Kitabı oku: «Collins Improve Your Writing Skills», sayfa 2

How axiomatic is your bus shelter?

Here’s a letter from the West Yorkshire Passenger Transport Executive:

I refer to your recent letter in which you submit a request for the provision of a bus passenger shelter in Ligett Lane at the inward stopping place for Service 31 adjacent to Gledhow Primary School. The stated requirement for a shelter at this location has been noted, but as you may be aware shelter erection at all locations within West Yorkshire has been constrained in recent times as a result of instructions issued by the West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council in the light of the Government’s cuts in public expenditure and, although it seems likely that the Capital Budget for shelter provision will be enhanced in the forthcoming Financial Year, it is axiomatic that residual requests in respect of prospective shelter sites identified as having priority, notably those named in earlier programmes of shelter erection will take precedence in any future shelter programme.

Let us briefly mop our brows and try to fathom what the poor, befuddled author intended to say, before we set about helping him say it in plain English.

At a guess, the passage could be summed up like this:

I refer to your request for a bus shelter in Ligett Lane . . . Unfortunately, because of Government spending cuts, West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council has in turn ordered a curb on bus-shelter building. Although there may be more money for such work in our next financial year, shelters already on the waiting list will obviously be built first.

This seems simple enough, so where did the author go wrong? Let us lay his Frankenstein’s monster on the dissecting slab:

I refer to your recent letter in which you submit a request for the provision of a bus passenger shelter in Ligett Lane . . . If the writer identifies the subject clearly enough, there is no need to remind his correspondent of all the details. The correspondent wants a straightforward Yes, No, or even Maybe – with an explanation, if the answer is No or Maybe.

The stated requirement for a shelter at this location has been noted . . . Of course it has. Otherwise the official would not be writing at all.

but as you may be aware . . . This is word-wasting. It doesn’t matter if the correspondent is aware or not. The official’s job is to make sure the correspondent knows the facts now.

shelter erection at all locations within West Yorkshire has been constrained in recent times . . . No purpose is served by at all locations. There is no reason to use within rather than in, no matter how widely this particular verbal fungus has spread.

constrained should be replaced by the easier-to-understand restricted; and in recent times is a redundancy. So is as a result of instructions issued by.

West Yorkshire Metropolitan County Council is rendered with a rare and forceful clarity, with not a syllable wasted. But then we slide back . . . in the light of the Government’s cuts in public expenditure . . . The only meaning of in the light of, here, is because of. Your reader, rightly or not, will still blame the Government for the lack of a bus shelter, whether you use the clear or the foggy expression. So why head into the fog? (See Fog Index, page 75)

and, although it seems likely that the Capital Budget for shelter provision will be enhanced in the forthcoming Financial Year . . . The reader is less interested in what the bus shelter fund is called than what it will do for him, and when. So ditch the Capital Budget. And since a shelter is a shelter, provision is yet another unneeded word.

enhanced, in this context, means increased; there seems to be no reason to evade the more commonly-used word.

it is axiomatic that . . . Your dictionary will tell you that an axiom is a self-evident statement, a universally accepted principle established by experience; axiomatic here is presumably meant to convey self-evidently true. If something is that obvious, the official is wasting paper and his correspondent’s time in saying it.

residual requests in respect of prospective shelter sites identified as having priority, notably those named in earlier programmes of shelter erection . . . Thrusting the dissecting knife into the middle of this lot, we are left with shelter requests not met by earlier building programmes to which we add will take precedence in any future shelter programme. There’s not a lot to argue about here, for once – apart, perhaps, from the repetition of shelter programme.

The deskbound, wordbound Frankenstein who created our monster may be saddened, even angry, at the way we have slimmed down his offspring. But at least he – and more importantly, his correspondent – can now discover what he really meant to say.

Missives such as our bus shelter letter don’t have to be long to lose their way. Here’s a paragraph from an insurance policy, hunted down by the Plain English Campaign:

The due observance and fulfillment of the terms so far as they relate to anything to be done or complied with by the Insured and the truth of the statements and answers in the Proposal shall be conditions precendent to any liability of the Company to make any payment under this Policy.

Follow? Perhaps after five minute’s concentration you might feel that you have fully understood it. The Campaign’s recommended version would no doubt leave the insurance company gasping for words:

We will only make a payment under this policy if:

 you have kept to the terms of the policy; and

 the statements and answers in your Proposal are true.

