Recently, two associate professors of a university in Hangzhou sued the Xinhua Dictionary for primary and secondary school students to the People's Court of Yuhang District, Hangzhou, questioning the annotations of four of the entries, which aroused widespread attention and discussion. They hold the following views: first, whether the interpretation of the word "play" as "**sex" is appropriate and whether it will lead to wrong sexual concepts;Secondly, for the sentence formation of the word "tired", "the child is small and has become a burden", will it give students a negative understanding and impression;Third, whether the sentence "with a pistol pinned to his waist" in the word "don't" complies with the provisions on publication management and may cause minors to imitate illegal acts;Finally, the interpretation of the word "倭" is only "the abbreviation of ancient Japan", and the deletion of the word "倭寇" is in line with the needs of historical records and patriotic education.
However, there are also those who disagree with these doubts. They believe that the Xinhua Dictionary is just a teaching tool, and that it cannot be perfect, and that different people will have different understandings of interpretation. In addition, Chinese culture is vast and profound, and the explanation of certain words does not always need to be very detailed, as long as it can be understood and comprehended, and there is no need to be overly obsessed. At the same time, some people believe that the behavior of the two associate professors may be to hype up or touch porcelain, escalate the issue to the legal level, waste judicial resources, and there is also a suspicion of hype.
Two different opinions have been formed on the Internet on this matter. Those who support the associate professor argue that their prosecution is a challenge to the quality of the Xinhua Dictionary, as well as a sign of defending the accuracy of the textbook and the bottom line of culture. They believe that after the previous incident of poisoning textbooks and the incident of illustrations of textbooks, it is necessary to question the authority and quality of the textbooks, and the law should intervene in management. In addition, they have disputed the interpretation of "**sex" in the "Xinhua Dictionary", believing that this involves sex education and other aspects, and needs to be given an appropriate interpretation. At the same time, this side also emphasized that the Xinhua Dictionary has deleted the word "倭寇", which is not conducive to patriotic education, and children should understand the harm caused by Japanese Kou to China.
On the other hand, those who oppose the associate professor argue that neither the Xinhua Dictionary nor any other dictionary can be perfect, and that the interpretation may be subjective, and the requirements for it should be relaxed. They argue that the two associate professors' actions are too sensitive, that not all words related to women need to be deleted or modified, and that they should not over-interpret the sentences in the dictionary. In addition, they believe that the two professors took the issue to court and hyped it up on the Internet, which may be a porcelain-like behavior and is not worthy of support. They advocate a rational and objective approach to the problem, and of course do not rule out the possibility that the dictionary needs to be constantly improved and updated.
In this regard, I believe that the two associate professors' lawsuit against Xinhua Dictionary and the controversy it caused are a kind of concern and supervision of the quality and accuracy of the textbook, as well as an expression of freedom of speech and the expansion of knowledge. Whether we support it or not, its original intention is worth affirming. In the current information age, we should encourage the public to pay attention to and question textbooks and dictionaries, and promote their continuous improvement to better serve education and social development.
At the same time, we should also maintain a rational and objective attitude when conducting discussions and debates. Perfection is impossible for any dictionary or textbook, and there is an element of subjective judgment in interpretation, which should be carried out on the basis of mutual respect and understanding**. Accurate explanation and correct sentence formation are important functions of the dictionary and should avoid misunderstanding or negative impact on students.
Finally, whether to delete an entry or adjust the definition should be weighed comprehensively based on academic, educational, social needs and common sense. In the lexicography, it is necessary to respect historical and cultural traditions, and to take into account the characteristics and values of contemporary society, with regular revisions and upgrades. We hope to see more authoritative, comprehensive and accurate textbooks and dictionaries to provide a better environment for students to learn and grow.