How does the Chinese curriculum standard express the nature of Chinese curriculum?

Chinese is an important communication tool and an important part of human culture. The unity of instrumentality and humanism is the basic feature of Chinese curriculum. "It reveals the most essential feature of Chinese, namely the unity of instrumentality and humanity.

(1) Chinese is a language, and language is a tool or communication tool, so Chinese (discipline) is an instrumental discipline.

(2) Chinese is spiritual culture, and spiritual culture is humanistic, so Chinese (discipline) is a humanistic discipline.

(3) Chinese is not only a communication tool, but also an important part of human culture. Therefore, Chinese (discipline) is a course with the unity of instrumentality and humanity. This view has been written into the language curriculum standard promulgated by 200 1.

These three theories all have the following three problems.

(1) These three theories confuse the language that existed before the language discipline independent of the language discipline with the language that refers to the language discipline, and substitute "what is the nature of the language discipline" for "what is the nature of the language discipline", and then simply and mechanically infer from the language that the language discipline is a tool discipline, a humanities discipline or a course in which instrumentality and humanity are unified. If Chinese becomes an instrumental subject because it is a communication tool or a tool, wouldn't computer science become an "office assistant subject"? Isn't history a mirror subject (because history is a mirror of reality)? If Chinese is a kind of humanistic spirit or humanity, it must be said that Chinese is a humanities subject, so the nature of politics, history, music, art and many other disciplines is not exactly the same as that of Chinese?

(2) These three theories make people completely ignorant of what people just understand. Arguing about the nature of Chinese is nothing more than figuring out what Chinese is to teach students to master, that is, what is the purpose and task of Chinese teaching. Chinese subjects are nothing more than courses that teach people to read, write and read articles, and illiterate people will blurt them out. But now it is said that Chinese subjects are "tool subjects" and "humanities subjects". Isn't this "I will understand if you don't say it, and the more you say it, the more confused I am"?

(3) These three theories have not clearly explained what is the language and characters that existed before the Chinese subject independently. If a language is a language, and then a language is a tool or a communication tool, it is just a lame metaphor, not a scientific definition, just like saying that a computer is an assistant or a work assistant. It doesn't explain what a computer is at all. Saying that Chinese is an important part of spiritual culture or human culture cannot make people understand what Chinese is, because the teaching content of any knowledge and course in the world is an important part of spiritual culture or human culture. What kind of spiritual culture or part of human culture belongs to China? Isn't it as meaningless as just saying that genes are an important part of life, and people can't understand what genes are?