Are mouse noodles actually made from mice? Touring street food name translations

The paper addresses challenges in translating culture-specific food terms, focusing on Malaysian street food where names are often handwritten or informally printed and translated by vendors (“layman translations”). In multicultural Malaysia, diverse linguistic backgrounds and dialects produce multiple English renderings for the same Chinese dish (e.g., 炒河粉 rendered as Char Kway Teow, fried flat noodle, Chao Kulu Tiao). Similar variability exists for Chinese surnames due to dialectal pronunciations (Hokkien, Hakka, Cantonese, Foochow), suggesting culture-driven variation may also shape street food translations. The study aims to identify the techniques used to translate street food names from Chinese to English and to explore cultural and linguistic factors influencing these practices, without evaluating translation quality or reception. Research questions: (1) What translation techniques are most commonly used? (2) How do cultural and linguistic factors influence these translations? The work situates street food translation within translation, culture, and ethnography studies, emphasizing dialectal transliteration and non-standard Romanized English forms common in lay translations.

Prior work identifies multiple techniques for translating food names, including borrowing/exoticising, literal translation, amplification/expansion, reduction/condensation, omission, cultural substitution/adaptation, and calque (e.g., Steynsaying 2020; Chen and Krong 2012; Al-Rushadi and Ali 2017; Graziano 2017; Ameanor and Wang 2022; Marco 2019). Studies conclude there is no one-size-fits-all taxonomy and cultural context is crucial. Transliteration between Chinese and English has largely focused on Mandarin Pinyin as intralingual translation, particularly for culture-specific domains like food and traditional medicine (Li 2019; Liao 2015; Reynolds 2016; Zhao 2016; Lim et al. 2022; Zhu et al. 2023). However, inconsistencies arise across systems (Wade–Giles vs Pinyin) and phonologies (Zhao 2019). Research on dialect-based transliteration (e.g., Cantonese Jyutping vs Putonghua Pinyin in Hong Kong) shows political and cultural implications of transliteration choices (Chan 2018; Wong 2021). Theoretical framing treats transliteration as intralingual translation (Jakobson 1959; Zetsch and Hil-Maden 2016), with typical changes including additions, omissions, restructuring, and lexical/syntactic/morphological/orthographic shifts (Zetsch 2009; Screnock 2018). Factors motivating intralingual translation include knowledge (background knowledge and linguistic competence), time, and culture (localisation and cultural politics) (Zethsen 2009; Zlotz 2017; Longoivitch 2011; Karas 2016). The literature highlights gaps regarding dialect-based transliteration beyond Cantonese (e.g., Hakka, Hokkien, Teochew) and contexts outside China, such as Malaysia.

Design: Qualitative case study combining micro-level content analysis of street food name translations with macro-level ethnographic description, supplemented by observations and semi-structured interviews. Settings and sampling: Data collected across Johor, Kedah, Kuala Lumpur, Malacca, Negeri Sembilan, Penang, Perak, Perlis, and Sarawak using purposive sampling. Phase 1 gathered paired Chinese–English street food names from night markets, coffee shops, hawker centres, food courts, and roadside/portable stalls via photographs; names were transcribed into Excel. Focus on four noodle foods commonly consumed by Chinese Malaysians: Lao Shu Fen (mouse noodle), Hokkien Mee, Wan Tan Mee, and Kueh Chap. Data saturation determined by no new translation types emerging. Totals: 36 translation types for Lao Shu Fen, 19 for Hokkien Mee, 22 for Wan Tan Mee, and 10 for Kueh Chap. Phase 2: Field observations of vendor–customer interactions to understand dialect usage, followed by semi-structured interviews in Kuala Lumpur with 10 street food vendors and 20 consumers (ages 20–70), multilingual in Malay, English, and Chinese (Mandarin and dialects). Inclusion criteria: vendors using Chinese and English and at least one dialect; stalls selling the focus noodles; consumers familiar with noodle foods. Interviews (15–20 minutes) conducted face-to-face in Chinese (Mandarin/dialects), recorded, transcribed manually; conducted October 2022–January 2023; pseudonyms used; informed consent obtained; iterative analysis to saturation. Analysis: Content analysis applied Mac’s (2019) transliteration framework and Screnock’s (2018) categories of content (addition, omission, restructuring) and linguistic changes (lexical, syntactic, morphological, orthographic). Thematic analysis (Howell et al., 2017) of interviews used a priori themes—knowledge (background knowledge, linguistic competence), culture (localisation, cultural policy), and time—based on Long N. K. (2018), Screnock (2018), and Zethsen (2009). Dialect pronunciations were clarified by recruiting Chinese Malaysians proficient in multiple dialects (Hokkien, Cantonese, Hakka, Teochew).

