<p>I vaguely recall coming across something like this in Liang Hongyan's very detailed book on HSK 6 level grammar. Her explanation, if I remember correctly, is that, contrary to English usage, you can't 提高 a 水平. You have to use some other word to mean &quot;raise&quot; when you're talking about a level. But even then, I doubt most Chinese would agree or care.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-13T03:31:03.030Z
2021-05-13T03:31:03.030Z
Peter Swarbrick
<p>社会稳定，人民生活水平显著提高，这[一切]都给人留下了深刻的印象</p>

<p>社会稳定，人民生活水平显著提高，这[两点]都给人留下了深刻的印象</p>

<p>Technically, there's no grammar or spelling mistake, But when the sentence only listed two points, using 'both' is better than 'all'. </p>

<p>A simpler example:</p>

<p>邮局和银行，[两项]都是必需服务 O</p>

<p>邮局和银行，[全部]都是必需服务 X</p>

<p>Another way to make this sentence better is add one more point </p>

<p>社会稳定，人民生活水平显著提高，与及教育程度上升，这一切都给人留下了深刻的印象</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-03T16:40:59.260Z
Well this is kind of strange. Using "all" strictly for three and above seem to be a western thing? When I was in school this is what I was taught for English but not for Chinese. Or is this a new development of the recent decade?
user3528438
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-03T16:53:57.917Z
@user3528438 It is for modern Chinese as well. If there's only two items, we use 'both' instead of 'all'. It is similar to another rule of restricting the use of 几 (few) to three or above items. e.g. You cannot describe 'two brothers' as "few brothers"
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-03T16:59:18.900Z
but 都 is not restricted, you can say 邮局和银行，[都]是必需服务 but not 邮局和银行，[全部]都是必需服务
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-03T17:03:00.540Z
This is pretty ugly.....When there's expression for "both" it's really inconvenient to restrict "all" to three and above...
user3528438
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-03T17:09:20.203Z
If it is acceptable  for English grammar to be set this way, I don't see  how it is  unacceptable for Chinese grammar to be set this way as well.
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-03T17:13:17.250Z
Because Chinese doesn't have "both" and by restricting "all" to three and above people are forced to use "those two" more often than ideal. It's like when you don't have a word for "actress" but at the same time restrict "actor" to refer to male, then everyone are forced to use "female actor" everywhere. Does that really do any good?
user3528438
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-03T17:15:10.077Z
We have  都 that's not restricted, which can mean 'all' or 'both'  e.g. "John and  Peter both agree" is considered correct "  while "John and  Peter all agree" is considered incorrect. Same in Chinese “约翰和彼得都同意” is correct “约翰和彼得全都同意” isn't
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-03T17:20:16.787Z
Chinese language does have words for  "both" - 兩者 , 都, 皆, 均 can all be translated as 'both' in the right context, just 都, 皆, 均 can also be translated as 'all'
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-04T03:44:54.133Z
So, we couldn't really blame that Dude in that YouTube video for seeing nothing wrong with Question "C" because he was not taught "ultra modern Chinese"? In an academic test, when a question says that something is "wrong" or "incorrect", then the "right" or "correct" answer must be the one and only answer that could be submitted. Like 1+1=2, and not 11? So if Tang Ho, user3528438 and that YouTube Dude were to take the same test, we'll get 2 against 1. BTW, does the HSK Test book give the "official" correct answer? For all we know, everyone here is wrong?
Wayne Cheah
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-04T03:59:18.577Z
So, it is not "wrong" to say "一切" in that sentence; just not "modern Chinese"? HSK Test Books should now make clear what kind of Chinese is called for.
Wayne Cheah
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-18T17:34:45.597Z
as a native speaker，i don't think there are any restrictions on “都” for 2 items and “全部” for 3+ items
imkzh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-02T07:35:57.250Z
2020-05-02T08:26:46.100Z
2020-05-02T08:26:46.100Z
Tang Ho
<p><a href="http://sice.lzu.edu.cn/HdAtt/att/2017/05/20170522134328597.pdf" rel="nofollow noreferrer">This material</a> offers some insight (translation mine):
<a href="https://i.sstatic.net/aHYAU.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/aHYAU.png" alt="enter image description here"></a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>一切-所有-全部 All are used to express "whole", "no exceptions". Can be used
  as attributive adjunct, sometimes interchangeable. </p>
  
