Recently, two associate professors at a university in Hangzhou filed a lawsuit against the Xinhua Dictionary, questioning the annotations of four of the entries. The four entries are "play", "tired", "don't", and "倭". They believe that there is a problem with the explanations in the dictionary that have a negative impact on the learning and growth of students.
Regarding the entry "play", the dictionary interprets it as "teasing" and gives "**sex" as a compound word for the word. This explanation has raised questions from the associate professor. They think why they chose "**sex" instead of other phrases when describing the phrase "play", and does this mean that sex education is suggested?
In addition, the entry "tired" is interpreted as "burdensome, superfluous burden, trouble", while the sentence formation gives "the child is small and becomes a burden". This has led associate professors to feel that the dictionary treats children inappropriately rather than focusing on their growth and development, rather than labeling them as cumbersome.
And the word "don't", and the sentence "with a pistol pinned to his waist" has caused concern among associate professors. They believe that such a sentence formation will trigger minors to imitate illegal behavior, which violates the regulations on the administration of publications.
The last entry is "倭", which is interpreted as an abbreviation for ancient Japan. However, in the explanation of the word, Wako is not included, and it does appear in Japanese dictionaries. The associate professors believe that the deletion of the word "Wako" is not conducive to patriotic education and children's understanding of history.
It is worth noting that this "Xinhua Dictionary" is a version for primary and secondary school students, and it is a reference book for students to learn, and the annotations in it need to be treated more carefully.
The incident quickly sparked a discussion among netizens, and two main points of view emerged. One side supports the prosecution of the two associate professors, which they believe is an act to maintain normal teaching order and cultural inheritance. There are several reasons why proponents of this view exist.
First of all, proponents believe that the "poisoned textbook incident" and the "textbook illustration incident" that occurred not long ago have attracted great attention from people and have had a negative impact on the inheritance of culture. Therefore, the content of the Xinhua Dictionary must be carefully reviewed to ensure that students receive the correct knowledge.
Secondly, the controversy over the "**sex" in the entry "play" was not caused this time. As early as last year, when a county in Guangxi inspected the relevant primary school textbooks, it was discovered that there were vulgar contents and pictures in the "Xinhua Dictionary" and some children's books. However, this issue has not been properly addressed, and the dictionary has not been modified. Therefore, the prosecution of the two associate professors is seen by supporters as further attention and appeal to this issue.
In addition, the deletion of the term "倭寇" was also noted in the reasons for support. Proponents argue that primary school students should learn about the harm done to China by the Japanese and help them develop patriotic feelings.
On the other hand, there are doubts and criticisms of the prosecution of the two associate professors. Proponents of this side believe that the whole incident may be just an act of hype or touching, and they give the following points to support their views.
First of all, they believe that the Xinhua Dictionary is just a teaching tool and cannot be 100% flawless. In the dictionary, some definitions may be appropriate for some people, but not for others. Therefore, the controversy over interpretation should be academic and not rise to the level of law.
Secondly, Chinese culture is broad and profound, and the explanation of some words can be understood and comprehended by people, and there is no need to be overly demanding. The purpose of dictionaries is to provide basic explanations and understanding, and not everyone can meet everyone's needs.
In addition, the overly sensitive behavior of the two associate professors has also been questioned. According to their logic, should all words involving women be removed in the future?It's like doing "**", which seems too extreme. For example, there is no obvious discomfort in the formation of the sentence "a pistol in your waist", and over-interpreting it can be misleading for children.
In addition, taking the matter to court and hyping it up on the Internet raises questions about the motives of the two associate professors. Some people think that this is just for hype or touching porcelain and is not worth supporting.
3. Thoughts and opinions on the eventFor this matter, I personally think that every point of view deserves a certain understanding and attention.
First of all, as a learning tool, the Xinhua Dictionary does need to be carefully considered for the choice of paraphrasing and sentence formation. Especially in the version used by elementary and middle school students, it is very important to focus on cultivating correct values and healthy cognition. For controversial content in this regard, attention should be paid to and revised in time to ensure that students are exposed to the correct knowledge.
Second, the prosecution of the two associate professors is their right and an attempt to solve problems with the current content of the dictionary. In modern society, individuals have the right to speak out and question, and it is only through dialogue and discussion that better solutions can be found.
However, in addressing these issues, the tendency to over-amplify and polarize should be avoided. We should not elevate this issue to the level of law, nor should we over-read and blame the choice of certain words. There is a need to return to rationality and objectivity, respect the existence of different points of view, and resolve disputes through equal and rational dialogue.
Finally, updating and improving the learning reference book is a long-term task. The opinions and suggestions of professional scholars and educators should be fully utilized to ensure that these reference books can better serve the learning and growth of students.
In short, the discussion and controversy caused by this incident reflects the attention and importance attached to learning reference books. Instead of opposing each other, we should focus more on the problem itself, seeking solutions and answers to solve the problem, so that our educational tools can better benefit the growth of the next generation.