Oxford English Dictionary]. https://app.xinhuanet.com/news/article.html?articleId=e7cccb1d-9f1a-4804-8221-4660806511fe
  • [5] Zhou, J. (2011). Xinwen chuanboxue shiye xia de long wenhua yanjiu [A study of dragon culture from the perspective of journalism and communication]. Zhongguo Baoye [China Press], (18), 105-106.
  • [6] Ogden, D. (2013). Drakōn: Dragon myth and serpent cult in the Greek and Roman worlds. Oxford University Press.
  • [7] Lionarons, J. T. (1998). The medieval dragon: The nature of the beast in Germanic literature. Hisarlik Press.
  • [8] Honegger, T. (2019). Introducing the medieval dragon. University of Wales Press.
  • [9] Shi, A. (2013). “Zhongguo long” de faming [The invention of the “Chinese dragon”]. Wenxue Yu Wenhua [Literature and Culture], (1), 19-34.
  • [10] Liu, B. (2010). Dui shier shengxiao Han-Ying fanyi de sikao [Reflections on the Chinese-English translation of the twelve zodiac animals]. Zhongguo Fanyi [Chinese Translators Journal], 31(4), 72-75.
  • [11] Rykowski, R. (2011). Motivul luptei eroului cu zmeii pe pod în basmele fantastice româneşti [The motif of the bridge fight of the hero with the dragons in Romanian fantastic tales]. Annales Universitatis Apulensis. Series Philologica, 12(1), 231-240.
  • [12] Drăgulescu, R. (2017). Analysis of the connotative and denotative meanings of the Romanian term “zmeu” (dragon) as it appears in Romanian phytonymy. Journal of Romanian Literary Studies, (11), 86-96.
  • [13] Gong, C. (2025). Hei shenhua: Wukong zai haiwai shouzhong zhong kuawenhua chuanbo xiaoguo de diaocha yanjiu [An investigation of the intercultural communication effects of Black Myth: Wukong among overseas audiences]. Xinchu Wenhua [New Chu Culture], (19), 75-77. https://doi.org/10.20133/j.cnki.CN42-1932/G1.2025.19.023
  • [14] Wu, L., & Zhang, J. (2024). Huayu zhengce he zuqun shenfen dui Taiguo Yinni laihua liuxuesheng yuyan taidu de yingxiang [The influence of Chinese-language policy and ethnic identity on the language attitudes of Thai and Indonesian international students in China]. Heilongjiang Gaojiao Yanjiu [Heilongjiang Researches on Higher Education], 42(1), 129-139.
  • [15] Deng, Z., & Zhang, Z. (2025). Youxi chuhai yu Zhonghua wenhua guoji chuanbo: Shijue funeng yu zengxiao fansi [Game globalization and the international communication of Chinese culture: Visual empowerment and reflections on effectiveness]. Qingnian Tansuo [Youth Exploration], (3), 30-39.
  • [16] He, W., & Zhu, C. (2019). “Yidai yilu” beijing xia Zhonghua wenhua guoji chuanbo celüe: Yi Zhongyuan wenhua “zouchuqu” wei li [Strategies for the international communication of Chinese culture under the Belt and Road Initiative: The case of Central Plains culture going global]. Qingnian Jizhe [Youth Journalist], (36), 57-58.