Collins Improve Your Writing Skills

Collins Improve Your Writing Skills Graham King ???? HarperCollins Contents Cover (#ucaa69946-1bea-5104-8144-9371a9eacba3) Title Page (#u2e347acc-0357-56a8-9619-33f2244ca2ae) Introduction (#ulink_a3a77667-09fd-5543-ba78-d9262f57d39f) From Here to Obscurity (#ulink_15ad5b99-dca3-5d0c-bc16-85886fbe18f6) THE NO-GOOD, THE BAD AND THE UGLY: (#litres_trial_promo) Obstacles to clear communication (#litres_trial_promo) The long, long trail a-winding: Circumlocution (#ulink_a7d9df42-538b-5c00-98ba-b76bacacd63e) An utterly unique added extra: Tautology (#ulink_fb4af0c7-db5c-5468-b812-29dcd53da6fd) Witter + Waffle = Gobbledegook (#ulink_e8a823e5-60ad-51a9-b495-e71801887633) Smart talk, but tiresome: Jargon (#ulink_ac618737-e150-5a12-a830-8655fa97e5c6) Saying it nicely: Euphemism (#ulink_4f859d78-0ffa-5c1a-b118-26f377ad0b62) A word to the wise about Clich?s (#ulink_39aa7668-d443-53d1-9fa6-e7b769909166) CLARITY BEGINS AT HOME: (#litres_trial_promo) How to improve your powers of expression (#litres_trial_promo) Circumambulate the non-representational: Avoid the abstract (#litres_trial_promo) Overloading can sink your sentence (#litres_trial_promo) Avoiding the minefield of muddle (#litres_trial_promo) Measuring the murk with the FOG Index (#litres_trial_promo) MAKING WORDS WORK FOR YOU: (#litres_trial_promo) A refresher course in Grammar and Punctuation (#litres_trial_promo) Punctuation needn?t be a pain: Stops, commas and other marks (#litres_trial_promo) The building blocks of good writing: Grammar without grief (#litres_trial_promo) Writing elegant, expressive English: The elements of style (#litres_trial_promo) Finding out: a word about dictionaries (#litres_trial_promo) HOW TO WRITE A BETTER LETTER: (#litres_trial_promo) Say what you mean; get what you want (#litres_trial_promo) Communicate better with a well-written letter (#litres_trial_promo) Relationships by post: Strictly personal (#litres_trial_promo) Protecting your interests: Complaining with effect (#litres_trial_promo) Staying alive: Employer and employee (#litres_trial_promo) Selling yourself: Creating a persuasive CV (#litres_trial_promo) Getting it and keeping it: Money matters (#litres_trial_promo) Writing in the new millennium: Word processing and E-mail (#litres_trial_promo) Index (#litres_trial_promo) Keep Reading (#litres_trial_promo) About the Author (#litres_trial_promo) Copyright (#litres_trial_promo) About the Publisher (#litres_trial_promo) Introduction (#ulink_13505c91-cbe5-576f-8833-ab692d9bedbc) Having picked up this book the odds are that you are a writer. Perhaps not a journalist or a novelist, but a writer nevertheless: of letters, memos, reports or even an occasional note to the milkman. You may keep a daily diary, or limit your output to greetings on Christmas cards once a year. There is also a good chance that you suddenly have a need to write ? a job application perhaps, a ticking off to the council, a heartfelt letter of condolence to a friend. Mind and pen poised, it slowly dawns on you that the gap between what you want to say and what hesitantly appears on the paper in front of you is as wide as an ocean. Can you learn how to improve your writing skills? Can the art of good writing be taught? Despite some opinions to the contrary, the answer is yes. Writing is a highly personal accomplishment and while some will spectacularly develop native talents others will always find it a frustrating slog. But everyone is capable of enhancing their powers of written communication simply by learning and practicing the basic principles of clear, concise and coherent writing: planning, preparation and revision. Further improvement comes from observing examples of good and also bad writing, and your confidence as a writer will grow as you begin to appreciate that the English language is not a fearsome book of rules but an unrivalled communications tool that you can learn to use with the familiar ease of a knife and fork. It is important at the outset that you are aware of the difference between speech and writing. You may think, ?If only I could write as easily as I speak!? Unfortunately it?s a wish that?s rarely granted. When we talk to someone face to face (or even over the phone) we can instantly correct mistakes and clarify misunderstandings, provide subtle nuances with a smile, a laugh or a shrug, add emphasis with a frown or tone of voice. But when we write something, we have just one shot to hit the bullseye so that whoever reads it understands it ? precisely. Two millennia ago the Roman orator Cicero offered a pretty good tip: the point of writing is not just to be understood, but to make it impossible to be misunderstood. The ability to write well is a valuable, life-enriching asset and Collins Good Writing Skills will help you towards this goal. Much of what you will read is the lifetime word wisdom of a veteran national newspaper sub-editor. Sub-editors are a newspaper?s front-line defence against inaccurate, ungrammatical, long-winded, repetitious and pompous writing ? and thus the reader?s best friends. A group of Daily Telegraph sub-editors decided that a new shorter 60-word police caution was still too ponderous and proceeded to distil the same meaning into 37 words. Here is the 60-word version, devised by a Scotland Yard committee: You do not have to say anything. But if you do not now mention something which you later use in your defence, the court may decide that your failure to mention it now strengthens the case against you. A record will be made of anything you say and it may be given in evidence if you are brought to trial. And here is the revised, sub-edited version, clearer and shorter: You need say nothing, but if you later use in your defence something withheld now, the court could hold this against you. A record of what you say might be used in evidence if you are tried. No long or obtuse words, no flowery phrases ? just crystal-clear prose that makes few demands on a reader?s time, holds the reader?s interest throughout and simply can?t be misunderstood. That is the kind of model this book recommends, although you will also be amused and appalled by dozens of other masterpieces of a vastly different kind ? masterpieces of drivel and obscurity to drive home the sort of writing to avoid. Into the jungle, with machete and pen But first, let us be brave. We are about to hack our way through a jungle. The dense, tangled world of obscure and impenetrable language. Officialese. Circumlocution. Tautology. Gobbledegook. Jargon. Verbosity, pomposity and clich?. All the ugly growths that prevent us from understanding a piece of writing. Perhaps the obstacle is a notice from our bank, the district council, the water, gas or electricity supply company, which for all we know might have a serious effect on our future. Or it may be a newspapaper or magazine article that makes us stop in mid-sentence to realise that we do not understand its meaning. Or perhaps it?s an advertisement for a job we might fancy . . . if only we knew what the wording meant. This book, however, is not intended to help the baffled reader to fight through the thickets of spiky legalisms, prickly abstractions and tangled verbosity. Rather it is a guide to help you, the writer of the letter, memo, report or CV, to make sure your writing is clear of such obstacles to understanding. Don?t be a sloppy copycat! In business and bureaucracies, it is fatally easy to fall in with the writing habits of those around you: sloppy, vague and clumsy. Yet most of us realise that a letter, memo or report from someone who knows how to write clearly and with precision is obviously more welcome, and read more keenly, than a dreary wodge of waffle and wittering. Your own writing will be most effective when it is clear and direct. People who write in a straighforward way always shine out against the dim grey mass of Sloppies. To be a good writer you have to write tighter The usual advice on clear expression is: ?Write as you speak?. But we have already concluded that unless you have special gifts or professional skills, this is virtually impossible. Perhaps the advice should be amended