Almost all officialese can be analysed, dissected and rendered into clear and readily understood English but some is so dense as to resist the sharpest and most probing of scalpel blades. Here’s an example, quoted by the Daily Telegraph, that consigns itself forever in the limbo of lost understanding:

ANY lump sum paid in accordance with Provision 7 of the Second Schedule shall be an amount equal to the Basic Nominal Fund that would be applied to calculate the Alternative Annuity under Provision 5 or Provision 12 of the Second Schedule on the assumption that the Annuitant had elected under Provision 4 of the Second Schedule that the date of his death was the Alternative Vesting Date or if greater an amount equal to the premiums received by the Society.

This is the sort of verbal hurdle that is still likely to confront average citizens at any time. Are we really expected to understand this guff? Or are we expected to hire a specialist or consultant to help us? Yet none of the sorry examples quoted here need have happened, if only the writers had held this conversation with themselves:

Q and A can save the day

Q	What’s it all about?
A	It’s about when somebody is classed as disabled/the special duty of a landlord in a Housing Action Area/someone wanting a bus shelter built.
Q	What do we want to say?
A	We want to say that someone who can’t walk unaided is officially disabled; that a Housing Action Area landlord has to warn the council when there’s about to be a tenancy available; that we can’t afford the requested bus shelter just now.
Q	Very well. So why don’t we just SAY it!

There is no excuse for obscurity. The English language, with its lexicon of nearly half a million words, is there to help any writer express any thought that comes into his or her head – even the virtually inexpressible. If we can’t manage this, we should give up and leave it to others. Or admit our faults and learn how to do better.

The No-Good, the Bad and the Ugly: the Obstacles to Clear Communication

The long, long trail a-winding: Circumlocution

Bournemouth was on Monday night thrown into a state of most unusual gloom and sorrow by the sad news that the Rev A M Bennett – who for the last 34 years has had charge of St Peter’s Church and parish, and who has exercised so wonderful an influence in the district – had breathed his last, and that the voice which only about a week previously had been listened to by a huge congregation at St Peter’s was now hushed in the stillness of death . . .

Lymington Chronicle, January 22, 1880

When a writer or speaker fills you with the urge to shout ‘Get on with it!’, he or she is probably committing the sin of circumlocution – roundabout speech or writing, or using a lot of words when a few will do. In most of today’s newspapers the prose above would be a collector’s item.

Politicians, of course, are notable circumlocutionists; perhaps it’s an instinct to confuse, to prevent them from being pinned down. A few years ago a British political leader went on television to explain his attitude to the introduction of a single currency for all countries in the European Community.

Before you continue reading, you should probably find a comfortable seat . . .

No, I would not be signing up: I would have been making, and would be making now, a very strong case for real economic convergence, not the very limited version which the Conservatives are offering, so we understand, of convergence mainly of inflation rates, important though that is, but of convergence across a range of indicators – base rates, deficits and, of course, unemployemt – together with a number of indexes of what the real performance of economics are . . .

(Perhaps a brief tea-break would be in order here.)

. . . the reason I do that and the reason why that is an argument that must be won before there is any significant achievement of union is not only a British reason, although it is very important to us, it is a European Community reason: if we were to move towards an accomplished form of union over a very rapid timetable without this convergence taking place it would result in a two-speed Europe, even to a greater extent than now – fast and slow, rich and poor – and the fragmentation of the Community, which is the very opposite of what those people who most articulate the view in favour of integration and union really want; when I put that argument to my colleagues in, for instance, the Federation of Socialist Parties, many of whom form the governments in the EC, there is a real understanding and agreement with that point of view . . .

So what, precisely, might the gentleman have been hoping to convey? Probably this:

I do not want a single European currency until various other factors affecting the question have been dealt with. The factors are these . . .

A former US President, George Bush, was famous for his bemusing circumlocution, as in this speech defending his accomplishments:

I see no media mention of it, but we entered in – you asked what time it is and I’m telling you how to build a watch here – but we had Boris Yeltsin in here the other day, and I think of my times campaigning in Iowa, years ago, and how there was a – I single out Iowa, it’s kind of an international state in a sense and has a great interest in all these things – and we had Yeltsin standing here in the Rose Garden, and we entered into a deal to eliminate the biggest and most threatening ballistic missiles . . . and it was almost, ‘Ho-hum, what have you done for me recently?’

