Grammar and Rhetoric (New Edition)

Author: Writing Group of "Grammar and Rhetoric" from National Foreign Language Colleges
Publisher:
Publish Date: 2002-11-09
Features: Learning a foreign language, regardless of the purpose, whether it is to apply the learned language to any job after mastering it, requires learning Chinese well—better than learning social sciences or natural sciences, because whether engaged in research, teaching, or translation, it is all language-related work. As a language professional, one must first master Chinese thoroughly—not just to understand and use it generally, but to fully master it. For those engaged in language-related work, learning Chinese well includes: possessing relatively high practical skills in using Chinese (listening, speaking, reading, writing) and having systematic knowledge about Chinese. Similarly, language professionals who primarily focus on Chinese also need to be proficient in at least one foreign language, and it is even better if they have a basic understanding of several more.
In the 1950s and earlier, higher education had overly specialized fields and neglected horizontal connections between disciplines, leading to extremely narrow knowledge bases and an inability to integrate and apply knowledge comprehensively. This was detrimental to learning any field, as no knowledge exists in isolation but interacts and complements other knowledge. Isolating oneself to study a narrow field does not lead to deep mastery of it. However, people are accustomed to this overly fragmented approach, which is why we often hear such regrettable statements: "I am a foreign language major, and I don’t understand Chinese." "I am a Chinese major, and I don’t understand foreign languages." We say this is regrettable because those who say this do not view it as a deficiency but rather as a matter of course. Recently, people have gradually recognized the harm of this past approach and have tried to correct it. However, the influence of the old mindset persists in both awareness and practice. Therefore, it is still necessary to reiterate these points.
Ideally, Chinese should be learned well during the basic education stage. Only with such a foundation can students focus on their chosen major in higher education. Unfortunately, due to various objective reasons, previous basic education did not fully achieve this, leaving students needing to make up for it in college. For those majoring in foreign languages, further improving their Chinese proficiency is their responsibility, setting them apart from other disciplines. If their Chinese foundation from middle school is insufficient, the burden becomes even heavier.
Given these circumstances, how foreign language colleges can teach Chinese to achieve better results in less time, enabling learners to reach the Chinese proficiency required of foreign language professionals, is an urgent and complex issue that needs research. This problem involves many aspects, and it is not possible to discuss them all here. It can only be narrowed to the scope of teaching Chinese knowledge, especially grammar and rhetoric.
Students in foreign language colleges, regardless of their primary language of study, should learn some Chinese grammar and rhetoric. There is no need, nor is it feasible, to spend a lot of time on it—neither learning too much nor delving into excessive detail. Those who aspire to conduct comparative studies between Chinese and a foreign language or other theoretical research involving Chinese should naturally study more. However, this is not a universal need and can be addressed for a small number of students through elective courses, specialized courses, or self-study guidance, among other methods.
Spending less time to master grammar and rhetoric well requires ensuring that teaching content (reflected in textbooks) is "concise, easy to understand, and practical." These six words are easy to say but difficult to achieve. "Concise" requires an attitude, perspective, and ability to start from reality, be pragmatic, and focus on practical results. Beyond that, unifying the three aspects—concise, easy to understand, and practical—is not an easy task.
Let’s set aside "easy to understand" for now. "Concise" and "practical" often conflict, and unifying them is no simple matter. To emphasize "concise," one might end up with a dry list of names, terms, definitions, and explanations, lacking substance and usefulness. To emphasize "practical," one might fall into tedious, overly detailed analyses and repetitive explanations of right/wrong or superiority/inferiority, which are also unhelpful. I have been advocating these six words for a long time, yet in the work I have been involved in, I have never truly achieved them.
This textbook, "Grammar and Rhetoric," co-authored by the Writing Group of Grammar and Rhetoric for Foreign Language Colleges and revised after its first round of use, clearly aims for this goal. Of course, I dare not say it is perfect, but I can say it is far better than my own efforts. I deeply admire it. Perhaps for this reason, the textbook has been widely adopted—not only by foreign language colleges but also by many other institutions, as well as adult education and part-time learning centers, and self-learners.