장황한 표현

Verbosity
이 글은 언어적, 양식적 용어에 관한 것이다. 심리학 용어는 로고레아(심리학)를 참조한다.
컴퓨팅 및 사용자 인터페이스 설계에 대한 자세한 내용은 상세 모드를 참조하십시오.

장황하거나 장황한 것은 필요 이상의 단어를 사용하는 말이나 글이다. 예를 들어 "하지만"이 아니라 "그렇다고 해도"와 같은 말이다.[1] 장황한 말의 반대는 평이한 언어다. '스타일의 요소'의 저자를 포함한 일부 교사들은 장황하지 말라고 경고한다; 비슷하게 마크 트웨인과 어니스트 헤밍웨이는, 다른 교사들 중에서도 그것을 피하는 것으로 유명하다. 동의어로는 언어, 언어, 장황함, 웅변, 수다스러움, 노출, 로지레아, 세스키페다리아리즘 등이 있다.

어원과 동의어

자세한 것은 라틴어 버보서인 "wordy"에서 유래한다. 그 밖에 과도한 단어의 사용을 가리키는 영어단어도 많다.

"확장"이라는 라틴어 프릭서스에서 유래한다. 장황함은 독백이나 연설의 길이, 특히 변호사의 구두 변론과 같은 형식적인 연설을 가리키는 데도 사용될 수 있다.[2]

웅장함은 거만하거나 과장된 어투로 판단되는 복잡한 말이나 글씨를 말한다. 그것은 라틴어 grandis("훌륭한")와 loqui("말하자면")의 합성어다.[3]

로고레아 또는 로고르후아(그리스어 λοόρρααα, 로고르치아, "word-flux")는 말의 과도한 흐름이다. 불필요하게 복잡하거나 지나친 전문용어를 써서 이해하기 어려운 산문을 표현하기 위해 경멸적으로 사용하는 경우가 많다.

Sesquipedalianism is a linguistic style that involves the use of long words. Roman poet Horace coined the phrase sesquipedalia verba in his Ars Poetica.[4] It is a compound of sesqui, "one and a half", and pes, "foot", a reference to meter (not words a foot long). The earliest recorded usage in English of sesquipedalian is in 1656, and of sesquipedalianism, 1863.[5]

Garrulous comes from Latin garrulus, "talkative", a form of the verb garrīre, "to chatter". The adjective may describe a person who is excessively talkative, especially about trivial matters, or a speech that is excessively wordy or diffuse[6]

The noun expatiation and the verb expatiate come from Latin expatiātus, past participle from spatiārī, "to wander". They refer to enlarging a discourse, text, or description.[7]

Scientific jargon

An essay intentionally filled with "logorrhea" that mixed physics concepts with sociological concepts in a nonsensical way was published by physics professor Alan Sokal in a journal (Social Text) as a scholarly publishing sting. The journal defended the article's publication since it fell under several publication criteria, but regretted it as it was a sting that contributed to the disparaging of science studies or cultural studies. The episode became known as the Sokal Affair.[8]

The term is sometimes also applied to unnecessarily wordy speech in general; this is more usually referred to as prolixity. Some people defend the use of additional words as idiomatic, a matter of artistic preference, or helpful in explaining complex ideas or messages.[9]

Examples

Warren G. Harding, the 29th President of the United States, was notably verbose even in his era.[citation needed] A Democratic leader, William Gibbs McAdoo, described Harding's speeches as "an army of pompous phrases moving across the landscape in search of an idea."[10]

The Michigan Law Review published a 229-page parody of postmodern writing titled "Pomobabble: Postmodern Newspeak and Constitutional 'Meaning' for the Uninitiated". The article consists of complicated and context-sensitive self-referencing narratives. The text is peppered with a number of parenthetical citations and asides, which is supposed to mock the cluttered style of postmodern writing.[11]

In The King's English, Fowler gives a passage from The Times as an example of verbosity: "The Emperor received yesterday and to-day General Baron von Beck.... It may therefore be assumed with some confidence that the terms of a feasible solution are maturing themselves in His Majesty's mind and may form the basis of further negotiations with Hungarian party leaders when the Monarch goes again to Budapest."[12] Fowler objected to this passage because The Emperor, His Majesty, and the Monarch all refer to the same person: "the effect", he pointed out in Modern English Usage, " is to set readers wondering what the significance of the change is, only to conclude that there is none." Fowler would go on to call this phenomenon "Elegant variation" in his later style guides (see below).