  <p>When used as attributive adjunct, 全部 emphasizes on "collective" and
  "whole", and usually not on people. The subject of 全部 must have a
  specific scope. 一切 and 所有 may not have a scope.</p>
  
  <p>所有 can only be used as attributive adjunct, emphasizing on "every
  single individual" within the scope. It can be used on people or
  objects.</p>
  
  <p>一切 emphasizes all the categories that are included within a subject
  (my understanding is "一切 emphasizes on all the subject covered by a
  certain scope"). It is usually used on abstract subject and not
  concrete ones. It could be used to describe people in the general
  term, but must have attributive adjunct before it. It is often
  interchangeable with 所有.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>In this way, 一切 is similar to a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantification" rel="nofollow noreferrer">universal quantification</a> in math:</p>

<ol>
<li><p>It is abstract, so you can not name its individual entries or describe its scope by enumerating all of it entries.</p></li>
<li><p>The specific meaning is expressed by describing the scope it covers as a concept.</p></li>
</ol>

<p>In summary, 一切 is an abstract term but this usage is too concrete.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-03T17:54:41.363Z
2020-05-04T00:22:27.443Z
2020-05-04T00:22:27.443Z
user3528438
<p>In all seriousness, as a college student majoring in Chinese linguistics &amp; a native speaker, all of the above explanations don't make sense to me. I think there’s <strong>nothing grammatically wrong</strong> with this sentence, which means it is simply a bad question.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>I'm going to guess that 人民 ("the people") should be either 民众 ("the
  populace") or 老百姓 ("ordinary people"). I also feel it omits
  grammatical particles (的 地 得), but maybe that's okay. I don't really
  know.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>人民生活水平 is a common expression in Chinese, and the usage of 人民 here is correct. This sentence, however, does not omit any grammatical particles (的) either, since it's feasible to use a <strong>sentence</strong> to serve as a <strong>subject</strong>. "國語的推行需要大家的努力"(literally The implementation of the Mandarin language requires the efforts of all) and "在全社會推行國語需要大家的努力" are both grammatically correct.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>In summary, 一切 is an abstract term but this usage is too concrete.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Please pay attention to this: "一切 and 所有 <strong>may not</strong> have a scope." This means that
it's fine even if it has a scope. E.g. When preparing for a dinner, people often say "可口的蛋糕、浪漫的蠟燭，一切都已準備好了。" Nevertheless, to some extent it's also an abstract usage since the things prepared includes but not limited to the two preparations (cakes and candles) previously mentioned.</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Technically, there's <strong>no grammar or spelling mistake</strong>, But when the
  sentence only listed two points, using 'both' is better than 'all'.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>This is exactly the point. There's no strict regulations on the usage of "both"/"all" in Chinese. Some might say one way is better than the other, but basically it's due to the impact of English grammar. It is grammatically correct to use "一切" to address two things only, though it might not meet everyone's sense of language.</p>