to: ?Write as you speak ? say what you mean, but make it tighter?. One simple way to accomplish this is always to think economically. Less is often more. Some of the greatest thoughts and concepts in history have been expressed in surprisingly few words. The Ten Commandments are expressed in just 130 words; the Sermon on the Mount in 320, Kipling?s poem ?If? is less than 300 words long and the American Declaration of Independence was made in 485 words. On the other hand a recent EEC internal memo on aubergine production and marketing issued in Brussels hit a word count of 9,800! Of all these, which would you think is the most readable? The same applies to words: shorter is better. Many famous writers of the past were experts at saying what they meant in very few words, and simple, often one-syllable words at that. Milton and Shakespeare were deft users of simple words but for beauty achieved through sheer simplicity it is hard to beat Robert Herrick?s The Daffodils: We have short time to stay, as you, We have as short a spring; As quick a growth to meet decay, As you, or any thing. We die, As your hours do, and dry Away, Like to the summer?s rain; Or as the pearls of morning?s dew Ne?er to be found again. With the exception of just a few words (decay, away, summer?s, etc) every word of this stanza is of a single syllable, perhaps symbolic of the brevity of life, and it is a model that every writer could aspire to. Of course economy of expression isn?t everything and it can be misleading to argue the toss between long and short words, concrete or abstract nouns, active or passive voices. What is important is selecting the right word, and putting it in the right place for the right reason. Before you begin to write . . . THINK! Another English writer, William Cobbett, declared that ?He who writes badly thinks badly?. You could usefully reverse this. A minute?s thought before a minute?s writing is advice worth thinking about, perhaps on the following lines: What do I want to say? Am I making just one main point, or several? If several, what?s the order of importance? You may find it worthwhile to jot down your points before starting your letter, or report, or story. Once you?ve organised your material you can then concentrate on expressing it in writing, getting the right words in the right places. When you?ve completed your writing ? and this is the vital bit ? read it through and decide, as critically as you dare, whether you?ve got it right. Try to put yourself in the shoes of the reader. Is the meaning clear? Is it expressed directly? Is it interesting to read? How would I feel after reading it? If the answers to any of the first three questions is ?no? or even ?well . . . ? you should try to face up to rewriting it. Nobody pretends that rewriting isn?t an unwelcome task but the reward is worth it ? the satisfaction of having improved upon your first effort. Of course, if you use a word processor the job of rewriting (often sentence by sentence or paragraph by paragraph) is easier. Thinking before writing will help you avoid clangers like this paragraph from a bank?s letter to a customer: We will not charge the ?19 and ?23 fee if your account had an average cleared credit balance of at least ?500 during the period we were charging for. If you only pay a charge as a result of a charge you paid in the previous charging period, we will refund this second charge if you ask. Pardon? Oddly enough, this piece of nonsense bore the Crystal Mark, the seal of clarity approved by the Plain English Campaign, which brings us to the two key organisations in Britain devoted to the elimination of drivel and gobbledegook and the encouragement of clear language and plain English. The Golden Bull vs the Golden Rhubarb The self-appointed guardian angel of our national tongue is Chrissie Maher, OBE, founder of the Plain English Campaign. Remarkably, Ms Maher, who was brought up by a widowed mother in a poor household in wartime Liverpool, did not learn to read or write until she was in her teens. The disability dogged her until, during a job interview with an insurance company, she admitted she was illiterate. Instead of rejection she was told she could have the job, provided she studied at night school; three years later she could read, write and count. In her adult life she went on to a degree course in sociology. A deprived background made Chrissie Maher keenly aware of how uneducated people were fobbed off by officialese they couldn?t understand, and how they were often coerced into signing important documents and forms, with little idea about what the small print meant. When she came across a case in which an old lady died of hypothermia because she couldn?t understand the application form for a home heating grant, she decided to do something about it. Maher launched the Plain English Campaign in 1979: since then, with its relentless exposure of bureaucratic pomp and absurdity, it has become both feared and admired. It prompted a government review which resulted in some 36,000 official forms being scrapped and another 60,000 rewritten to make them more easily understood. It is frequently hired by organisations to vet their forms and sales literature and issues a ?Crystal Mark? to commercial prose which passes its standards of clarity. To transgressors of simple English however, it issues its annual Golden Bull awards. Winners of this trophy ? appropriately a pound of tripe ? include the Department of Agriculture which defined cows, pigs and sheep as ?grain-consuming animal units?, a car sales firm which described a used car as a ?pre-enjoyed vehicle?, and the National Health Service for defining a bed as: A device or arrangement that may be used to permit a patient to lie down when the need to do so is a consequence of the patient?s condition rather than a need for active intervention such as examination, diagnostic intervention, manipulative treatment, obstetric delivery or transport. The more recent Plain Language Commission has identical objectives and issues its own annual awards ? the Golden and Silver Rhubarb trophies for the year?s most baffling documents. Both organisations waged a war of blunt words in 1995 when the Commission awarded NatWest Bank a silver trophy for what it called an example of the year?s worst gobbledegook in a booklet about mortgage rates, part of which read: Depending upon the type of mortgage you have, repaying early can have certain financial consequencies [sic], for instance, early repayment of a mortgage and surrender of an endowment policy, may leave you with a small surrendering sum, which may not reflect the actual monies invested. Alternatively, cancellation of a life policy without considering future needs may ultimately mean increased premiums for the same amount of life cover in the future. To the embarrassment of the Plain English Campaign, NatWest Bank had just been nominated for its ?Crystal Clear Bank of Europe? award for the ?ease with which its literature could be understood?! You may wonder, when the experts in concise, coherent communication disagree so profoundly, whether you will ever see the clear light of day through the other side of the jungle. But take heart and read on and you will learn how even the most dense thicket of verbiage can be trimmed and tamed. From Here To Obscurity (#ulink_8483fc8f-58ff-5adf-bfa4-6d805aebc4c5) If language can be like a jungle sometimes, officialese is the minefield laid among the thorny thickets and clinging creepers. And despite the successes of the Plain English teams, officials in government, local councils and other bureaucratic organisations still too often try to lure us into their baffling word mazes. The language of officialdom can obliterate all meaning. Feel the undergrowth closing in as you try to fight your way out of this trap dug by the former Department of Health and Social Services . . . The Case of the Crippled Sentence A person shall be treated as suffering from physical disablement such that he is either unable to walk or virtually unable to do so if he is not unable or virtually unable to walk with a prosthesis or an artificial aid which he habitually