arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 2610.35191

Lost in Translation: Investigating Systematic Discrepancies between Parallel English and Chinese Names of American Chinese Restaurants

Hang Jiang·Nanxi Liu·Tiantian Wang·Cassandra Overney·Rukun Zhang·Artemisia Luk·Diyi Yang·Deb Roy·Jad Kabbara
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Given that the Chinese are one of the oldest ethnic groups to immigrate to the US, their cuisine have become central to the US dining scene and an interesting avenue to study how Chinese immigrants have culturally adapted into American life. In that regard, previous research has focused on analyzing the English names that Chinese restaurants adopt, e.g., finding the use of familiar and typical words. To investigate how Chinese immigrants have culturally integrated in the US depending on social, geographic and demographic contexts, we investigate in this work the under-explored relationship between the Chinese and English names of American Chinese restaurants. Specifically, we conduct a study on 3,172 Chinese restaurants (10% of the total on Google Maps) sampled across the US. We present 8-dimension name frames to capture the underlying meanings behind names and create the NameFrames dataset containing 884 annotated parallel Chinese/English names. We also built an NLP pipeline to analyze the semantic discrepancies between names with both frame-based and embedding-based distance metrics. Our frame analysis shows that English names more often emphasize Location and Specialty, while Chinese names more often emphasize Positivity and Ambiance. Furthermore, we observe that for Chinese restaurants located in urban areas, those in counties with a higher concentration of Chinese population, or those that are relatively new, the discrepancies between the English and Chinese names are noticeably larger. Finally, interviews with 10 Chinese restaurant owners reveal additional interesting insights regarding naming conventions.

Explore related subjects

cs.CL

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Hang Jiang, Nanxi Liu, Tiantian Wang, Cassandra Overney, Rukun Zhang, Artemisia Luk, Diyi Yang, Deb Roy, Jad Kabbara. 2026-10-26. Lost in Translation: Investigating Systematic Discrepancies between Parallel English and Chinese Names of American Chinese Restaurants. https://arxiv.org/abs/2610.35191

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Auto-AdvER: Disentangling Condition, History, and Commercial Offers in Automotive Advertisements

This paper presents a case study on the development of Auto-AdvER, a specialised span-labelling schema, along with its corresponding dataset for the textual car advertisement domain. Developed with industry needs in mind, Auto-AdvER is designed to enhance text mining analytics in this domain and contributes a linguistically unique sequence-labelling dataset. We introduce a schema consisting of three labels: 'Condition', 'Historic', and 'Sales Options'. We outline the guiding principles for annotation, describe the methodology for schema development, and present the results of an annotation study demonstrating an inter-annotator agreement of 78%. Furthermore, we compare the performance of various models, including transformer encoder models (BERT, DeBERTaV3) and transformer decoder-based open- and closed-source large language models: Llama, Qwen, GPT, and Gemini, as well as conditional random fields. Our results show that a fine-tuned DeBERTaV3 encoder achieves the highest F1-score, followed closely by conditional random fields, while the large language models reach the highest precision but lower recall. We present this work as a stepping stone towards more fine-grained analysis and discuss Auto-AdvER's potential impact on advertisement analytics, pricing, and customer insights. Potential applications include the analysis of market dynamics and data-driven predictive maintenance.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

Large Language Model probabilities cannot reliably distinguish between possible and impossible language

A controversial test for Large Language Models concerns the ability to discern possible from impossible language. While some evidence attests to the models sensitivity to what crosses the limits of grammatically impossible language, this evidence has been contested on the grounds of the soundness of the testing material. We use model-internal representations as a direct means of investigating the way Large Language Models represent the grammatical-ungrammatical distinction. In a novel benchmark, we elicit sum log probabilities from 8 models and compute minimal-pair surprisal differences, juxtaposing probabilities assigned to grammatical sentences to probabilities assigned to (i) lower frequency grammatical sentences, (ii) ungrammatical sentences, (iii) semantically odd sentences, and (iv) pragmatically odd sentences. The prediction is that if string-probabilities can function as proxies for the limits of grammar, the ungrammatical condition will stand out among the conditions that involve linguistic violations, showing a spike in the surprisal rates. Our results do not reveal a unique surprisal signature for ungrammatical prompts: across models, we observe comparable surprisal for the pragmatically odd condition, and the semantically odd condition consistently shows even higher surprisal. We thus demonstrate that probabilities do not constitute reliable proxies for grammaticality, showing that probability differences alone cannot be used to infer model-internal representations of syntactic knowledge. Consequently, claims about models being able to distinguish possible from impossible language need verification through a different methodology.

cs.CL↗
arXiv2026

KnowMT-Bench: Benchmarking Knowledge-Intensive Long-Form Question Answering in Multi-Turn Dialogues

Multi-Turn Long-Form Question Answering (MT-LFQA) is a key application paradigm of Large Language Models (LLMs) in knowledge-intensive domains. However, existing benchmarks are limited to single-turn dialogue, while multi-turn dialogue benchmarks typically assess other orthogonal capabilities rather than knowledge-intensive factuality. To bridge this critical gap, we introduce \textbf{KnowMT-Bench}, a new benchmark designed to systematically evaluate MT-LFQA for LLMs across knowledge-intensive fields, including medicine, finance, and law. To faithfully assess the model's real-world performance, KnowMT-Bench employs a dynamic evaluation setting where models generate their own multi-turn dialogue histories given logically progressive question sequences. Our experiments on a diverse suite of LLMs show a clear degradation in both factual capability and information delivery efficiency in multi-turn dialogue. We further probe the underlying causes and investigate mitigation strategies spanning domain-specific finetuning, active context denoising, and RAG. The results show domain-dependent gains from finetuning, while active context denoising and RAG more consistently mitigate these issues, with RAG notably reversing this performance degradation. These findings underscore the importance of our benchmark for evaluating LLMs' conversational factual capabilities in real-world applications. Code and data are publicly available.\footnote{\href{https://github.com/Sven-LI-sankyuu/KnowMT-Bench}{\texttt{https://github.com/Sven-LI-sankyuu/KnowMT-Bench}}}

cs.CL↗