| Kenneth G. Wilson (1923–). The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. 1993. |
| |
| REDUNDANT, REDUNDANCY |
| |
| |
| Redundant language is usually “too much, repetitive, more than necessary.” Yet redundancy in language is by no means all bad. The grammar of natural languages is often redundant: that is, its sentences often contain repeated and overlapping signals giving the same grammatical information, so we can pick up the cues we need in order to understand even against considerable background noise or other distraction. And as every preacher and teacher knows, it is often pedagogically sound to “tell ’em first what you’re gonna tell ’em, then tell ’em, and finally tell ’em what you’ve told ’em.” Sometimes repetition—redundancy—is a good way to ensure effectiveness. | 1 |
| But we also admire the spareness of artificial languages, which say things only once, with maximum efficiency: were we to permit a redundant 2 to appear in 2 + 2 (by adding an extra +2, for example), we would quite likely get 6 as an answer. Hence many people look at wordy, repetitive prose with justifiable irritation. Say it once, clearly and correctly, they urge. And for much expository prose, they’re right. In the end, however, the most helpful guide to usage in this matter is probably this: write the most effective prose you can. If you need some redundancies to be effective, use them; sometimes belt-and-suspenders constructions are safest. Repeat your message until you’re sure your reader understands it, but not one more time than necessary. When redundancies cloud your meaning or merely waste your reader’s time, they’ll ruin your effort. Compare BREVITY; CONCISENESS (1). | 2 |
| |
| | | The Columbia Guide to Standard American English. Copyright © 1993 Columbia University Press. |
|
|
