我们上海市在中小学推广普通话工作中曾提出一个号召:“普及‘三用语’,力争‘四用语’。”这句话初看起来,似乎在讲辩证法。不是说先普及“三用语”,“力争”“四用语”吗?但实践结果证明,“三用语”并没有为“四用语”创造什么好的条件,反而造成长期停留在力争的局面,使我市中小学——主要是中学的推广普通话进展迟缓。究其原因,“普及‘三用语’,力争‘四用语”这一号召,少了一点辩证法。所谓“三用语”,指的是:一、师生在上课时讲普通话;二、广播要用背通话;三、开会时要讲普通话。可见,即使普及了“三用语”,能有多少人、多少时间、多少场合在讲普通话?实际也只是少数人、少数时间、少数场合在讲普 We, Shanghai Municipality, put forward a call in popularizing Putonghua in primary and secondary schools: “popularizing the” three terms “and striving for the” four terms. “This sentence seems at first glance to appear to be dialectical. Is it not that the universalization of the ”three terms“ and ”strive for“ the ”four terms“ should be applied first? However, the practice proved that the ”three terms“ did not create any good conditions for the ”four terms“ and instead left a long-term stay in the fight. Primary and secondary schools in my city - mainly secondary schools to promote mandarin slow progress. The reason, ”popularization of ’three terms’ and strive to ’four terms’ of this call, a little less dialectics. The so-called “three terms” means: First, teachers and students speak Mandarin in class; Second, the radio to use the back of the call; Third, the meeting to speak Mandarin. We can see that even if the “three terms” are popularized, how many people, how much time, and how many occasions are speaking Putonghua? It is actually only a few people. In a small number of occasions, in a few occasions,