NOTE: Today I'm posting, mostly because of laziness, a modified version of a column I posted here at SleuthSayers almost 14 years ago. And since I'm recycling it, its title should probably be "Deja Vu All Over Again, All Over Again." But I'll leave well enough alone. Here goes . . .
Some time ago, I heard a newsman on National Public Radio say that someone "shared this in common" with someone else. That wording bothered me. (Not enough to make me move the dial to a rap or gospel music station, but it did bother me.) I've forgotten exactly who he said was sharing something in common with whom, but--to use an example--if you and your father are both baseball fans, you either share a love of baseball with your father or you and your father have that in common. You don't share it in common, and if you say you do, you've created a redundancy.
This kind of error can probably be forgiven more easily in speech than in writing. We writers are supposed to know better. (And so are NPR newscasters.) Not that I am guiltless. Right here in this blog, I can remember using the term added bonus--which is a little silly. If it's a bonus, it is by definition added, so to use both words is redundant. And in real life I'm always talking about something happening the exact same way it happened earlier. Other phrases I use a lot are final outcome, plan ahead, and free gift. Imagine how much time I could save and how much smarter I could sound if I cut out the words exact, final, ahead, and free.
Alternative choices
I know what you're thinking. Sometimes phrases containing redundancies are used intentionally, to add emphasis. Examples: completely surrounded, truly sincere, each and every, definite decision, cease and desist, direct confrontation, forever and ever, and so on. Redundancies also come into play when using certain abbreviations, like UPC code, HIV virus, please RSVP, iOS operating system, and AC current. My favorite is PIN number. But I still use the term. The technically correct PI number just wouldn't roll well off the tongue, unless maybe you're referring to a phonebook listing for Philip Marlowe, or how many peach cobblers your aunt Bertha made this year.
A working awareness of this kind of thing can be handy to writers, because cutting out redundancies provides us with another way to "write tight." An argument can even be made that such common and inoffensive phrases as sit down, stand up, nod your head, or shrug your shoulders are literary overkill as well, and do nothing except add extra work. Why not just say (or write) sit, stand, nod, and shrug? Where else would you stand but up? What else would you shrug except your shoulders? (Wait, don't answer that.)
Unintentional Mistakes
Even if you're not a writer, here are a few more redundancies that come to mind:
twelve noon
sum total
commute back and forth
mental telepathy
advance reservations
drowned to death
merge together
observe by watching
armed gunman
visible to the eye
hot-water heater
overexaggerate
false pretense
hollow tube
disappear from sight
myself personally
a future prediction
safe haven
during the course of
regular routine
a variety of different items
filled to capacity
pre-recorded
a pair of twins
unexpected surprise*
the reason is because
originally created
red in color
few in number
poisonous venom
* could also mean a pair of twins
Do you ever find yourself using these (or similar) phrases when you speak? More importantly, do you embarrass yourself by using them when you write? I try to watch for, and correct, them in my own manuscript, but I'm sure some of them manage to make it through intact. Can you think of others I forgot to mention? Are there any that you find particularly irritating?
The end result
Time for a confession: I will probably (and happily) continue to use many of these redundancies in everyday conversation, and even in writing if they're a part of dialogue. Sometimes they just "sound right." But I wouldn't want to use them in a column like this one.
In point of fact, lest any of you protest against forward progress, past history reveals an unconfirmed rumor that a knowledge of repetitious redundancy is an absolute, necessary essential, and that the issue might possibly grow in size to be a difficult dilemma. If there are any questions about the basic fundamentals, I'll be glad to revert back and spell it out in detail. And even repeat it again.
Or maybe postpone it until later.
I'll close with a quote from my fellow SleuthSayer Robert Lopresti: "This program was brought to you by the Department of Redundancy Department, which brought you this program."