Circumlocution (also called periphrasis) typically employs long words, often incorrectly or inappropriately, and probably derives from a need to sound learned (a policeman referring to a bomb as an explosive device) or a desire not to offend (asking, for example, ‘I wonder if you would mind awfully moving to one side’ instead of the more direct ‘Get out of my way!’. Some forms of circumlocution may be excusable, but most are due to unthinking use of jargon and clichés in place of more precise (and usually briefer) expressions. Typical is the use of with the exception of for except; with reference to/regard to/respect to for about; for the very good reason that for because, and so on.

To avoid being accused of circumlocution, stick to the point! If you intend to drive from London to Manchester in the most direct way possible you’d hardly wander off every motoway exit and then dither about along country lanes. The same principle applies to effective communication.

It also pays to be aware of persistent offenders – circumlocutory phrases many of us are inclined to utter when the exact, simple word we want fails to turn up. Here’s a short list.

The Circumlocutionist’s Lexicon

apart from the fact that – but, except

as a consequence of – because of

as yet – yet

at the time of writing – now/at present

at this moment/point in time – now/at present

avail ourselves of the privilege – accept

be of the opinion that – think, believe

because of the fact that – because

beg to differ – disagree

by means of – by

by virtue of the fact that – because

consequent upon – because of

consonant with – agreeing/matching

could hardly be less propitious – is bad/unfortunate/unpromising

due to the fact that – because

during such time as – while

during the course of – during

except for the fact that – except/but

few in number – few

for the reason that/for the very good reason that – because

give up on (it) – give up

go in to bat for – defend/help/represent

in accordance with – under

in addition to which – besides

in a majority of cases – usually

in all probability – probably

in anticipation of – expecting

inasmuch as – since

in association with – with

in close proximity to – near

in connection with – about

in consequence of – because of

in contradistinction to – compared to/compared with

in excess of – over/more than

in isolation – alone

in less than no time – soon/quickly

in many cases/instances – often

in more than one instance – more than once

in order to – to

in respect of – about/concerning

in spite of the fact that – although/even though

in the absence of – without

in the amount of – for

in the event that – if

in the light of the fact that – because

in the near future – soon

in the neighbourhood of/in the vicinity of – near/about

in the recent past – recently

in view of/in view of the fact that – because

irrespective of the fact that – although

large in size/stature – large/big

make a recommendation that – recommend that

nothing if not – very

notwithstanding the fact that – even if

of a delicate nature/character – delicate

of a high order – high/great/considerable

of the opinion that – think/believe

on account of the fact that – because

on a temporary basis – temporary/temporarily

on the grounds that – because

on the part of – by

owing to the fact that – because

pink/purple/puce, etc in colour – pink/purple/puce, etc

prior to – before

provide a contribution to – contribute to/help

regardless of the fact that – although

subsequent to – after

there can be little doubt that – no doubt, clearly

there is a possibility that – possibly/perhaps

to the best of my knowledge and belief – as far as I know/I believe

until such time as – until

with a view to – to

with reference to – about

with regard to – about

with respect to – about/concerning

with the exception of – except

People prone to pompous long-windedness can be gently reminded of their sins by quoting to them a well-known nursery rhyme rewritten in circumlocutory style:

Observe repeatedly the precipitate progress of a trio of sightless rodents: together they coursed apace on the heels of the agriculturalist’s consort, who summarily disjoined their caudal appendages with a cutler’s handiwork. One had never witnessed such mirth in one’s existence as the incident involving those hemeralopic and nyctalopic mammals.

The rhyme is, of course, Three Blind Mice.

An utterly unique added extra: Tautology

Mr and Mrs David Smith are proud to announce the birth of a baby girl, Sarah Anne.

Now, like ‘Dog Bites Man’, this isn’t really news. But what if Mrs Smith had given birth to an adult girl? That would be news! Obviously Mrs Smith had given birth to a baby; it happens all the time. The newsy bit is that it was a girl.