wears or uses or if he would not be unable or virtually unable to walk if he habitually wore or used a prosthesis or an artificial aid which is suitable in his case. This would-be ?sentence? first of all reflects the legalistic terror of official punctuation: the full stop or comma which, if misplaced, might lead the Department all the way to a House of Lords appeal. And, second, it ignores or offends half the population ? women ? by exclusively using the masculine pronouns he and his. So let us take our machete to the undergrowth, bring in the mine detectors and wire-cutters, and try to discover what, if anything, this passage struggles to convey. A step at a time, too, for fear of booby traps. A person shall be treated as suffering from physical disablement . . . treated? This is not intended as medical advice, but since the context is medical the reader may, however briefly, be confused. Lift out treated and replace with considered. Throw treated into the shrubbery. Suffering from physical disablement. Why not simply physically disabled? And while we are at it, we don?t need as after considered. Toss that into the shrubbery too. So far, in our cleaned-up version, we have ?A person shall be considered physically disabled? ? and we don?t seem to have lost any of the intended meaning. Such that he is either unable to walk or virtually unable to do so. Wrench away the clumsy such that he is and replace it with which makes him (we?ll come to the offending pronouns later). Next, we cut out either, because we don?t need it. We now have which makes him unable to walk, or virtually unable to do so. This can be more tightly expressed as which makes him, unable, or virtually unable, to walk. Peering into the darkening thicket we next tackle if he is not unable or virtually unable to walk with a prosthesis or an artificial aid which he habitually wears or uses . . . Stop! The rest is just the gibbering of jungle monkeys. This seems to mean that the person can get around, but only with the help of a prosthesis or other artificial aid. The word even, before if he is not, would have helped. But we really do not need this tangled heap of words at all. The entire ?sentence?, if it means anything, must surely mean this: A person is regarded as physically disabled if he or she always needs an artificial aid to walk. We can of course replace the masculine and feminine pronouns with that person: A person is regarded as physically disabled if that person always needs an artificial aid to walk. As you can see, the meaning remains clear. But what about the prosthesis, you may ask. Well, there are thousands of people with prostheses in the form of replacement hips and knees and other artificial body parts who are bounding about without the least need of any artificial aids ? wheelchairs, zimmers and walking sticks ? so the amended versions are perfectly valid. The Case of the Crippled Sentence is a prime example of the need to think ?What do I want to say?? And then to say it, the simple way. A serious case of effluxion Here?s a verbal smokescreen from a London borough council: And take further notice that under the provisions of Section 47(2) of the said Housing Act 1974 in relation to any land consisting of or including Housing Accommodation in a Housing Action Area a landlord must not less than four weeks before the expiry by effluxion of time of any tenancy which expires without the service of any Notice to Quit, notify the council in writing that the tenancy is about to expire in accordance with the said Schedule 4 . . . This is a model of mixed officialese and legalese: you can almost see the glint of watch-and-chain on the Town Clerk?s egg-stained black waistcoat. How do we turn it into something like English, without losing any legal force the passage might be required to have? For a start, there appears to be no need for And take further notice. If the reader is not going to take notice, there seems little point in the writer?s finishing this masterwork. Next: under the provisions of Section 47(2) of the said Housing Act 1974 ? the words the provisions of are redundant. Let?s lose them. The same goes for said. And next: in relation to any land consisting of or including. The lawyers can keep their consisting of or including, just in case they are struggling to cover, say, a backyard or front garden where someone lives in a caravan. But in relation to can be shortened to concerning. We have now brought concerning clumsily close to consisting, so let us replace consisting of with that consists of. The word Accommodation after Housing is not needed. And once Housing is left standing by itself, the capital H becomes even more obviously unnecessary. Plodding on: a landlord must not less than four weeks before the expiry by effluxion of time . . . Quickly to the dictionary ? to seek out the meaning of this excitingly unfamiliar word, effluxion. We find: Efflux, n. Flowing out (of liquid, air, gas; also fig.) That which flows out. Hence effluxion,n. See effluence, n. From its meaning the word certainly suits the prose style, if nothing else. But we can do without effluxion. And we can also do without expiry. Now, what is the rest of the message? It seems that in a Housing Action Area, if a landlord knows that a tenancy is running out and no notice to quit is needed, he must warn the council, in writing, at least four weeks before that tenancy is due to end. So let?s tack that information on to our earlier repair: Under Section 47(2) of the Housing Act 1974, concerning any land that consists of or includes housing in a Housing Action Area, if a landlord knows that a tenancy is due to end without need of a notice to quit, he or she must tell the council, in writing, at least four weeks before the tenancy runs out. The passage is no nail-biter and is still scarcely slick or smooth. But it is quite readable and clear and certainly less forbidding than the original mess. 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 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 (#ulink_7b49ddd2-8921-53b9-a562-7922dcc903e5) The long, long trail a-winding: Circumlocution (#ulink_67b4108f-5ffa-5c38-be74-74bbc9ff2210) 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 clich?s 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 (#ulink_38df1e7b-2025-547f-94b2-0348696a8245) 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. Witter + Waffle = Gobbledegook (#ulink_89eabae8-51d8-5db5-9a36-9a24e8b42115) They never shorten anything ? that would make it less important ? they inflate the language in a way they certainly oughtn?t to, indeed everything goes into officialese, a kind of gobbledygook invented by the sort of people who never open a (hardcover) book. GOBBLEDEGOOK That comment by poet Gavin Ewart refers to the propensity of ignorant people to witter and waffle and to inflate plain language into a meaningless, pretentious form of expression we recognise as gobbledegook (or gobbledygook). ?Witter words? are a key ingredient of gobbledook. Our language is liberally sprinkled with them ? expressions that clog a sentence and add neither information nor meaning. In this, wittering and witter words differ from circumlocution, which adds information, but in the wrong order ? usually delaying the main point. In our death notice for the Rev A M Bennett (see page (#ulink_a7d9df42-538b-5c00-98ba-b76bacacd63e)) the reader has to plod through 53 words before arriving at ?breathed his last?. But those 53 words did at least tell us the place and time of death, how long he had been a vicar, the name of the church, the extent of his influence and the reaction in his parish to the news. Witter words, on the other hand, tell us nothing. Some are more often heard in speech (especially speeches by pundits and politicians) but many appear in writing. For a classic example of wittering, loaded with witter words, we could hardly do better than this passage from a speech by former Australian Prime Minister Bob Hawke. Mr Hawke had so perfected his ability to say almost nothing in the maximum number of words that the style became known as ?Hawkespeak?: And that tends to mean at times if you want