<p>In summary, I see no reason to blame that dude in the video. This is merely a bad question.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-12T16:20:17.817Z
Quote:- "...basically it's due to the impact of English grammar" which of course gives us "modern or Anglicized Chinese"? Quote:- "...grammatically correct to use "一切" to address two things only, though it might not meet everyone's sense of language" The point is this is HSK Text material, meaning a lot of non-Chinese speakers would learn and be learning the language from. If this is not an isolated "bad question", then the issues require urgent review before anything that does not conform strictly to English grammar becomes "bad / wrong Chinese"
Wayne Cheah
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-13T06:57:26.507Z
Personally 100% agree with @WayneCheah. With anglicization becoming more and more prevailing, we do need more clarification on issues like these. In fact, there are actually more academic publications concerning Anglicized Chinese these days, and so I think sooner of later this would reflect on HSK, Chinese Gaokao and stuff. For now I still take this as an isolated question, 'cuz I genuinely don't think this makes up a huge proportion of Chinese grammar as a whole. But I also think the authors of HSK should at least to some extent avoid such controversial questions. Just a little thought.
Asher Shang
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-13T09:47:20.000Z
Another native speaker here. Can confirm this sentence is not wrong and this is just a bad question. Bad questions are not uncommon in tests in China. The other answers are overanalyzing it or inventing grammatical rules.
Betty
CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-12T14:36:46.503Z
2020-05-12T14:36:46.503Z
Asher Shang
<p>In <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADg1BLT7EcI" rel="nofollow noreferrer">a YouTube video</a> a native Chinese speaker answers questions on the HSK-6 test.  He gets one wrong: to identify which &quot;has grammatical errors or uses wrong words&quot; below:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>A. 每个人都可以有所作为，但前提条件是认定了就要去做，而不是半途而废。</p>
<p>B. 经过艰苦的跋涉，终于到达南天门，然后我又一鼓作气，登上了玉皇顶。</p>
<p>C. <strong>社会稳定，人民生活水平显著提高，这一切都给人留下了深刻的印象。</strong></p>
<p>D. 他坚信母亲的教诲，相信自己一定是一朵花，只是还没等到开花的时节。</p>
</blockquote>
<p>He thought they were all correct, so he chose D, but the correct answer is C.</p>
<p><strong>Question</strong>: What is wrong with C?</p>
<p>I'm going to guess that 人民 (&quot;the people&quot;) should be either 民众 (&quot;the populace&quot;) or 老百姓 (&quot;ordinary people&quot;).  I also feel it omits grammatical particles (的 地 得), but maybe that's okay.  I don't really know.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2020-05-04T03:11:01.367Z
I consulted two Chinese language professionals and neither could find serious flaws in option C. I think it indicates this isn't a good question to some degree.
user3528438
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-13T09:01:46.333Z
I think all the four sentences are right.
xenophōn
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-13T09:48:47.767Z
Another native speaker here. Can confirm this sentence is not wrong and this is just a bad question. Bad questions are not uncommon in tests in China. Many answers are just overanalyzing it or inventing rules that don't actually exist in Chinese grammar.
Betty
CC BY-SA 4.0
2021-05-13T10:12:03.733Z
I've deleted my answer. I realised 提高 can act as an adjective in certain situations. But what I've said about transitivity and self/other-acting verbs are not inventions. I understood Peter Swarbrick's argument and thought I could elaborate on that.
L Parker
<grammar><word-choice><hsk>
On a HSK6 test, why is 社会稳定，人民生活水平显著提高，这一切都给人留下了深刻的印象 the incorrect sentence?
# On a HSK6 test, why is 社会稳定，人民生活水平显著提高，这一切都给人留下了深刻的印象 the incorrect sentence?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2020-05-02)

In [a YouTube video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ADg1BLT7EcI) a native Chinese speaker answers questions on the HSK-6 test. He gets one wrong: to identify which "has grammatical errors or uses wrong words" below:

> A. 每个人都可以有所作为，但前提条件是认定了就要去做，而不是半途而废。
>
> B. 经过艰苦的跋涉，终于到达南天门，然后我又一鼓作气，登上了玉皇顶。
>
> C. **社会稳定，人民生活水平显著提高，这一切都给人留下了深刻的印象。**
>
> D. 他坚信母亲的教诲，相信自己一定是一朵花，只是还没等到开花的时节。

He thought they were all correct, so he chose D, but the correct answer is C.

**Question**: What is wrong with C?

I'm going to guess that 人民 ("the people") should be either 民众 ("the populace") or 老百姓 ("ordinary people"). I also feel it omits grammatical particles (的 地 得), but maybe that's okay. I don't really know.

