<p>Yes 完整(whole) and 全面 (total) can be used interchangeably just like &quot;completely&quot; and &quot;totally&quot; are interchangeable in some contexts in English</p>
<p>But 完整 (wholly) also contains the meaning of &quot;not altering&quot;</p>
<p>The sentence used four adverbs to describe the verb 落实</p>
<ul>
<li><p>完整 (adv)- wholly (not altering)</p>
</li>
<li><p>准确 (adv)- accurately</p>
</li>
<li><p>全面 (adv)- completely</p>
</li>
<li><p>贯彻 (adv)- thoroughly</p>
</li>
<li><p>落实 (v) - implement</p>
</li>
<li><p>党中央决策部署 - Party Central Committee's Decision-Making and Deployment(n)</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>完整落实 = wholly implement (with no alteration)</p>
<p>全面落实 = completely implement (in all aspects)</p>
<p>The word &quot;完整&quot; (wholly) stresses the importance of following all directions when carrying out the implementation (no alteration allowed). It is different from &quot;全面&quot; (completely), which stresses the implementation has to be total and complete</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-23T04:58:45.387Z
2022-11-23T04:58:45.387Z
Tang Ho
<p>The word &quot;完整&quot; emphasizes the completeness of the activity from start to finish.</p>
<p>Nevertheless, the word &quot;全面&quot; emphasizes the activity's scope.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-25T08:57:38.237Z
2022-11-25T08:58:35.650Z
2022-11-25T08:58:35.650Z
Cupcc
<p>完整 and 全面 in Chinese do not have the same connotation.</p>
<p>In English, the word that contains the same connotation as 全面 does is holistic(ally) -- meaning taken-as-a-whole. Possibly, you need to view things at a different (more strategic) level to &quot;take-as-a-whole&quot;.</p>
<p>Still, the direct translation for 全面 is &quot;total&quot;, especially since 全面 and &quot;total&quot; are used in other matching contexts. But when you only think in English, you miss the connotation in the original text. (<s>Translation needs to be done holistically...</s>)</p>
<p>In contrast, 完整 has the connotation that emphasize &quot;match&quot; or &quot;complete match&quot;. &quot;Complete&quot; is still the best English word in translation. Nothing comes to my mind in English that carries the same emphasis of match.</p>
<p>Thus, it's worth commenting on the relative restriction on the two Chinese words.
In English, close proximate to these Chinese words include: completely, wholly, fully. These are adverb versions of common words in daily speech and as a result do not have precise boundaries of meanings in English. 完整 and 全面 in Chinese are not used nearly as commonly in daily speech and wouldn't be as interchangeable as a result.</p>
<p>Back to the sentence, 完整准确全面贯彻落实党中央决策部署. The words are not repetitive, though what constitutes the most concise or effective sentence is not the subject of linguistic analysis but rather relate to the intent of the text. Without getting into the politics,</p>
<ul>
<li><p>完整 asks for nothing missing in content</p>
</li>
<li><p>准确 asks for precise execution/matching of content</p>
</li>
<li><p>全面 asks for understanding of intent</p>
</li>
</ul>
<p>All 3 asks overlapping things. The only thing I could say is that the emphasis are different. For example, you cannot be 完整 without being 准确. So the words are not repeated. It's a matter of taste whether you find the emphasis are superfluous.</p>
<p>Still, in the future, I do not expect any of the adverbs to be dropped unless the sentence is dropped in official communication -- less people construe there is a change in emphasis.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-23T16:02:49.493Z
2022-11-23T16:15:14.163Z
2022-11-23T16:15:14.163Z
Argyll
<p>“完整准确全面贯彻落实党中央决策部署”</p>
<p>The phrasing used to be simply <strong>全面贯彻</strong>党中央决策部署 in People’s Daily. Then later it became <strong>全面贯彻落实</strong>党中央决策部署 to require not merely “carrying out” (the act of doing) but also “implementing” (the result of doing). Still later, it was probably found out that the policy decisions were not completely carried or implemented in that only certain parts of the policy decisions were carried out or implemented leaving some parts (probably difficult parts) either undone or done in a twisted way not strictly in line with the policy decisions, indicating that the cadres probably thought they had a discretion in leaving out certain parts undone or doing them in a way not strictly in line with the policy decisions, as long as the major parts were carried out or implemented in accordance with the policy decisions.  So the phrase became “<strong>完整准确</strong>全面贯彻落实党中央决策部署”. In other words, 全面(overall, still leaving some discretion) does not necessarily include完整(complete, no discretion)， nor necessarily include准确 (no tweaking is allowed, must be strictly in line with the policy decisions, namely removing any supposed discretion to tweak any part of the decisions. It’s basically a gap-plugging exercise like a piece of legislation in the west trying to plug any possible loopholes. If it turns out in future that the decisions were not carried out or implemented strictly in accordance with the policy but in some novel way not even envisaged or caught by “complete” or “accurate” requirements, one might see some new words added or coined by the ingenious editors of People’s Daily. Who knows?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-29T21:10:42.703Z
2022-11-29T21:24:10.540Z
2022-11-29T21:24:10.540Z
Geoffrey Chang
<p>No
All the answers here are wrong
I am Chinese and I want you to understand the order matters in Chinese</p>
<p>完整</p>
<p>全面</p>
<p>全面完整</p>
<p>完整全面</p>
<p>two phrases have four totally different meanings</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-24T03:31:46.303Z
I am Chinese too, why do you think this fact matters to how correct one's answer would be? BTW,  全面完整 is just 全面 + 完整; 完整全面  is just 完整 + 全面. Order doesn't matter
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-24T03:40:56.740Z
Even for a common phrase like "精明能幹", changing it to "能幹精明" is totally acceptable (classical style) and it doesn't change the meaning at all.
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-16T15:01:45.050Z
because This is political jargon
zhikang Xu
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-23T22:17:15.677Z
2022-11-24T03:35:10.430Z
2022-11-24T03:35:10.430Z
zhikang Xu
<p>完整准确全面贯彻落实党中央决策部署 or words to that effect can be found in the mainstream media in China, with the three adverbs 完整准确全面used as a whole， but I find that 完整 and 全面 are almost the same, if not identical.
I can't see why it is necessary to repeat the same here?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-24T17:18:34.057Z
These style texts are called 党八股, A type of 八股文. They like to pile up a bunch of synonyms.
sfy
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-11-25T12:10:36.500Z
@sfy is right. There are nuances among these words, but I would still recommend avoiding writing something like this.
user
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-12-02T22:27:44.993Z
Wow, why do you bother about those party nonsense? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Weishan Yang
<word>
Isn't 完整 the same as 全面 in the catchphrase 完整准确全面贯彻落实党中央决策部署?
# Isn't 完整 the same as 全面 in the catchphrase 完整准确全面贯彻落实党中央决策部署?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-11-23)