to put it, there is no point in running away from it, it tends to mean at times that there?s a lack of specificity, or if you want to put it another way, there?s a range of options which are put which are there to accommodate that indisputable fact about the social democratic parties such as ours. National Times, November 22, 1985 Here?s a compilation of witter words and phrases, many of which you?ll recognise: Witter Warning List as it were as such (as in according to the rules, as such, they do not preclude . . .) absolutely (typically used instead of yes) abundantly, abundantly clear actually all things being equal as a matter of fact as far as I am concerned as of right now at the end of the day at this moment in time a total of (as in a total of forty-two applicants instead of forty-two applicants) basically by definition by and large (has anyone ever worked out the meaning of this?) currently curiously enough during the period from (instead of from January 16 to . . .) each and every existing extremely funnily enough (usually precedes something that is not funny at all) good and proper good and ready having said that (get ready for the contradiction!) I am here to tell you I am of the opinion that I am the first to admit (how can you be so sure?) I have to say, here and now if you like in a manner of speaking in due course in other words in point of fact in the final analysis in view of the fact that it goes without saying that (but I?ll say it anyway) I would like to say (and I certainly will) I would like to take this opportunity to last but not least let me just say, right here and now let us just be clear about this may I make so bold as to say many a time; many?s the time that more than enough; more than a little never cease to wonder (to) name but a few needless to say no two ways about it not to mention obviously oddly enough of course of necessity (instead of necessarily) on the basis of once and for all one and the same precious few quite quite simply really rest assured say nothing of (as in to say nothing of last year?s results . . .) shall I say (as in it is, shall I say, a novel approach . . .) so much the better, so much the worse the fact of the matter (as in The fact of the matter is, the Government is wrong, a form commonly used by politicians for the claim I hope to get away with . . .) to all intents and purposes to my mind, to one?s own mind to the point that unless and until (as in unless and until they pay, they can?t board the ship. Either word makes the necessary condition, so one of them is redundant.) when all is said and done (not entirely meaningless but perhaps better replaced with still/however/nevertheless) with all due respect, with the greatest respect within the foreseeable future y?know? Here?s a sentence which includes three witter phrases: Needless to say, we are, if you like, facing difficulties which, when all is said and done, we did not create ourselves. The sheer lack of meaning in those phrases becomes more obvious when we find we can move them around the sentence, with no perceivable effect: We are, if you like, facing difficulties which, needless to say, when all is said and done, we did not create ourselves. Or: When all is said and done, we are, if you like, facing difficulties which, needless to say, we did not create ourselves. Without the witter words the sentence is more forceful, half as long, and has not lost any of its meaning: We are facing difficulties which we did not create ourselves. The second ingredient of gobbledegook is waffle; vague and wordy utterances that wander aimlessly along a path of meaning but effectively obscure it. In its extreme form it?s called verbal diarrhoea or, more correctly, logorrhoea. When you combine this affliction with a good helping of witter words and a tendency to tangle your syntax the result is total obfuscation, or gobbledegook. The former US President George Bush was an acknowledged master of gobbledegook ? of using language (perhaps not intentionally, given his difficulties with English), not to reveal, but to obscure. Here he is, chatting with one of the astronauts on the space shuttle Atlantis: ?How was the actual deployment thing?? he asks. And again, this time in full flow when asked if he would look for ideas on improving education during a forthcoming trip abroad: Well, I?m going to kick that one right into the end zone of the Secretary of Education. But, yes, we have all ? he travels a good deal, goes abroad. We have a lot of people in the department that does that. We?re having an international ? this is not as much education as dealing with the environment ? a big international conference coming up. And we get it all the time, exchanges of ideas. But I think we?ve got ? we set out there ? and I want to give credit to your Governor McWherter and to your former governor, Lamar Alexander ? we?ve gotten great ideas for a national goals programme from ? in this country ? from the governors who were responding to, maybe, the principal of your high school, for heaven?s sake. In 1944, a Texas congressman named Maury Maverick became so angry about the bloated bureaucratic language in memos he received that he described it as ?gobbledegook?. Explaining the name he said it reminded him ?of an old turkey gobbler back in Texas that was always gobbledy-gobbling and strutting around with ludicrous pomposity. And at the end of of this gobble-gobble-gobble was a sort of a gook?. Maverick was also the head of a federal agency, and promptly issued an order to all his subordinates: ?Be short and say what you are talking about. Let?s stop pointing up programs, finalizing contracts that stem from district, regional or Washington levels. No more patterns, effectuating, dynamics. Anyone using the words activation or implementation will be shot?. Half a century later it seems that the Maverick Edict has had little effect. The art world certainly never heard of it: The spontaneous improvisation of trivial and fictional roles means a frame for social and communicative creativity which, by going beyond mere art production, understands itself as an emancipated contribution towards the development of newer and more time-appropriate behavior forms and a growth of consciousness . . . Studio International, 1976 In a fit of liberalism you may excuse such babblings because writing about art is often incomprehensible anyway. But it is harder to excuse organisations supposedly dedicated to the art of human communication. Here is an extract from the Stanford University Press catalogue (1994) touting a forthcoming title called Materialities of Communication, edited by Hans Ulrich Gumbrecht and K Ludwig Pfeiffer: Converging with a leitmotiv in early deconstruction, with Foucauldian discourse analysis, and with certain tendencies in cultural studies, such investigations on the constitution of meaning include ? under the concept ?materialities of communication? ? any phenomena that contribute to the emergence of meaning without themselves belonging to this sphere: the human body and various media technologies, but also other situations and patterns of thinking that resist or obstruct meaning-constitution. Of course, to the normal person the first few words of a passage like this flash warning signs of impenetrability; to proceed would be to enter a mental maze from which there is no escape. But not all gobbledegook is that obliging. Much of it can entice you all the way through a wide and welcoming thoroughfare until, at the very end, you realise you are in a blind alley. All the examples quoted in this chapter are real although it may seem at times that some genius made them up. Let them be a warning! Next time you are tempted to lapse into what reads or sounds like gobbledegook, remember that Texas turkey. Smart talk, but tiresome: Jargon (#ulink_5772cd17-0328-5252-b5cc-b29aa6006f44) The increase in ?M3 was approximately equal to bank lending plus the PSBR minus net sales of gilt-edged securities other than sales to the banks themselves. Nigel Lawson, The View from No. 11, 1992 . . . the cognitive-affective state characterized by intrusive and obsessive fantasizing concerning