The use of the word baby here is what is known as pleonasm, the use of redundant words. The same would apply if Mrs Smith invited the neighbours in to see her ‘new baby’. Are there any old babies? Of course all babies are new!

When a word repeats the meaning of another word in the same phrase it is called tautology and, usually, all verbal superfluities are known by this term.

Free gift! Added extra! Added bonus! These are exciting claims. And also wasted words: classic examples of tautology, the use of more than one word to convey the same thought.

A gift, if not free, is not a gift – except perhaps in the slang usage, ‘That car was an absolute gift at £6,000’.

Something extra is clearly something added. And a bonus is normally an addition. Even if the word is used to describe something apart from money, an added bonus is an added addition. Nonsense, obviously. Yet we hear and read phrases such as added bonus every day, from people who have not thought what they are saying or writing, or do not care.

So accustomed are we to tautology in everyday speech and reading that this form of language misuse can pass unnoticed:

Will David’s income be sufficient enough for you both?

How many of us would normally detect that enough is a wasted word?

Avoiding redundant words and expressions is a sign of a caring writer and here, to help you, is an A to Z of some of the more common superfluities.

An A to Z of Tautology

absolute certainty

actual facts (and its cousin, true facts)

added bonus/extra

adequate/sufficient enough

a downward plunge

advance warning

appear on the scene

arid desert

attach together

audible click

burn down, burnt up (burn and burnt by themselves are usually better)

circle round, around

collaborate together

connect together

consensus of opinion (it’s simply consensus)

couple together

crisis situation

divide it up, divide off

each and every one

early beginnings

eat up

enclosed herewith, enclosed herein

end result

file away

final completion

final upshot

follow after

forward planning

free gift

funeral obsequies

future prospects

gather together

gale force winds

general consensus

grateful thanks

Have got (a common one, this. Simply have is fine)

the hoi polloi (as hoi means ‘the’, the is obviously redundant)

hoist up

hurry up

important essentials

in between

inside of

indirect allusion

I saw it with my own eyes (who else’s?)

join together

joint cooperation

just recently

lend out

link together

lonely isolation

meet together

merge together

mix together, mix things together

more preferable

mutual cooperation

necessary requisite

new beginner, new beginning

new creation

new innovation, new invention

original source

other alternative

outside of

over with (for ended, finished)

pair of twins

past history

penetrate into

personal friend

polish up

proceed onward

raze to the ground (raze by itself means exactly that)

really excellent

recall back

reduce down

refer back

relic of the past

renew again

repeat again

revert back

rise up

safe haven

seldom ever

set a new world record

settle up

sink down

still continue

sufficient enough

swallow down

this day and age

totally complete

totally finished

tiny little child

unique means the only one of its kind. You can’t get much more unique than that.

Not even quite unique, absolutely unique and utterly unique

unexpected surprise

unite together

unjustly persecuted

usual habit

very pregnant

viable alternative

warm 75 degrees (of course 75 degrees is warm!)

whether or not

widow woman

There are other forms of repetition, some intentional and some not. Writers have often used it for effect, for example in Samuel Taylor Coleridge’s The Rime of the Ancient Mariner:

Alone, alone, all, all alone,

Alone on a wide wide sea!

Or in this equally famous passage from a speech of Winston Churchill’s:

We shall go on to the end, we shall fight in France, we shall fight on the seas and oceans, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender.

Then there are those instances when, in writing, we manage to box ourselves into a corner with such irritating repetitions as, ‘Her opinion is, is that it will never work’; ‘The dealer admitted he had had the sideboard in his shop for two months’; ‘Not that that would bother her in the least’ and so on.

Finally, take care with double negatives, distant cousins of pleonasm. Although they can be useful they are also often confusing. The bomb attack was not unexpected. If you lived in a terrorist-ridden area, where to be bombed sooner or later would be no great surprise, the double negative not unexpected is better for conveying a suspended kind of expectation than was expected or was no surprise.

The puzzle for many writers is, why is I don’t know nothing about it considered to be unacceptable, while the Prime Minister is not unmindful of the damage already suffered . . is grammatically respectable? The answer lies in the modifying power of the combination; not uncommon, for example, does not mean exactly the same as common but something between common and uncommon – ‘a little more common than you might think’. The trouble is that often, double negatives can leave the readers trying to work out what is meant, so they are probably best avoided.