The sentence is:


The use of '有针对性' with '地' here confused me. It seems to say '(have relevance)ly give', 'relevant' or 'relevantly give', either of which is awkward in English but obviously not in Chinese.

This bit is confusing me:

然后(企业)可以 有针对性地 给员工补充“能量”。

Afterwards company can (have relevance)ly for employee supplement (all?) “abilities”

My rewrite:


Afterwards (the) company can give (the) employee relevant (training), and in this way supplement his “abilities”

Does my rewrite catch the Chinese meaning properly?

  • 1
    This is a kind of bad Chinese prevailing in China 企业通过以上两张表格可以了解到目前员工最需要什么方面的培训,然后可以有针对性地给员工补充“能量”。 This is not the best but more native. 企業憑以上兩張表格,即可瞭解目前員工需要何種培訓,對症下藥,員工進修後便能改善。
    – OmniBus
    May 6, 2015 at 16:16

7 Answers 7


然后(企业)可以有针对性 地 给员工补充“能量”。

As you may have known, in Chinese adding double quotation mark to word indicates it(the word) means something beyond its literal meaning.

能量's literal meaning is energy. In your case, 能量 means the skills or abilities that employees need.

然后(企业)可以有针对性 地 给员工补充“能量”。

Literal Meaning: Afterwards company can refill(补充) the energy(能量) for employees accordingly(有针对性地).

Employees are not machines so they don't actually need to refill energy to perform better. They need more skills or abilities. The way to give someone skills or abilities is to train them.

So the actual meaning of the sentence is: Afterwards/Then company can give training (补充“能量”) to its employees accordingly.

I hope this answer helps.


The usage of XX性 and XX地 is deeply influenced by English. '针对' itself is a verb. It is weird to convert it to adj by adding -性 or to adv by adding -地. Yet I understand such usage is popular nowadays.

And therefore I do think '有针对性' is awkward also in Chinese. '针对' should be used as follows:

Company can provide trainings to employee targeting/according to their needs.
  • Thanks, I think English has too much influence on other languages. In France and Germany the people complain a lot about that. I had a feeling, but I didn't know, that this was a problem in China too. BTW you should write 'targeted to their needs'.
    – Pedroski
    May 8, 2015 at 6:48
  • Thanks. I intended to say 'targeting their needs', but then I added 'according to'. I also think the sentence structure '企业通过以上两张表格可以..' is also English (Company, through these two forms, can...). I would change the sentence to '企业可以利用這两张表格去了解...'
    – Lai
    May 9, 2015 at 7:42

有針對性地 means focusedly/targetedly/specifically

In this context, it means that the "thing" (omitted in the context but is very likely the training) that "supplements abilities" is focused/targeted/specific to what kind of training employees need, i.e. what abilities employees lack, therefore need to be trained on.

Your rewrite makes perfect sense, except that 員工 more likely refers to all the employees instead of a specific one.


能量 = energy (as in 正能量 positive energy)

针对性 = focused/directed/personalized

补充 = add

You've certainly got the general idea right but 针对性地 is not necessarily 培训.


In this case, I tend to translate it as "specifically". It's a bit hard here to translate it literally.

企业...的培训,然后可以有针对性地给员工补充“能量”。 ....., then it can help the employees improve the skills which they are specifically lacking of.


How about "…provide tailored training to help employees mitigate their weakness..." "Personalized" is a good translation too.


This was too long for a comment, so I'm putting it here for Lai, just for balance, it is a contra-argument:

~性 and ~化 seem to have a similarity here in their flexibility as descriptors, but I don't know that I would classify something as an adjective solely based on its ability to function as a descriptor. Just like in #47, we see noun+noun pairs with the same relationship but we don't call those nouns adjectives for it. I think that in #41, we have someone willfully eschewing practical knowledge in favour of ideological "anti-anglicization". It's perfectly normal for a verb+性 to occur, regardless of its supposed influence from English. 溶解性,擴散性,歧視性,爆發性,刺激性... I have trouble thinking of them but just because they're not everyday words doesn't make them not words.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.