reciprocity of amorant feelings by the object of the amorance. US sociologist?s definition of love, 1977 Most people recognise jargon when they see it: words and phrases that may have begun life within a particular circle of people, trade or profession, but which spread among others who merely wish to appear smart or up-to-date. The Collins English Dictionary defines jargon as ?language characterized by pretentious synatax, vocabulary or meaning; gibberish?. But not all jargon is pretentious or gibberish. It includes the shop talk of technical terms, understood by those who need to know and who have no need to explain it to outsiders. It is for millions of people a form of time-saving professional shorthand. It is a specialist?s language designed for accurate and efficient communication between members of a particular group. Fair enough. But too often, jargon and arcane verbiage are used by people to trick others into believing they know more than they actually do; or exploited as a security blanket to give them the feeling of belonging to an elite. This use ? or misuse ? can only interfere with meaning and understanding. Hundreds of former valid scientific, technical. legal and technical terms have become more widely used as vogue or buzz words, and many of them are not properly understood. How many of us can hold hand to heart and say that we know precisely what these vogue words mean: parameter, symbiosis, quantum leap, synergy, dichotomy, post-modern? Yet despite our doubts we?re still tempted to use them. In spite of the efforts of the Plain English Campaign, jargon is still very much alive and kicking when we read of: * (#litres_trial_promo) True. This is how the politically correct Northampton Council described them. The Job Ads Jargon Jungle It is something of a paradox that where plain language is needed most, jargon is often used instead. This is perhaps best illustrated in job recruitment, where companies offering jobs have created their own hideous non-language: Moving from hierarchical structures to a process-based architecture, our success has been based on consistent, integrated teamwork and quality enhancement through people. By ensuring consistency in the development and integration of process plans, you will facilitate the management processes to develop implementation plans for the processes they manage. You will also be involved in business plan modelling, rolling plan methodologies and the measurement of process effectiveness. As Integration Planner, your position will be at the interface of the personal, planning, implementation and measurement matrix. This example, quoted by the Plain English Campaign, prompts one to ask: ?Did anyone get the job, and if so, what are they doing?? Here are some more cautionary examples of jargon from the same swampy jungle: cultivational ? fortunately a rare sighting, in an English National Opera advertisement for a ?Development Officer ? Events?, to be responsible for coordinating and administering cultivational and fundraising events. It is just possible that cultivational really means something. Our guess is that it is something to do with sucking up to people to get them to put money into a project. Your guess will be just as good. driven ? as in quality-driven service organisation. As with orientated (see under separate entry), this is merely meant to indicate the firm?s sense of priority ? in this case to offer high-quality services. environment ? meaning, usually, the place where the worker will do the job. The firm that boasted of a quality-driven organisation also promised . . . a demanding and results orientated environment. Another company required the applicant to have a background of progressive sales or marketing environment. In this case environment presumably meant experience or business ? in which case sales or marketing would have sufficed. Progressive can only mean ?forward-looking? ? and few firms would be looking for backward-looking candidates! Yet another employer advertised for a worker who should have experience in a fast-moving, multi-assembly environment. Assuming that multi-assembly has its own meaning in the business concerned, why not simply require experience in fast multi-assembly? human resources ? This term has now supplanted personnel which in turn replaced employees or workers. Personnel, though also bureauspeak, at least does not have the ghastly pretentiousness and pseudo-caringness of human resources. motivated ? one of the most hard-worked jargon words in job advertisements . . . the ability to motivate, lead and be an effective team player; management and motivation of the sales force; should be self-motivated. In the first two examples, we can substitute inspire and inspiration. In the third, it is harder to guess what the applicant will be required to prove. Enterprising, perhaps. Or to show initiative. Or, if these sound too revolutionary for the company?s taste, able to work unsupervised. orientated ? as in results-orientated environment or profits-orientated system, is a high-profile jargon word (as is high-profile). The word is presumably meant to convey what a firm considers to be important. In these examples its use is nonsense-orientated. A company that is not keen on getting results or profits will not be placing job advertisements for much longer, so the phrase is redundant. Another jargon version is success-orientated for the far simpler ambitious. And in any case orientated is wrongly used for the shorter, original oriented. pivotal role ? Fancier version of key role. Neither helps much to explain a job. If the importance of the position needs to be stressed, what?s wrong with important? positive discrimination ? In Politically-Correct speak this means providing special opportunities in training and employment for disadvantaged groups and ethnic minorities. However the term is still widely misunderstood and perhaps best avoided. Favoured or give preference to might be better. proactive ? mostly found in social services advertisements describing the approach to a particular job. It means initiating change where and when needed as opposed to merely responding to events: reactive. Although a jargon word, it is difficult to resist as there is no crisp single-word equivalent. remit ? meaning responsibility: an experience-based understanding of multi-level personnel relationships will be within your remit. Although remit may be shorter it is not otherwise commonly used, and is pompous. remuneration package ? simply means salary and other benefits. skills ? At first sight this is a reasonable word to expect in job advertisements. But there are some abuses, as in interpersonal skills, which presumably means good at dealing with people. specific ? as in the key duties of the post will include developing country-specific and/or product-specific marketing activity plans. Amazingly, that passage is from an advertisement placed by the personnel department of the University of Cambridge Local Examinations Syndicate. They could have said: . . . developing plans for selling our products to particular countries. But perhaps that sounded too boring. structured ? as in it is likely that you will have worked successfully in a sizeable, structured organisation. You would hardly go seeking recruits in an un-structured organisation, would you? Not so long ago, schools had teachers, councils had social workers and everyone seemed to understand what they did. Now it is not so simple, and advertisements for jobs in education and social welfare contain more verbocrap than in any other field of human endeavour. Here?s some impenetrable prose about a home for teenagers: The aim of the home is to enable older young people who still have substantial emotional and personal deficits to make planned progress towards personal autonomy. Even among social workers this is garbled nonsense. Surely no professional catastrophe will happen if we simply say: to enable teenagers with troubled personalities to learn to cope for themselves . . . However, lacking in fashionable jargon, the rewrite would probably result in the original writer having a job security deficit. The following