Chapter 5

油炸绿番茄

Chapter 5 focuses on avoiding repetitive references to the same thing in English writing. Pinkham highlights that redundancy weakens clarity and professionalism, but not all repetition should be removed—context determines necessity. Key strategies include:
Deleting Redundancy: Remove redundant terms if they add no value (e.g., “units” after “vehicles”).
Substitution:
Pronouns (e.g., “they” replacing noun phrases).
Summarizing terms (e.g., “these matters” encapsulating details).
Acronyms (e.g., “SOEs” for “state-owned enterprises”).
Retaining Necessary Repetition: Keep repetitions that enhance coherence (e.g., repeating a conference name to avoid ambiguity).The author also notes the gap between Chinese and English styles: Chinese uses repetition for emphasis, while English prioritizes conciseness and substitution.
Evaluation:
Pinkham contrasts Chinese-English habits (e.g., Chinese rhythmic repetition vs. English conciseness) and uses cases (e.g., repeating “National Conference on Iron and Steel Production”) to demonstrate English’s focus on subject coherence—critical for Chinese speakers. However, it neglects technological impacts: How AI tools auto-detect redundancy or whether algorithmic writing (e.g., GPT models) inherently avoids repetition. Furthermore, strategies may fail in informal contexts (e.g., hashtag repetition or meme culture), where redundancy is intentional and culturally resonant.
Reflection：
This chapter challenges me to rethink the tension between “conciseness” and “richness.” Chinese redundancy may carry cultural metaphors (e.g., idiom repetition implying depth), while English brevity risks stripping such layers. For example, translating “乡村振兴” as “rural revitalization” loses the historical weight embedded in “振兴.” Global communication demands translators balance conciseness with cultural fidelity, rather than blindly conforming to English norms. Personally, this requires “cultural translation awareness”—avoiding mechanical cuts while resisting over-localization