中式英语之鉴5-6

profen

Reader: 王伊涵
Reading Time: 4.3-4.5
Reading Task: Chapter5-6

Summary of the content:
Chapter 5: Repeated References to the Same Thing  
This chapter examines the redundancy in Chinglish caused by repeatedly mentioning the same subject within a sentence or paragraph. The author explains that such repetition can often be deleted or rephrased contextually.  
1.Omissible Repetition:  
Original: "Statistics show that from 1990 to 1994, imported vehicles totalled 960,000 units..."  
Improved: "Statistics show that from 1990 to 1994, imported vehicles totalled 960,000..."  
Here, "units" redundantly repeats the reference to "vehicles."  
2.Acceptable Repetition:  
Certain fixed phrases or cases requiring emphasis for clarity should be retained (e.g. technical terms or idiomatic expressions).  
3.Streamlining Techniques:  
For actions: Replace repetitive verbs with "do so" or "do the same."  
For nouns: Remove modifiers, simplify phrases, or use pronouns (e.g. "it," "they").  
Chapter 6: Summing It All Up  
This concluding chapter recaps key principles from Part 1 ("Unnecessary Words") and reinforces the importance of conciseness in English.  
1.Core Principles Reviewed:  
Eliminate unnecessary nouns and verbs (e.g. "make an improvement" → "improve").  
Avoid redundant modifiers (e.g. "completely finish" → "finish").  
Remove synonym stacking (e.g. "methods and approaches" → "methods").  
Prevent restating the same idea (e.g. "arrive on time and be punctual" → "arrive on time").  
Streamline repeated references to the same subject.  
2.Emphasis on Conciseness:  
The author reiterates that concise expression enhances clarity and naturalness in English. Redundancy not only weakens precision but also distracts readers.   

Evaluation:
Chapters 5 and 6 effectively consolidate strategies for eliminating redundancy, a pervasive issue in Chinese-influenced English. Chapter 5’s focus on repeated references provides actionable solutions, such as using pronouns (it, they) or streamlining phrases (e.g. removing units after numerical values). However, while the examples are practical, the chapter could delve deeper into cultural explanations—why Chinese writers habitually over-specify nouns, perhaps due to linguistic precision norms. Chapter 6’s recap reinforces core principles but risks redundancy itself by reiterating prior content without adding fresh insights. Despite this, both chapters succeed in promoting conciseness as a bridge to idiomatic English. The emphasis on doing more with fewer words is universally applicable, though greater attention to contextual exceptions (e.g. technical writing’s need for specificity) would enhance balance.  

Reflection:
These chapters struck a chord with my tendency to over-clarify in English. For years, I wrote sentences like “The project achieved success and was successful,” fearing readers might miss the point. Chapter 5’s lesson on repeated references—such as trimming “960,000 units” to “960,000”—taught me that trust in the reader’s comprehension is key. Revising my old essays, I replaced cumbersome phrases like “The committee proposed suggestions and ideas” with “The committee proposed ideas,” instantly sharpening the message. While initially uncomfortable —cutting words felt like losing safety nets—this practice pushed me to prioritize precision. Now, I approach writing as an exercise in restraint, where clarity thrives through simplicity, not repetition.