example, from a publication of the former Inner London Education Authority, characterises the worst kind of jargon abuse: Due to increased verbalization the educationist desires earnestly to see school populations achieve cognitive clarity, auracy, literacy and numeracy both within and without the learning situation. However the classroom situation (and the locus of evaluation is the classroom) is fraught with so many innovative concepts (e.g. the problem of locked confrontation between pupil and teacher) that the teaching situation is, in the main, inhibitive to any meaningful articulacy. It must now be fully realized that the secondary educational scene has embraced the concept that literacy has to be imparted and acquired via humanoid-to-humanoid dialogue. This is a break-through. [and a load of jargon!] Multicultural muddle . . . experience of managing a multicultural urban environment and the ability to integrate equalities considerations into areas of work activity. This passage, from an advertisement for a Deputy Director of Social Services, is a real polysyllabic mess. Multicultural urban environment, despite modern delicacies, simply means racially-mixed part of town. Integrate here may mean build in, or it may have been misused to mean include. Every trade and profession is entitled to its own jargon ? up to a point. So let us allow that equalities is readily understood among social services people as meaning equal treatment regardless of race, sex and, probably, physical handicaps ? although the singular equality serves the purpose as well, or better. That passage, converted into plain English, could read: . . . experience of dealing with a racially-mixed town area and ability to ensure that equality is part of departmental life. The same advertisement also required ability to organise intervention in the community to establish the needs of potential service users. Meaning, presumably, ability to go out to discover what people need us to do. Social workers do not have the field to themselves, when it comes to jargon. An advertisement for a health worker in Brazil announced: You will assist the team in formulating and implementing a health policy, evaluating and developing appropriate responses to specific health problems in indigenous areas . . . Meaning? Let?s try to translate: You will help to plan and carry out a policy to deal with health problems among local people. Such a simplification may create a problem, however; to jargon-hardened health workers the revised job description sounds as though it?s less important and so worth only half the salary of the inflated version. Computerspeak and Psychobabble As computing has evolved from cult to mass culture we can no longer ignore the jargon that computers have generated. Even quite young children are now familiar with dozens of terms: floppy, prompt, menu, boot, megahertz, toolbar, drag and drop hold no terrors for them. However some of the worst offences against the English language pour in an unending stream from the computer world: Driven and focused by seeing the world from the customer?s perspective, we continue to build an organisation where quality is embedded in every aspect of endeavour . . . our continued growth in the network computing industry mandates that we now identify and attract the most talented and creative sales and marketing professionals . . . Mandates? This announcement sounds as if it were written by someone whose dictionary had a bad coffee stain on the relevant entry. Is writing jargon and management-speak more difficult than writing plain English? Many examples suggest that it is, yet its devotees persist in working harder than they need to. Whoever wrote this job description in an advertisement for a BBC position deserved his Golden Bull award: The BBC seeks a Human Resources Assessment Technologist, Corporate Management Development. But jargonising also offers a lazy way out. Here?s a press release about a forthcoming conference, put out by the Association for Humanistic Psychology in Britain, which deserves full marks for sloth: Conjoint Family Therapy, demonstration/participation workshop. This is a demonstration/participation workshop illustrating 20 to 30 ?ways of being? as therapist (i.e. ?self as instrument?/strategies/techniques) presented from an experiential-Gestalt/communications skills/learning theory/whatever else philosophical viewpoint. Emphasis is on experiencing . . . family/therapist/participant/self, the several modalities, strategies, values, processes, procedures, goals, dangers, fears, avoidance, growth and excitement of conjoint interaction. The author of that psychobabble should be made to stand in a corner and study an advertisement written in 100% plain English: KITCHEN DESIGNER (Trainee considered) for thriving Chelsea studio. Drawing experience essential. Salary negotiable dependent on experience. If you are aged 20-30, educated to at least A-level standard, have a bright personality, thrive on hard work and are happy to work Saturdays, tell me about yourself by leaving a message on my Ansaphone, not forgetting to leave your name and phone no, or write a brief CV to . . . . Bright. Un-pompous. Direct. And, above all, clear! The Jargonaut?s Lexicon Here?s a list of jargon words and phrases that comply with the former US president Harry S Truman decree: ?If you can?t convince ?em, confuse ?em?. The entries are graded with [J] symbols; the more elusive and impenetrable the jargon, the more [JJJs] it earns. Learn to recognise jargon, and avoid it if you can. accentuate [j] stress accessible [j] As in We intend making Shakespeare accessible to the millions. Use understandable, attractive accommodation [j] Use home, where you live accomplish [j] As in accomplish the task. Use complete, finish, do accordingly [j] Use so accountability [j] Use responsibility acquiesce [j] Use agree acquire [j] Use get, buy, win activist [j] As in Liberal Party activist. Use worker, campaigner address [j] As in we must address the problem. Use face, tackle, deal with adequate [j] Use enough axiomatic [j] Use obvious belated [j] Use late blueprint [jj] As in the proposal is a blueprint for disaster. Use this will end in, means/could mean disaster chair/chairperson [jj] Use chairman, chairwoman challenged [jjj] As in physically challenged. One of a growing range of euphemisms for personal problems and disabilities. Even in these politically-correct times it is more acceptable to be frank but sensitive. Also avoid differently abled. come on stream [jj] As in the new model will come on stream in April. Oil producer?s jargon usually misapplied. Use begin production, start working, get under way. come to terms with [j] Use accept, understand concept [j] Use idea, plan, proposal, notion core [jjj] As in core curriculum, core concepts. Use basic creative accounting [jj] Not necessarily illegal but a vague and troubling term best avoided or left to the financial professionals. cutback [j] A needless expansion of cut de-manning [jjj] Use cutting jobs de-stocking [jj] Use running down stocks, shrinking downsizing [jjj] Usually meant to mean cutting jobs, or reacting to a bad financial year by cutting back production or services. downplay [jj] As in he tried to downplay the gravity of the case. Use play down, minimise. end of the day [j] As in at the end of the day, what have we got? Use in the end final analysis [j] As in in the final analysis it makes little difference. Use in the end front-runner [j] Use leading contender, leading or favoured candidate funded [j] Use paid for geared [jj] As in the service was geared to the stockbroker belt. Use aimed at, intended for, connected to, suited to generate [j] Use make, produce hands-on [jj] As in he adopted a hands-on policy with the staff. It makes you wonder what he was paid to do ? massage them? Has been replaced by another jargon word, anyway ? proactive. heading up [jj] As in Smith will be heading up the takeover team. Use heading or leading hidden agenda [jjj] Top-rank jargon. Use hidden/disguised purpose identify with [jj] As in He was identified with the activists. Use associated with, linked with. implement [jj] Use carry out, fulfil. inaugurate [jj] As in She will inaugurate the new policy. Use introduce, start. in-flight/in-house [j] Part of the language now but still jargon. When carried further, as in in-car entertainment, it can sound faintly ridiculous. input [jjjj] As in ?A core post is available for a Senior Research Associate to take a leading role in the programme. The first projects involve relating nursing inputs to patient outcomes in acute hospitals? (University of Newcastle upon Tyne ad). A verbal germ picked up from the computer world where it is used as a verb meaning enter or insert, as in he inputted the entire file. Outside computing the word can mean contribute or, as a noun, contribution, or . . . nothing at all. Avoid. interface [jjjj] Another refugee from computing. As a noun, it means contact. As a hideous verb, interface with can mean work with, negotiate with, cooperate with or simply meet. Any of these is preferable. jury is still out [jj] As in Whether the move has saved the pound, the jury is still out. Use is not yet known/decided/certain/clear meet with, meet up with [jj] Use meet methodology [j] Often used in error for method. It really means a system of methods and principles name of the game [jj] As in the name of the game is to make money. Use object new high, new low [j] Use new/record high level; new/record low level non-stopping [jjj] As in the eastbound service will be non-stopping at the following stations . . . Use will not stop operational [j] As in the service is now operational. Use now running/now working outgoing [j] Use friendly overview [j] Use broad view on the back of [jj] As in the shares rose sharply on the back of the board?s profit forecast. Use after/because of/as the result of. ongoing [jjj] As in We have an ongoing supply problem. Use continuing/continual/persistent/constant. precondition [jjj] A condition is something that has to happen before something else will happen. A pre-condition is therefore nonsense, unless you wish to impose a condition on a condition! There must be no preconditions for the peace talks is questionable usage. Best to avoid and use condition. put on the back burner [jj] Colourful, but jargon nevertheless. Use the more precise postponed/delayed/deferred/suspended, etc. scenario [jj] As in worst case scenario. Originally meaning an outline of a play or film, its usage has been extended to mean outcome or prediction. Use the more specific words, or result/plan/outline, depending on context. spend [jj] As in their total advertising spend will exceed ?7m. A sloppy shortening of expenditure or spending. state of the art [jj] Use latest/newest. take on board [jj] Use understand/comprehend/accept terminal [j] Use fatal/mortal track record [j] Except for an athlete, perhaps, track record means nothing more than record. The next time you are tempted to use proven track record, be a brave pioneer and write experience user-friendly [jj] Use easy to use venue [j] Use place/setting viable alternative [jj] Use alternative/choice/option whitewash [j] As in They?ll certainly want to whitewash the incident. Use hide, gloss over, cover up, suppress, conceal Saying it Nicely: Euphemism (#ulink_b3b96d10-a93d-5a11-9dce-977b212b4eda) My father did not like the word fart. The first time I heard the word was when I was about three. I was watching a cowman milking and the cow farted. I said ?What was that?? and he said ?That was a fart?. It was just a word; as if I?d said ?what?s that on the tree?? and he?d said ?bark?. I had a dog called Tuppy, because I bought him for tuppence. One day as I walked by him, I heard this same noise and I said ?Tuppy farted?. My father said, ?Where did you hear that?? and I said ?It came from his bottom?. However my father had a way of getting around the word. He would say, ?Who whispered?? and we totally accepted this euphemism until one day my granny says, ?Come, David, and whisper in granny?s ear?. Dave Allen, 1990 interview. That?s the trouble with euphemisms ? they tend to be self-defeating because they paint a thick veneer over clarity and understanding. Euphemisms ? words and phrases people use to avoid making a statement that is direct, clear and honest ? are often used out of kindness when the direct expression might give needless offence. For example a deaf person is often described as hard of hearing and a part-blind person as partially-sighted. Unfortunately, in recent times these traditional and harmless euphemisms have been extended and replaced with such terms as aurally- or visually-challenged. Have you ever admitted that you might have been, well, to put it bluntly ? drunk? How often have you heard someone honestly admit they were drunk? No, they might admit to having been one over the eight, high spirited, squiffy, happy, a bit merry, worse for wear, tired and emotional or any one of several hundred other euphemisms for drunkenness, but drunk ? never! Any user of the English language has to become something of an expert in understanding the true meaning of euphemisms, so much are they a part of our everyday lives. We need these seemingly innocent terms as replacements for those that are embarrassing, unpleasant, crude or offensive. We begin in the nursery with coy substitutions for organs and functions (willy, winkle, thingy, botty, potty, tinkle, whoopsie, poo-poo, wee-wee, pee-pee) and, from there, naturally graduate to adult equivalents: John Thomas, old feller, down below, the ?loo (or worse, the bathroom), naughty bits, sleep with someone, nookie, jollies, hanky panky, rumpy-pumpy and so on. Our euphemistic skills are honed by the media which, though much franker nowadays, still maintain some taboo areas: intimacy occurred (had sex); she was strangled and mutilated but had not been interfered with (killed but not raped); abused (today?s vague catch-all euphemism for any form of questionable physical, psychological or sexual activity). It is, as you can see, a very short journey from sex-change operation to gender reassignment. The language of prudery also surprisingly invades that sanctum of directness, the doctor?s surgery. Physician-speak is a growth area. How?re the waterworks? The ticker/tummy? Your stool? The back passage? The little lump? All this prepares the way for negative patient care outcome to describe someone who dies in hospital. The poor, in our euphemistic world, are in a lower income bracket, under-privileged or fiscal under-achievers. Slum homes are inner-city housing. When a city decides to clear away the slums the process is called urban renewal rather than slum clearance. And of course the same city calls its rat catchers rodent operatives. Death has no dearth of euphemisms. Shakespeare might well ask today, ?Death, where is thy sting?? Senior Citizens and Golden Agers no longer simply die, they pass on, pass away, depart, sleep with the angels, go to their just reward, go to a better place, take a last bow, answer the final call, pop off, go on a final journey, fade away or, more jocularly, kick the bucket. Euphemism is particularly effective for disguising crime ? especially the crimes we might commit ourselves. Tax fiddling, meter feeding, fare dodging, joy riding and being economical with the truth all sound like commendable streetwise skills, whereas in fact they all amount to cheating and criminal activity. Euphemism is also useful to help to make tedious-sounding jobs seem grand. Those people we used to know as insurance salesmen are now variously financial advisers, investment consultants, fiscal analysts, savings strategists, liquidity planners, pensions counsellors and endowments executives. Again, the euphemistic traps are laid early in the career paths of young people. Consider these job descriptions and what, in real working life, they probably mean: Euphemism and Political Correctness The fertile breeding ground for euphemism today undoubtedly lies in the quest for what is popularly known as political correctness, or PC. The self-appointed guardians of political correctness quite commendably seek to banish stigmatising and dehumanising terminology from our speech and writing. They have been successful