完整准确全面贯彻落实党中央决策部署 or words to that effect can be found in the mainstream media in China, with the three adverbs 完整准确全面used as a whole， but I find that 完整 and 全面 are almost the same, if not identical.
I can't see why it is necessary to repeat the same here?

**Tags:** word
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: These style texts are called 党八股, A type of 八股文. They like to pile up a bunch of synonyms.  
> **username_2**: @sfy is right. There are nuances among these words, but I would still recommend avoiding writing something like this.  
> **username_3**: Wow, why do you bother about those party nonsense? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯  

---

## 5 answers

### Answer by username_4 on 2022-11-23. Score: 4

Yes 完整(whole) and 全面 (total) can be used interchangeably just like "completely" and "totally" are interchangeable in some contexts in English

But 完整 (wholly) also contains the meaning of "not altering"

The sentence used four adverbs to describe the verb 落实

* 完整 (adv)- wholly (not altering)
* 准确 (adv)- accurately
* 全面 (adv)- completely
* 贯彻 (adv)- thoroughly
* 落实 (v) - implement
* 党中央决策部署 - Party Central Committee's Decision-Making and Deployment(n)

完整落实 = wholly implement (with no alteration)

全面落实 = completely implement (in all aspects)

The word "完整" (wholly) stresses the importance of following all directions when carrying out the implementation (no alteration allowed). It is different from "全面" (completely), which stresses the implementation has to be total and complete


---

### Answer by username_5 on 2022-11-25. Score: 2

The word "完整" emphasizes the completeness of the activity from start to finish.