A fun column, John! Love your list - far more than I could think of at 6 in the morning, and no, I can't sleep. I wonder if some of our redundancies could be attributed to the odd nature of English, in that we basically have two words for every meaning (the Anglo-Saxon, and the Norman French). I wonder if - like in our legal nomenclature/terminology (wry smile), we sometimes combine the two for absolute clarity? (And I love your 'unexpected surprise*')
ReplyDeleteThat's probably true, Melodie. And, as I think I said, I will continue to say things like "the exact same," "regular routine," etc. But it IS surprising how often we use extra and unneeded words in phrases like these.
DeleteI can't even imagine having to learn English as a second language. Foreigners must think we're crazy--and they'd be right. Thanks as always!
The most irritating to me (but not really a redundancy) is Blogspot's willingness to post an article at 12:00 AM or 12:00 PM. Gack! 'Tain't no such critter! Grates like fingernails on a chalkboard (remember those?). Second runner-up is Trump's claim to have reduced medication prices by 635%. Do people even think any more?
ReplyDeleteHi Jerry. To answer your question: No. They don't.
DeleteAnd I agree with you 738%.
John D. MacDonald used to say that "Whether or not" as a phrase should not be used because "whether", alone, conveys the possibility of the "or not" alternative. I find that this (and similar rules) get so embedded in my head that when I read for pleasure I mentally strip out the "or not-s" when I encounter them.
ReplyDeleteI do the same, Dale. As a result, those kind of redundancies don't bug me at all. (But in my own writing, I do try to use just the "whether." (MacDonald made a good point.)
DeleteHey, John, any idea what the soup du jour of the day is today?
ReplyDeleteCream of mushroom cream of mushroom.
DeleteIn both conversations I've had and in my writing, I'm guilty of repititions, which can lead to redundancy as you've stated. I've been trying to curb that.
ReplyDeleteHey Justin. ALL of us are guilty of it. The trick is to recognize it and correct it, which you are doing and which I try to do also.
DeleteI once heard (on the subject of dialogue) that anyone who writes bad dialogue and knows he does, is lucky. The unlucky people are the ones who write bad dialogue and don't know they do. Makes sense!
In conversation, I have no problem with redundancies, because humans speak in repetetive, emphasis laden, cliche-ridden, slang-ridden wild conversations that are part of the reason it takes a while to truly become fluent in a foreign language. In writing - not so much.
ReplyDeleteHear, hear! I agree completely, Eve. In writing, we MUST know the rules and do our best to follow them, and I think we eventually do that. Also, I delight in using those redundancies, cliches, etc., in the dialogue I write, because yes, humans DO speak that way, and when I put it in dialogue it helps to make my characters more real.
DeleteThanks as always!
Jim Guigli says Twelve noon is descriptive as is twelve midnight, though Noon and Midnight would suffice.
ReplyDeleteJim, I'm honestly not bothered by the phrases "twelve noon" and "twelve midnight," but I certainly agree that just "noon" and "midnight" would be quite enough.
DeleteEnglish does have some quirks, doesn't it.
Some of the redundancies, especially in the world of commerce and advertising (related, but not necessarily redundant), are disingenuous. I'm thinking of "free gift," which in my mind is a close relative of "free lunch." (Have the young ever heard the expression, "There is no free lunch"?) I got my monthly Internet bill reduced a while back for accepting the free gift of a nifty Samsung mini-tablet that I didn't want and have never used. I'm now paying for it at $5.55 a month over a three-year period—a catch Spectrum.mobile neglected to mention at the time. On the other hand, the Internet bill was $64.54 instead of the $84.54 I'd have paid if I'd refused the little tablet—until it quietly went up to $70.56 plus the $5.55 per month to pay them back for the "free gift." A better modifier of "gift" would be "horse you'd better look in the mouth before you make a decision."
ReplyDeleteLiz, that would be a funny story if it wasn't tragic. A gift that truly should not be preceded by the word "free." (This kind of thing happens only in real life, not in fiction; you can't make this s**t up.)
DeleteHow about ATM machine? The reason why is because? I myself personally? I'd better stop here, I guess!
ReplyDeleteElizabeth, how could I have forgotten Automated Teller Machine Machine? I myself personally apologize.
Delete