Style advice

The ancient Greek philosopher Callimachus is quoted as saying "Big book, big evil" (μέγα βιβλίον μέγα κακόν, mega biblion, mega kakon),[citation needed] rejecting the epic style of poetry in favor of his own.[clarification needed]

Many style guides advise against excessive verbosity. While it may be rhetorically useful[1] verbose parts in communications are sometimes referred to as "fluff" or "fuzz".[13] For instance, William Strunk, an American professor of English advised in 1918 to "Use the active voice: Put statements in positive form; Omit needless words."[14]

In A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (1926) Henry Watson Fowler says, "It is the second-rate writers, those intent rather on expressing themselves prettily than on conveying their meaning clearly, & still more those whose notions of style are based on a few misleading rules of thumb, that are chiefly open to the allurements of elegant variation," Fowler's term for the over-use of synonyms.[15] Contrary to Fowler's criticism of several words being used to name the same thing in English prose, in some other languages, including French, it might be thought to be a good writing style.[16][17]

An inquiry into the 2005 London bombings found that verbosity can be dangerous if used by emergency services. It can lead to delay that could cost lives.[18]

프린스턴 대학의 심리학과의 2005년 연구는 길고 모호한 단어를 사용한다고 해서 사람들이 더 똑똑해 보이지는 않는다는 것을 발견했다. Dr. Daniel M. 오펜하이머는 학생들이 짧고 간결한 지문을 가장 똑똑한 작가들에 의해 쓰여진 것으로 평가한다는 것을 보여주는 연구를 했다. 그러나 긴 단어나 복잡한 글꼴 유형을 사용하는 사람들은 덜 지능적인 것으로 보였다.[19]

장황한 말에 대한 조언과 달리, 일부 편집자와 스타일 전문가들은 "쓸데없는 말"[14]과 같은 격언은 도움이 되지 않는다고 제안한다. 어떤 단어가 불필요한지, 또는 장황한 조언이 글쓰기에 해를 끼칠지는 불분명할 수 있다. 어떤 경우에는 반복과 중복의 정도 또는 비유적 언어와 길고 복잡한 문장의 사용이 스타일이나 의사소통 효과에 긍정적인 영향을 미칠 수 있다.[9]

논픽션 글에서 전문가들은 의사소통에 도움이 되지 않는 과도한 요소들을 제거하는 한편, 그것의 의미를 명확히 하지 못하는 다른 한편으로, 균형을 맞춰야 한다고 제안한다. 닐 앤드류스 법학전문대학원 교수는 예를 들어 법적 결정문 작성에서 "합리적으로 타당하지 않고 지나치게 간결하며 애매하고 공식적인 판단과 (특히 항소심에서 복수의 판결이 내려질 때) 너무 길고 풀기 어려운 결정 사이에 균형을 맞춰야 한다"고 제안한다.[20] 이러한 경우, 결론의 기초가 되는 주장에 주의를 기울여 사용된 언어가 단순성과 정확성 사이의 균형을 이루도록 해야 한다.

많은 작가들은 소설에서 지나치게 장황한 것을 피하라고 충고한다. 예를 들어 마크 트웨인(1835~1910)은 "일반적으로 의도된 생각과 감정을 충분히 전달하거나 환기시키는 단어가 적을수록 의사소통이 더 효과적"[21]이라고 썼다. 마찬가지로 1954년 노벨 문학상 수상자인 어니스트 헤밍웨이(1899~1961)는 윌리엄 포크너의 "독자를 사전에 보낼 만한 단어를 쓴 적이 없다"[22]는 주장에 맞서 그의 간결한 문체를 옹호했다. 이에 헤밍웨이는 "가엾은 포크너"라고 답했다. 그는 정말로 큰 감정이 큰 말에서 나온다고 생각하는가? 그는 내가 10달러짜리 말을 모른다고 생각한다. 나는 그들을 잘 안다. 하지만 더 오래되고 단순하고 좋은 말들이 있는데, 그런 말들은 내가 쓰는 거야."[23]

George Orwell mocked logorrhea in "Politics and the English Language" (1946) by taking verse (9:11) from the book of Ecclesiastes in the King James Version of the Bible:

I returned and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all.

and rewriting it as

Objective consideration of contemporary phenomena compels the conclusion that success or failure in competitive activities exhibits no tendency to be commensurate with innate capacity, but that a considerable element of the unpredictable must invariably be taken into account.

In contrast, though, some authors warn against pursuing concise writing for its own sake. Literary critic Sven Birkerts, for instance, notes that authors striving to reduce verbosity might produce prose that is unclear in its message or dry in style. "There's no vivid world where every character speaks in one-line, three-word sentences," he notes.[24] There is a danger that the avoidance of prolixity can produce writing that feels unnatural or sterile.