**Tags:** grammar, word-choice, hsk
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: I consulted two Chinese language professionals and neither could find serious flaws in option C. I think it indicates this isn't a good question to some degree.  
> **username_2**: I think all the four sentences are right.  
> **username_3**: Another native speaker here. Can confirm this sentence is not wrong and this is just a bad question. Bad questions are not uncommon in tests in China. Many answers are just overanalyzing it or inventing rules that don't actually exist in Chinese grammar.  
> **username_4**: I've deleted my answer. I realised 提高 can act as an adjective in certain situations. But what I've said about transitivity and self/other-acting verbs are not inventions. I understood Peter Swarbrick's argument and thought I could elaborate on that.  

---

## 4 answers

### Answer by username_9 on 2020-05-12. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

In all seriousness, as a college student majoring in Chinese linguistics & a native speaker, all of the above explanations don't make sense to me. I think there’s **nothing grammatically wrong** with this sentence, which means it is simply a bad question.

> I'm going to guess that 人民 ("the people") should be either 民众 ("the
> populace") or 老百姓 ("ordinary people"). I also feel it omits
> grammatical particles (的 地 得), but maybe that's okay. I don't really
> know.

人民生活水平 is a common expression in Chinese, and the usage of 人民 here is correct. This sentence, however, does not omit any grammatical particles (的) either, since it's feasible to use a **sentence** to serve as a **subject**. "國語的推行需要大家的努力"(literally The implementation of the Mandarin language requires the efforts of all) and "在全社會推行國語需要大家的努力" are both grammatically correct.

> In summary, 一切 is an abstract term but this usage is too concrete.

Please pay attention to this: "一切 and 所有 **may not** have a scope." This means that
it's fine even if it has a scope. E.g. When preparing for a dinner, people often say "可口的蛋糕、浪漫的蠟燭，一切都已準備好了。" Nevertheless, to some extent it's also an abstract usage since the things prepared includes but not limited to the two preparations (cakes and candles) previously mentioned.

> Technically, there's **no grammar or spelling mistake**, But when the
> sentence only listed two points, using 'both' is better than 'all'.

This is exactly the point. There's no strict regulations on the usage of "both"/"all" in Chinese. Some might say one way is better than the other, but basically it's due to the impact of English grammar. It is grammatically correct to use "一切" to address two things only, though it might not meet everyone's sense of language.

In summary, I see no reason to blame that dude in the video. This is merely a bad question.

> **Comments:**
> **username_7**: Quote:- "...basically it's due to the impact of English grammar" which of course gives us "modern or Anglicized Chinese"? Quote:- "...grammatically correct to use "一切" to address two things only, though it might not meet everyone's sense of language" The point is this is HSK Text material, meaning a lot of non-Chinese speakers would learn and be learning the language from. If this is not an isolated "bad question", then the issues require urgent review before anything that does not conform strictly to English grammar becomes "bad / wrong Chinese"  
> **username_9**: Personally 100% agree with @WayneCheah. With anglicization becoming more and more prevailing, we do need more clarification on issues like these. In fact, there are actually more academic publications concerning Anglicized Chinese these days, and so I think sooner of later this would reflect on HSK, Chinese Gaokao and stuff. For now I still take this as an isolated question, 'cuz I genuinely don't think this makes up a huge proportion of Chinese grammar as a whole. But I also think the authors of HSK should at least to some extent avoid such controversial questions. Just a little thought.  
> **username_3**: Another native speaker here. Can confirm this sentence is not wrong and this is just a bad question. Bad questions are not uncommon in tests in China. The other answers are overanalyzing it or inventing grammatical rules.  

---

### Answer by username_5 on 2021-05-13. Score: 1

I vaguely recall coming across something like this in Liang Hongyan's very detailed book on HSK 6 level grammar. Her explanation, if I remember correctly, is that, contrary to English usage, you can't 提高 a 水平. You have to use some other word to mean "raise" when you're talking about a level. But even then, I doubt most Chinese would agree or care.


---

### Answer by username_6 on 2020-05-02. Score: 1

社会稳定，人民生活水平显著提高，这[一切]都给人留下了深刻的印象

社会稳定，人民生活水平显著提高，这[两点]都给人留下了深刻的印象

Technically, there's no grammar or spelling mistake, But when the sentence only listed two points, using 'both' is better than 'all'.

