Recently, the news about the prosecution of "Xinhua Dictionary" has caused heated discussions on the Internet. However, the authenticity of this incident is highly questionable, because judging from Qian's past deeds, her actions seem to be more like a well-planned stage play than a real rights protection operation. At the same time, the debate over controversial interpretations in the Xinhua Dictionary has intensified. This article will analyze the causes of this controversy from the perspective of interpretation and examples of word combinations, and question and reflect on Qian's prosecution.
Xinhua Dictionary has long been one of the most highly regarded dictionaries, and in 2016 it was certified by Guinness World Records as the "Most Popular Dictionary" and "Best Selling Book". It plays an important role in national education and has made great contributions to the popularization of Chinese culture and the development of education. Recently, however, some interpretations have caused controversy, leading to discussions about whether the Xinhua Dictionary should keep pace with the times. As a reference book, the dictionary should be neutral, objective and accurate in theory, but it is difficult to be completely neutral because it also has a certain guiding role in national education.
When it comes to paraphrasing and examples, some people think that there are problems, such as some negative words that don't have corresponding combinations, or some example sentences that may cause discomfort. For example, the example sentences of the word "be" "he was scolded by his father", the compound words of the word "whip" "whip corpse", the compound words of the word "kill" "kill the king" and "kill the father", etc. However, there is also subjectivity in such evaluations, because some people think that these example sentences and phrases are reasonable and fit the context. One of the most controversial is the word "倭", because the Xinhua Dictionary does not include the word "倭寇". It was explained that the earliest version of the 1957 version did not contain the term and that there was therefore no question of deletion. However, due to the widespread use of the term "Wako" in modern practice, some people have expressed dissatisfaction with its non-inclusion in it. This has also sparked debate about whether the Xinhua Dictionary should be revised.
However, Qian's lawsuit against Xinhua Dictionary made the whole incident seem ridiculous. ** shows that she claimed to have submitted the indictment to the Yuhang District People's Court, but ** does not show a clear picture of the court, nor does it show the reception of the court staff, which makes the authenticity of the whole incident doubtful. Moreover, the contents of the indictment are not clearly presented, and only vague images can be seen, which further weakens the credibility of the incident. What is even more interesting is that the Yuhang District People's Court has not responded so far, and no reporters have interviewed relevant personnel of the court, which makes the incident even more confusing. From a legal point of view, if it is really sued, how can "Xinhua Dictionary" become a defendant?This makes the whole affair seem ridiculous. Moreover, it seems that the target of Qian's lawsuit is not the relevant unit of the Xinhua Dictionary, but the Institute of Linguistics of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences or the Commercial Press, and she is not qualified to be the plaintiff.
Through the understanding of Qian's past deeds, we found that she was not an honest and innocent "heroine", but was sentenced in some illegal business activities and even disqualified as a teacher. This makes people doubt her true intentions, is she just using this incident to gain attention and cause a storm?In general, the interpretation of the Xinhua Dictionary can be rationally discussed and suggested, but the use of fictitious methods to prosecute not only poses a challenge to the legal system, but may also cause the public to question **. Problematic dictionaries should be revised in an open and transparent manner with a view to resolving disputes, rather than generating public outrage through exaggeration. Incidents like this raise questions about whether this is just a hype rather than a real activism.
In the discussion on the interpretation of the "Xinhua Dictionary", netizens have put forward suggestions and questions. Where there are problems in the interpretation, the relevant parties should carefully evaluate them and consider appropriate revisions to maintain the neutrality and objectivity of the dictionary. This discussion helps dictionary publishers to better adapt to changes in society and people's needs. However, Qian attracted public attention by filing a lawsuit, but some inappropriateness can be seen from her behavior. First, the prosecution shown in ** lacks evidence before the court, and the relevant information about the court has not been verified. This makes the veracity of this event cast doubt and seems more like an elaborate drama. Second, the contents of the indictment are not clearly presented, which is procedurally unreasonable. If it is really to maintain justice, she should present the content of the indictment openly, so that the public and ** have a clearer understanding. In reality, she didn't, which makes the motive for the prosecution even more suspicious.
Moreover, even if she really wants to uphold the fairness of the interpretation of the Xinhua Dictionary, the target of the lawsuit should be the unit responsible for editing, not the Xinhua Dictionary itself. This lack of basic legal logic calls into question her true intentions. At the same time, Qian's personal experience was also revealed, and she was ** There were some misdeeds, which made it even more difficult to believe that she was sincere in defending her rights. From a broader perspective, the whole incident makes people reflect on the dissemination of information and the way controversy is handled in the age of the Internet. Attracting social attention through fictitious acts not only risks misleading the public, but also erodes trust in matters that really need to be defended. This has raised some questions worthy of deep thought for the construction of the rule of law in society and the quality of information dissemination.
Finally, on the issue of dictionary revision, the public's call for reasonable adjustments is a rational expression. However, "rights protection" through fictitious means can easily arouse public distrust and suspicion of rights protection actions. For those concerned, there is a need for more transparent responses to public skepticism in order to build a society of trust and justice. In general, the revision of the dictionary is a task that needs to be treated with caution and should be adjusted accordingly according to the development of the times and the needs of society. However, this process needs to be carried out through transparent mechanisms and sound procedures, rather than creating hot spots through fictitious behavior. It is hoped that through this incident, it can cause a deep reflection on the authenticity of information and the rational attitude towards controversy.