in removing from our everyday language such thoughtless and hurtful terms as nigger, coon, cripple and OAP; and no thinking person would now use the term mongoloid to describe a child suffering from Down?s Syndrome. And they have been especially successful righting the centuries-old imbalance between the sexes in the popular perception: the use of man as a suffix or prefix (manhandle, mankind, man-made, manpower, man in the street; foreman, chairman, one-man show, alderman, salesman, etc); sexist generalisations (doctors are usually thought of as ?he?, nurses as ?she?; home helps are always female, etc); and making writers, editors and broadcasters aware of the problem with the dominant male pronoun. While much of this is desirable rethinking, and even necessary, the PC police have unfortunately taken a few steps too far and are consequently ridiculed by many reasonable people. The campaign to expunge the E from VE Day (Victory over Europe Day), in order not to offend our near neighbours during the 50th anniversary of the end of World War Two celebrations, succeeded only in offending millions of British families who had lost loved ones in the conflict. The international campaign for so-called non-sexist language has led to what many people regard as euphemistic excess. Consider these recommendations from a recently-published manual from The Women?s Press: Recommendations to end the masculine tyranny of chess are even more controversial ? or preposterous. Knights are to be renamed defenders or horseriders; kings become sovereigns and queens are deputy sovereigns. Such bizarre examples should be ample warning to every aspiring writer. Be sensible and sensitive towards people and institutions, whether minorities or majorities, but say what you mean! A word to the wise about Clich?s (#ulink_594af0b7-2022-59c7-8b5f-f405467dc376) All things considered, avoid clich?s like the plague We have all met people who have the extraordinary ability to talk in clich?s: Y?know, not to beat around the bush or hedge your bet, this chapter is a must-read because it calls a spade a spade and in a nutshell leaves no stone unturned to pull the rug from under those off-the-cuff, old-hat b?te noires called clich?s. These are the people who?ve given the clich? its bad name. We all tend to use them, of course. Sometimes that familiar phrase is the neatest way of expressing yourself and most of us can, in a flash (clich?), unconsciously call up a few hundred of them to help us out in writing and conversation. But how aware are we of the irritation (or worse, sniggering) that the overuse of clich?s can cause? If you want to use clich?s only when appropriate and, avoid them when not, it helps to be able to recognise them. Give yourself this quick test: how many of these tired and well-worn expressions can you complete with the missing word COMPLETE THE CLICH? 1?a gift from the . . . . 2?light at the end of the . . . . . . 3?weighed in the . . . . . . . and found wanting 4?quantum . . . . 5?paper over the . . . . . . 6?fall between two . . . . . . 7?blot on the . . . . . . . . . 8?if you?ve got it, . . . . . .it 9?the . . . . . not worth the candle 10?it?s not over till the fat lady . . . . . Answers. 1. gods; 2. tunnel; 3. balance; 4. leap; 5. cracks; 6. stools; 7. landscape; 8. flaunt; 9. game?s; 10. sings Most clich?s begin life as someone?s incredibly neat, timely or witty way of expressing or emphasising a thought. Because it is clever, a lot of people steal the phrase as their own. Multiply that by a few million and you have the desperately tired and overused husk of somebody?s originality. Many clich?s are centuries old. If we say of a jilted bride-to-be that she was left in the lurch we are echoing a comment made by the English poet Gabriel Harvey in 1576. Thirty years earlier saw another writer, John Heywood, recognise that he knew what side his bread?s buttered on (1546). Clich?s date from the Bible and more are minted, waiting in the wings (clich?) for clich?dom, every day. These days a clich? can be born, adopted and be worn out in a matter of mere months. The grammarian Eric Partridge identified four kinds of clich?. There is the idiom that becomes so indiscriminately used that its original meaning becomes lost (to the manner born has become to the manor born because of the widespread belief that it means born to wealth and luxury, whereas it originally meant ?following an established custom, or accustomed to a situation? as in Shakespeare?s Hamlet 4:14). His second type includes phrases that have become so hackneyed that only the laziest writers and speakers ever use them (to nip in the bud; beyond the pale; down to the last detail). Partridge?s third group consists of foreign phrases (terra firma; in flagrante delicto; plus ?a change) while his fourth comprises snippets and quotations from literature (a little knowledge is a dangerous thing from Pope, and Shakespeare?s a thing of beauty is a joy for ever). However we haven?t yet rounded up all the usual suspects (clich?). One serial offender (very modern clich?) is the ?stock modifier? ? a Darby and Joan (clich?) combination of words that, often for no reason, are always seen together. A person isn?t moved; he or she is visibly moved; a person isn?t merely courteous, he or she is unfailingly courteous. These parasitic partners are really sly clich?s and you should watch for them. To help you know these partners better, try matching these: Answers: 1D; 2C; 3A; 4E; 5B If you make up your mind to watch out for clich?s creeping into your speech and writing and to try to avoid them you?ll be surprised how easy it becomes to do without them ? and how much fresher your writing becomes as a result. Here are a few you might remove from your vocabulary: An A to Z of Clich?s to Avoid like the Plague accidentally on purpose accident waiting to happen actions speak louder than words act of contrition acid test add insult to injury after due consideration all intents and purposes all in the same boat all over bar the shouting all things considered almost too good to be true angel of mercy angry silence (classic Darby & Joan) as a matter of fact as luck would have it as sure as eggs is/are eggs at the end of the day at this moment/point in time auspicious occasion avid reader baby with the bathwater, don?t throw out the backseat driver back to basics/to the drawing board bag and baggage bag of tricks ballpark figure ball?s in your court, the bang your head against a brick wall barking up the wrong tree bat an eyelid (try wink and surprise everyone) batten down the hatches beavering away beer and skittles, it?s not all before you can say Jack Robinson beggars can?t be choosers be good (and if you can?t be good, be careful!) be that as it may between a rock and a hard place bite the bullet blessing in disguise blind leading the blind blissful ignorance blood out of a stone, it?s like trying to get bloody but unbowed blow hot and cold blot on the landscape blow the whistle blue rinse brigade blushing bride bone of contention borrowed time bottom line breath of fresh air bright eyed and bushy tailed brought to book brownie points bruising battle/encounter bumper to bumper traffic jam by the same token call it a day callow youth calm before the storm camp as a row of tents can of worms captive audience card up his sleeve cards stacked against us cardinal sin carte blanche cast of thousands Catch 22 situation catalogue of errors/misery/disaster/misfortune cat among the pigeons, put the catholic tastes caustic comment cautious optimism centre of the universe chalk and cheese, as different as champing at the bit chapter and verse chapter of accidents cheek by jowl cheque?s in the post, the cheap and cheerful cherished belief chew the cud/fat chop and change chorus of approval/dispproval ??? ???????? ?????. ??? ?????? ?? ?????. ????? ?? ??? ????, ??? ??? ????? ??? (https://www.litres.ru/graham-king-2/collins-improve-your-writing-skills/?lfrom=688855901) ? ???. ????? ???? ??? ??? ????? ??? Visa, MasterCard, Maestro, ? ??? ????? ????, ? ????? ?????, ? ??? ?? ?? ????, ??? PayPal, WebMoney, ???.???, QIWI ????, ????? ???? ?? ??? ???? ?? ????.