A simpler example:

邮局和银行，[两项]都是必需服务 O

邮局和银行，[全部]都是必需服务 X

Another way to make this sentence better is add one more point

社会稳定，人民生活水平显著提高，与及教育程度上升，这一切都给人留下了深刻的印象

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Well this is kind of strange. Using "all" strictly for three and above seem to be a western thing? When I was in school this is what I was taught for English but not for Chinese. Or is this a new development of the recent decade?  
> **username_6**: @user3528438 It is for modern Chinese as well. If there's only two items, we use 'both' instead of 'all'. It is similar to another rule of restricting the use of 几 (few) to three or above items. e.g. You cannot describe 'two brothers' as "few brothers"  
> **username_6**: but 都 is not restricted, you can say 邮局和银行，[都]是必需服务 but not 邮局和银行，[全部]都是必需服务  
> **username_1**: This is pretty ugly.....When there's expression for "both" it's really inconvenient to restrict "all" to three and above...  
> **username_6**: If it is acceptable  for English grammar to be set this way, I don't see  how it is  unacceptable for Chinese grammar to be set this way as well.  
> **username_1**: Because Chinese doesn't have "both" and by restricting "all" to three and above people are forced to use "those two" more often than ideal. It's like when you don't have a word for "actress" but at the same time restrict "actor" to refer to male, then everyone are forced to use "female actor" everywhere. Does that really do any good?  
> **username_6**: We have  都 that's not restricted, which can mean 'all' or 'both'  e.g. "John and  Peter both agree" is considered correct "  while "John and  Peter all agree" is considered incorrect. Same in Chinese “约翰和彼得都同意” is correct “约翰和彼得全都同意” isn't  
> **username_6**: Chinese language does have words for  "both" - 兩者 , 都, 皆, 均 can all be translated as 'both' in the right context, just 都, 皆, 均 can also be translated as 'all'  
> **username_7**: So, we couldn't really blame that Dude in that YouTube video for seeing nothing wrong with Question "C" because he was not taught "ultra modern Chinese"? In an academic test, when a question says that something is "wrong" or "incorrect", then the "right" or "correct" answer must be the one and only answer that could be submitted. Like 1+1=2, and not 11? So if Tang Ho, user3528438 and that YouTube Dude were to take the same test, we'll get 2 against 1. BTW, does the HSK Test book give the "official" correct answer? For all we know, everyone here is wrong?  
> **username_7**: So, it is not "wrong" to say "一切" in that sentence; just not "modern Chinese"? HSK Test Books should now make clear what kind of Chinese is called for.  
> **username_8**: as a native speaker，i don't think there are any restrictions on “都” for 2 items and “全部” for 3+ items  

---

### Answer by username_1 on 2020-05-03. Score: 0

[This material](http://sice.lzu.edu.cn/HdAtt/att/2017/05/20170522134328597.pdf) offers some insight (translation mine):
[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/aHYAU.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/aHYAU.png)

> 一切-所有-全部 All are used to express "whole", "no exceptions". Can be used
> as attributive adjunct, sometimes interchangeable.
>
> When used as attributive adjunct, 全部 emphasizes on "collective" and
> "whole", and usually not on people. The subject of 全部 must have a
> specific scope. 一切 and 所有 may not have a scope.
>
> 所有 can only be used as attributive adjunct, emphasizing on "every
> single individual" within the scope. It can be used on people or
> objects.
>
> 一切 emphasizes all the categories that are included within a subject
> (my understanding is "一切 emphasizes on all the subject covered by a
> certain scope"). It is usually used on abstract subject and not
> concrete ones. It could be used to describe people in the general
> term, but must have attributive adjunct before it. It is often
> interchangeable with 所有.

In this way, 一切 is similar to a [universal quantification](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_quantification) in math:

1. It is abstract, so you can not name its individual entries or describe its scope by enumerating all of it entries.
2. The specific meaning is expressed by describing the scope it covers as a concept.

In summary, 一切 is an abstract term but this usage is too concrete.


---