Nevertheless, the word "全面" emphasizes the activity's scope.


---

### Answer by username_6 on 2022-11-23. Score: 0

完整 and 全面 in Chinese do not have the same connotation.

In English, the word that contains the same connotation as 全面 does is holistic(ally) -- meaning taken-as-a-whole. Possibly, you need to view things at a different (more strategic) level to "take-as-a-whole".

Still, the direct translation for 全面 is "total", especially since 全面 and "total" are used in other matching contexts. But when you only think in English, you miss the connotation in the original text. (~~Translation needs to be done holistically...~~)

In contrast, 完整 has the connotation that emphasize "match" or "complete match". "Complete" is still the best English word in translation. Nothing comes to my mind in English that carries the same emphasis of match.

Thus, it's worth commenting on the relative restriction on the two Chinese words.
In English, close proximate to these Chinese words include: completely, wholly, fully. These are adverb versions of common words in daily speech and as a result do not have precise boundaries of meanings in English. 完整 and 全面 in Chinese are not used nearly as commonly in daily speech and wouldn't be as interchangeable as a result.

Back to the sentence, 完整准确全面贯彻落实党中央决策部署. The words are not repetitive, though what constitutes the most concise or effective sentence is not the subject of linguistic analysis but rather relate to the intent of the text. Without getting into the politics,

* 完整 asks for nothing missing in content
* 准确 asks for precise execution/matching of content
* 全面 asks for understanding of intent

All 3 asks overlapping things. The only thing I could say is that the emphasis are different. For example, you cannot be 完整 without being 准确. So the words are not repeated. It's a matter of taste whether you find the emphasis are superfluous.

Still, in the future, I do not expect any of the adverbs to be dropped unless the sentence is dropped in official communication -- less people construe there is a change in emphasis.


---

### Answer by username_7 on 2022-11-29. Score: 0

“完整准确全面贯彻落实党中央决策部署”

The phrasing used to be simply **全面贯彻**党中央决策部署 in People’s Daily. Then later it became **全面贯彻落实**党中央决策部署 to require not merely “carrying out” (the act of doing) but also “implementing” (the result of doing). Still later, it was probably found out that the policy decisions were not completely carried or implemented in that only certain parts of the policy decisions were carried out or implemented leaving some parts (probably difficult parts) either undone or done in a twisted way not strictly in line with the policy decisions, indicating that the cadres probably thought they had a discretion in leaving out certain parts undone or doing them in a way not strictly in line with the policy decisions, as long as the major parts were carried out or implemented in accordance with the policy decisions. So the phrase became “**完整准确**全面贯彻落实党中央决策部署”. In other words, 全面(overall, still leaving some discretion) does not necessarily include完整(complete, no discretion)， nor necessarily include准确 (no tweaking is allowed, must be strictly in line with the policy decisions, namely removing any supposed discretion to tweak any part of the decisions. It’s basically a gap-plugging exercise like a piece of legislation in the west trying to plug any possible loopholes. If it turns out in future that the decisions were not carried out or implemented strictly in accordance with the policy but in some novel way not even envisaged or caught by “complete” or “accurate” requirements, one might see some new words added or coined by the ingenious editors of People’s Daily. Who knows?


---

### Answer by username_8 on 2022-11-23. Score: -2

No
All the answers here are wrong
I am Chinese and I want you to understand the order matters in Chinese

完整

全面

全面完整

完整全面

two phrases have four totally different meanings

> **Comments:**
> **username_4**: I am Chinese too, why do you think this fact matters to how correct one's answer would be? BTW,  全面完整 is just 全面 + 完整; 完整全面  is just 完整 + 全面. Order doesn't matter  
> **username_4**: Even for a common phrase like "精明能幹", changing it to "能幹精明" is totally acceptable (classical style) and it doesn't change the meaning at all.  
> **username_8**: because This is political jargon  

---