Quantum physicist Richard Feynman has spoken out against verbosity in scientific writing.[25]

Wordiness is common in informal or playful conversation, lyrics, and comedy.[26]

See also

참조

  1. ^ a b "Removing Word Clutter". Roane State.
  2. ^ Percy, Sholto; Reuben Percy (1826). The Percy Anecdotes. London: T. Boys. p. 9.
  3. ^ "Dictionary.com - Grandiloquence". Dictionary.reference.com. Retrieved 2013-01-21.
  4. ^ "Ars Poetica, l.97". Perseus Project. Retrieved 2 February 2011.
  5. ^ Simpson, J. A.; Weiner, E. S. C. (1989). The Oxford English Dictionary (Second ed.). Oxford University Press.
  6. ^ "Dictionary.com - Garrulous". Dictionary.reference.com. Retrieved 2013-01-23.
  7. ^ "Dictionary.com - expatiation". Dictionary.reference.com. Retrieved 2013-01-23.
  8. ^ 소칼 사건
  9. ^ a b Stern, Aurthur A. (1967). "How to write less efficiently". The English Journal. 56 (1): 114–117. doi:10.2307/812704. JSTOR 812704.
  10. ^ "Warren G. Harding". The White House. Archived from the original on 2012-07-26. Retrieved 2013-01-23.
  11. ^ Arrow, Dennis W. (December 1997). "Pomobabble: Postmodern Newspeak and Constitutional "Meaning" for the Uninitiated". Michigan Law Review. 96 (3): 461–690. doi:10.2307/1290146. JSTOR 1290146.
  12. ^ Fowler, Henry Watson; Fowler, Francis George (1908). The King's English. Clarendon Press.
  13. ^ William Zinsser (1994). "Simplicity". On writing well: An informal guide to writing nonfiction. New York: Harper & Row. Bibcode:1994wwai.book.....Z.
  14. ^ a b Strunk, William (1918). The Elements of Style. Paris: Feedbooks.
  15. ^ Fowler, Henry Watson (1994) [1926]. A Dictionary of Modern English Usage. Wordsworth Editions. ISBN 978-1-85326-318-7.
  16. ^ Paterson, Ann (2006). "Painting with words". In Eugenia Loffredo, Manuela Perteghella (ed.). Translation And Creativity: Perspectives on Creative Writing And Translation Studies. Continuum. p. 88. ISBN 0-8264-8793-9. . . . the rule of elegant variation (that is, using synonyms wherever possible), which purists consider to be essential for good style in French.
  17. ^ Fuller, Frederick (1984). The Translator's Handbook: (with special reference to conference translation from French and Spanish). Penn State University Press. p. 35. ISBN 0-271-00368-5. Elegant variation French tends to avoid repetition of proper names, with a description of the person, at second reference.
  18. ^ "7/7 inquests: emergency services should use plain English". Telegraph. Retrieved 11 March 2011.closed access
  19. ^ Oppenheimer, Daniel M. (2005). "Consequences of Erudite Vernacular Utilized Irrespective of Necessity: Problems with using long words needlessly" (PDF). Applied Cognitive Psychology. 20 (2): 139–15. doi:10.1002/acp.1178.
  20. ^ Neil Andrews (2015). Contract Law. Cambridge University Press. p. 607. ISBN 978-1-107-06168-2.
  21. ^ "Reference for Prolixity". Search.com. Archived from the original on July 16, 2011.
  22. ^ Rovit, Earl; Waldhorn, Arthur (2006). Hemingway and Faulkner in Their Time. Continuum. p. 162. ISBN 978-0-8264-1825-8. Retrieved 28 February 2011.
  23. ^ Shapiro, Fred R. (2006). The Yale Book of Quotations. Yale University Press. p. 354. ISBN 0-300-10798-6. Retrieved 28 February 2011.
  24. ^ Adria Haley (2011). 2012 Novel & Short Story Writer's Market. Penguin Publishing Group. p. 31. ISBN 978-1-59963-242-1.
  25. ^ Feynman, Richard (Nov 1, 1992). Surely you're joking, Mr. Feynman. Vintage Random House. p. 9. his almost compulsive need to solve puzzles, his provocative mischievousness, his indignant impatience with pretension and hypocrisy, and his talent for one-upping anybody who tries to one-up him
  26. ^ Charles (Carlos) Fabara. The Concise Expression Handbook.