- Techniques observed: transliteration, literal translation, amplification, omission, and combinations thereof across the four foods. - Transliteration predominated and exhibited extensive spelling variation (morphological changes), with additional changes in content and structure (addition, omission, restructuring) and lexical choices. - Counts and variety: - Lao Shu Fen (mouse noodle): 36 translation types (Table 1). Examples include ‘Lao Shu Fan/Fun/Fen’, ‘Lau Shu Fen’, ‘Loh Shu Fun’, ‘Lo See Fun’ (transliteration; morphological change); ‘Mee Tikus’, ‘Lao Shu Noodles’ (transliteration + literal translation); ‘Mouse Noodles’ (literal); ‘Noodle’ (literal + omission); ‘Pearl Noodles’ (neutralisation + literal). - Hokkien Mee: 19 translation types (Table 2). Examples include ‘Hockien/Hock Kian/Hok Kien Mee’ (transliteration; morphological change), ‘Hokkien Mee’ (transliteration + omission), ‘Hokkien Noodles’ (transliteration + literal), ‘Prawn Noodle’ (omission + literal + amplification). - Wan Tan Mee: 22 translation types (Table 3). Examples include ‘Wan Tan Mee/Wantan Mee/Wan Tun Mee/Wonton/Wan Ton Mee’ (transliteration with morphological change and restructuring), ‘Dumpling Mee/Wantan Noodles/Wonton Noodles/Wooton Noodles/Wanton Noodle’ (literal + transliteration), ‘Wan Tun’ (literal + transliteration + amplification; omission of food type), ‘Noodle’ (literal; omission), ‘Mee with Boiled Wan Tan’ (transliteration + amplification; restructuring and addition). - Kueh Chap: 10 translation types (Table 4). Examples include ‘Kueh/Koay/Kuoy/Koay/Kway + Chap/Chup/Jub/Chay’ (transliteration; morphological changes). - Types of changes (Screnock 2018): - Addition (amplification): e.g., ‘Hokkien Prawn Mee (No Pork)’, ‘Wonton Noodles (Chinese Dumpling Noodle)’, ‘Mee with Boiled Wan Tan’. - Omission: e.g., ‘Lao Shu Fen’ → ‘Noodle’ (loss of ‘Lao Shu’), ‘Hokkien’ (omits food type), ‘Wan Tun’ (omits ‘noodles’), ‘Mee’ (omits ‘Fujian/Hokkien’). - Restructuring: word order shifts such as ‘Mee Wan Ton’ vs ‘Wan Ton Mee’ to foreground the food type for easier recognition. - Lexical changes: alternative renderings for the same item (e.g., ‘Lao Shu’/‘Mouse’/‘Pearl’; ‘Hokkien Mee’ vs ‘Prawn Noodle’; ‘Wan Tan Mee’ vs ‘Dumpling Noodle’). - Morphological changes: letter substitutions, capitalization, spacing variations (e.g., ‘Fan/Fun/Fen’; ‘Kueh/Koay/Kuoy/Kuay/Kway’; ‘Chap/Chup/Chay’; ‘Hok Kian’ vs ‘Hok kian’; ‘Wantan Mee’ vs ‘Wan Tan Mee’). - Factors driving variation (from interviews and observations): - Knowledge: Vendors’ multilingual/multidialectal backgrounds and linguistic competence determine dialect choice and spelling; transliteration reflects clan identity (Hokkien, Hakka, Cantonese, Teochew). Non-professional translators (vendors) lacking formal training produce non-standard forms. - Time: Generational differences and migration histories limited exposure to Mandarin Pinyin and standard English, leading to pronunciation-based ad hoc spellings. - Culture: Localisation and cultural politics yield mixed-language forms (Malay and English elements, e.g., ‘Mee Tikus’; ‘Fun’ influenced by English phonology), and transliteration acts as a cultural marker preserving heritage and identity.

Findings directly answer the research questions by showing transliteration as the dominant technique in Chinese-to-English street food naming in Malaysia and by identifying the sociolinguistic drivers—knowledge (including vendors’ linguistic competence), time, and culture (localisation and cultural politics). The pervasive dialect-based transliteration produces multiple orthographic variants, reflecting the multilingual ecology and clan identities (Hokkien, Hakka, Cantonese, Teochew). Content and linguistic changes (addition, omission, restructuring, lexical, morphological) demonstrate how vendors adapt names for intelligibility, ingredient disclosure, or local preference. Localisation effects, including Malay and English lexical influence, indicate transliteration as a site of cultural mixing and identity signalling rather than a pursuit of standardized equivalence. Ethnographic insights show vendors and customers often communicate in dialects, reinforcing transliteration as a medium for cultural preservation and social belonging. Thus, the translation landscape of Malaysian street food is shaped less by professional norms and more by community practices that valorize heritage and accessibility.

The study shows that Malaysian street food names are most often rendered into English through dialect-based transliteration, frequently combined with literal translation, amplification, and omission. Variation arises through additions, omissions, restructuring, lexical choices, and morphological differences in spelling, capitalization, and spacing. These practices reflect the interplay of knowledge (background knowledge and vendors’ linguistic competence), time (generational and migratory histories), and culture (localisation and cultural politics). Transliteration based on Chinese dialects functions as a cultural tag that preserves clan identities and underscores Malaysia’s multicultural character. The work contributes evidence from outside mainland China, highlighting dialectal transliteration beyond standard Pinyin. Future research could extend to other dialects, regions, and food categories, and examine reception and standardization dynamics in multilingual public signage.

- The study does not evaluate translation quality or consumer reception of translations, focusing instead on techniques and factors. - The ‘space’ factor in intralingual translation (text length constraints) was excluded by design. - Data were limited to four noodle foods; findings may not generalize to all street food categories. - Interviews were conducted in Kuala Lumpur (though names were collected across several states); vendor and consumer samples were purposively selected (10 vendors, 20 consumers) and may not represent all regions or demographics. - Reliance on non-professional translations and photographic sampling may miss ephemeral or digital menu variants. - Potential ambiguities in author-introduced frameworks (e.g., transliteration model references) and transcription of dialect spellings may affect categorization.