《中式英语之鉴》读书笔记

困困

Reader: 许坤铭
Reading Time: 2025.3.7-2025.3.12
Reading Task: Part 1: Unnecessary Words | Chapter 4: Saying the Same Thing Twice Summary of the Content:
This chapter critiques the pervasive issue of redundant repetition in Chinglish, where ideas are needlessly restated using synonymous phrases or circular structures. Rooted in Chinese rhetorical traditions of emphasis and balance, such repetitions clash with English’s preference for conciseness. Key categories include:
1.Tautological Phrases  
Redundant pairs or phrases where one term duplicates the meaning of another.  
  - Example: “Each and every student must obey the rules” → “Every student must obey the rules.”  
  - Example: “We must cooperate together” → “We must cooperate.”  
2.Explanatory Repetition  
Adding unnecessary clarifications that repeat the obvious.  
  - Example: “The new innovation is groundbreaking” (innovation implies newness) → “The innovation is groundbreaking.”  
  - Example: “The final outcome was unexpected” (outcome implies finality) → “The outcome was unexpected.”  
3.Structural Redundancy  
Repeating ideas across sentences or clauses due to literal translation of Chinese parallel structures.  
  - Example: “We need to solve problems and resolve issues” → “We need to solve problems.”  
  - Example: “This policy is beneficial and advantageous to society” → “This policy benefits society.”  

Core Argument: English values brevity and avoids redundancy. Repetition, while acceptable in Chinese for emphasis or rhythm, weakens clarity and authority in English. Effective communication demands ruthless editing to eliminate circularity.  

Evaluation
1.Writing Style:  
(1)Diagnostic and Methodical: The chapter categorizes redundancies into clear subtypes, using side-by-side comparisons of flawed and revised sentences. This structured approach helps learners identify patterns.  
(2)Tone: Blunt yet pedagogical. The authors mock extreme examples (e.g., “absolutely complete perfection”) to emphasize absurdity, making critiques memorable.  
(3)Cultural Contextualization: Explains how Chinese rhetorical norms (e.g., parallelism for harmony) clash with English’s “straight-to-the-point” ethos.  

2.Themes and Philosophical Underpinnings:  
(1)Economy of Language: Reinforces the book’s central thesis—unnecessary words obscure meaning. Repetition is framed as a failure to trust the reader’s comprehension.  
(2)Cultural Relativity: Highlights that “good writing” is culturally defined; fluency requires adapting to target-language aesthetics 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 phrases (e.g., “each and every”) are idiomatic in English for rhetorical emphasis (e.g., speeches, poetry). The chapter occasionally dismisses stylistic nuance.  
(2)Neglect of Register: Formal or legal English sometimes uses repetition for specificity (e.g. “null and void”). The book’s rigid stance risks oversimplifying context-dependent usage.  

Reflections:
1.Personal Applications:  
(1)Editing for Conciseness: I now hunt for circular phrases in my writing (e.g., “advance planning” → “planning”) and replace them with single impactful terms. This practice has improved my email and academic writing efficiency.  
(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 as Cultural Negotiation: 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 redundancy, 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.