《中式英语之鉴》阅读笔记

困困

Reader: 许坤铭
Reading Time: 2025.3.12-2025.3.17
Reading Task: Part 1: Unnecessary Words | Chapter 5 Repeated References to the Same Thing
Summary of the Content:
This chapter addresses the issue of repeated references to the same thing in Chinglish, where ideas or nouns are unnecessarily restated within a sentence or paragraph. This redundancy often stems from Chinese rhetorical habits of emphasis and clarity, which clash with English’s preference for conciseness. Key points include:  
1.Overuse of Pronouns and Nouns  
Repeating nouns or pronouns (e.g., “he,” “she,” “it”) when context makes them unnecessary.  
  -Example: “The manager said that the manager would review the report” → “The manager said they would review the report.”  
  -Example: “The company announced that the company would expand its operations” → “The company announced it would expand its operations.”  
2.Redundant Clarifications  
Adding unnecessary explanations or restatements that repeat the obvious.  
  -Example: “The meeting, which was held on Monday, took place on Monday” → “The meeting took place on Monday.”  
  -Example: “The project, which is a new initiative, is a new project” → “The project is a new initiative.”  
3.Circular Structures
Repeating the same idea in different words within a sentence or paragraph.  
  -Example: “The policy aims to improve education and enhance the quality of learning” → “The policy aims to improve education.”  
  -Example: “The goal is to reduce costs and lower expenses” → “The goal is to reduce costs.”  
Core Argument: English values brevity and avoids redundancy. Repeated references, while acceptable in Chinese for emphasis or clarity, weaken the flow and impact of English writing. Effective communication requires trusting the reader’s ability to infer meaning from context.  

Evaluation:
1.Writing Style:  
(1)Structured and Practical: The chapter uses clear examples to illustrate problems and solutions, making it easy for readers to identify and correct redundancies.  
(2)Tone: Blunt yet constructive. The authors employ humor to highlight absurdities (e.g., “the manager said that the manager”), making critiques memorable without alienating learners.  
(3)Cultural Contextualization: Explains how Chinese rhetorical norms (e.g., repetition for clarity) clash with English’s preference for brevity and implicit meaning.  
2.Themes and Philosophical Underpinnings:  
(1)Economy of Language: Reinforces the book’s central thesis—unnecessary words obscure meaning. Repeated references are framed as a failure to trust the reader’s comprehension.  
(2)Cultural Adaptation: Highlights that fluency requires adapting to target-language norms rather than imposing native habits.  
(3)Precision as Power: Argues that eliminating redundancy sharpens both logic and persuasion, as concise language signals confidence and clarity.  
3.Critiques:  
(1)Overzealous Prescriptivism: Some criticized redundancies (e.g., repeating nouns for emphasis) are acceptable in specific contexts (e.g., legal documents, speeches). The chapter occasionally dismisses stylistic nuance.  
(2)Neglect of Register: Formal or technical English sometimes uses repetition for specificity or clarity. The book’s rigid stance risks oversimplifying context-dependent usage.  

Reflection:
1.Personal Applications:  
(1)Editing for Conciseness: I now scan my writing for repeated references (e.g., “the project, which is a new project” → “the new project”), fostering conciseness. This habit has improved my academic and professional communication.  
(2)Trusting the Reader: I resist the urge to “over-explain” ideas—a habit rooted in Chinese pedagogical traditions—and embrace English’s implicit trust in the audience’s interpretive ability.  
2.Sociocultural Insights:  
(1)Chinglish and Linguistic Identity: While the book condemns repetition as “errors,” some restatements (e.g., “safe and security”* in Sino-English diplomacy) reflect cross-cultural attempts at clarity. This sparks debate: When is repetition a bridge rather than a barrier?  
(2)Media and Public Discourse: Redundant phrases plague political slogans (e.g., “reform and opening-up”) and advertising (e.g., “free gift”). Streamlining such language could combat misinformation and enhance public trust.  
3.Broader Societal Relevance:  
(1)Information Overload: In an era of data saturation, eliminating verbal redundancy aligns with ethical communication—conveying ideas without wasting attention.  
(2)Bureaucratic Efficiency: Governments and corporations often bury accountability in repetitive jargon (e.g., “goals and objectives”). Adopting the authors’ principles could enhance transparency and accountability.  
(3)Global Communication: In international settings (e.g., UN documents), redundant translations risk ambiguity. Precision fosters mutual understanding and reduces diplomatic friction.  

Final Thoughts:  
This chapter is more than a linguistic guide—it is a meditation on the ethics of communication. By dissecting repeated references, Pinkham and Jiang expose a universal truth: Every unnecessary word is a tax on the reader’s time and attention. Their critique mirrors broader societal challenges, from combating bureaucratic bloat to resisting sensationalism. Ultimately, the lesson transcends language: Whether in writing, policymaking, or daily dialogue, clarity is an act of respect, and brevity is the soul of integrity.