From: Translation Bureau
Language Navigator allows you to search by keyword or by theme to quickly find answers to questions about language or writing in English and French. To learn more about this search engine, consult the section entitled About Language Navigator.
New to Language Navigator? Learn how to search for content in Language Navigator.
Search by keyword
Search fields
Search by theme
Search by theme to quickly access all of the Portal’s language resources related to a specific theme.
About Language Navigator
Language Navigator simultaneously searches all of the writing tools, quizzes and blog posts on the Language Portal of Canada. It gives you access to everything you need to write well in English and French: articles on language difficulties, linguistic recommendations, conjugation tables, translation suggestions and much more.
To translate a term or to find answers to terminology questions in a specialized field, please consult TERMIUM Plus®.
Results 61 to 70 of 321 (page 7 of 33)
overused cliché, cliché
Redundancies are words that unnecessarily repeat information. Because a cliché is an overused expression, the modifier overused in the familiar expression overused cliché is redundant. He concluded with a cliché (not an overused cliché): Those who forget the past are condemned to repeat it.Source: Writing Tips Plus (English language problems and rules)
Number of views: 1,711
Writing paragraphs: Introduction
A thesis is a single, focused argument. Most paragraphs prove or demonstrate a thesis through explanations, examples and concrete details. This module helps you learn to write and analyze the types of paragraphs common in formal writing. The details Start with an outline - Next Page Writing topic sentences Dividing your argument Developing unified and coherent paragraphs Review exercise: Topic sentences Review exercise: Dividing your argument Review exercise: Paragraph developmentSource: HyperGrammar 2 (basics of English grammar)
Number of views: 1,697
figuratively, literally, virtually
These words are often wrongly used to convey the opposite of their real meaning. Figuratively means “not literally, not really.” Voltaire was speaking figuratively when he described Canada as “a few acres of snow.” Literally means “really, actually.” When we went outside, the howling wind made our hair stand on end quite literally. Virtually means “practically, for all practical purposes.” The winter was quite mild: virtually all of my roses have survived. Using literally for emphasis with the loose meaning of “virtually” or “almost” is not recommended. Incorrect: I literally died laughing when I heard that joke. Correct: I almost died laughing when I heard that joke.Source: Writing Tips Plus (English language problems and rules)
Number of views: 1,679
verbiage, verbose, verbosity
A verbose writer or speaker displays verbosity, or verbiage (wordiness). Kareem is so verbose it takes him five minutes to express what others say in one. The article was filled with verbiage until the editor made it succinct. In its other sense, verbiage refers to diction or choice of words. The verbiage found in contracts is very different from that in newspapers. In his latest book, Bourget satirizes the verbiage of politics and war.Source: Writing Tips Plus (English language problems and rules)
Number of views: 1,656
be advised that
The expression be advised means “be informed or apprised.” This expression is rather formal and is often encountered in commercial and legal contexts. Since it is an example of an older style of business writing that is now considered stilted, it is better to avoid it. Instead, we recommend using the plain English expression please note that or simply omitting the introductory formula. Please note that (not be advised that) the deadline for submissions is December 21. OR The deadline for submissions is December 21.Source: Writing Tips Plus (English language problems and rules)
Number of views: 1,645
resulting effect
Redundancies are words that unnecessarily repeat information. Because both result and effect refer to the outcome of previous actions, the phrase resulting effect is redundant. Write either effect or result. The result (or effect) of this painting technique is dramatic for any living room. The study assessed the effects on wetlands in Ontario.Source: Writing Tips Plus (English language problems and rules)
Number of views: 1,633
A Procedure for Self-Revision
Brian Mossop (Terminology Update, Volume 15, Number 3, 1982, page 6) Revision is an essential stage in the translation process, but it does not need to be done by a "reviser." While new translators should have their work revised by someone more experienced, once they have shown themselves capable of achieving a certain standard they can begin to perform the revision function themselves. But it is then no longer sufficient for them simply to "go over" the draft, in the way they did while working under a reviser. Instead, they must devise for themselves a definite self-revision procedure.It is perhaps true that revision by a second party—a "fresh eye" with no personal commitment to the draft—is somewhat more likely than self-revision to lead to the identification of problems in the draft. But revision by a second party is very time-consuming because the reviser must independently work out the overall argument and conceptual difficulties of the text. Much time will also be lost if the reviser does not distinguish necessary changes from changes that merely bring the draft into conformance with his or her personal style of writing, and the translator will waste time thinking about whether to translate in a certain way merely to please the reviser. These problems do not exist in self-revision, and the disadvantage of not having a second opinion can be overcome to some extent by the use of a method designed with this problem in mind.The purpose of revision is to increase translation quality, but it must be distinguished from the quality-control procedure used by some employers, translation schools and professional associations for purposes such as hiring, marking and admittance to membership. First, whereas quality control is a procedure for evaluating a completed translation, revision is an integral part of the translation process. This is especially true in self-revision, in that the translator can divide translation tasks in various ways between the drafting and revising stages. Second, the quality-control procedure for identifying problems may be very elaborate and time-consuming because the work of several different individuals has to be evaluated on a fairly objective and consistent basis, or because a translation organization wants a detailed analysis of the weaknesses and strengths of its product. Revision does not have such aims, and there is a more limited amount of time available—time during which problems must be not only identified but also resolved. The approach must therefore be more subjective and less detailed.The goal in revision is to determine the most important problems and resolve them. In other words, revision is not retranslation: if when revising you think that whole sentences of the draft need recomposing, then either you are seeking a degree of perfection impossible to achieve in the time available, or else there is a serious problem with the way the translation was originally drafted—something which cannot be remedied by revision.When revising a draft, the question to ask is not "Can this be improved?" (for any piece of writing can be improved with enough time and effort), but rather "What needs to be improved?"Remark aRevision is basically a type of editing. Webster’s New World Dictionary defines "revise" as ’read over carefully and correct, improve or update where necessary’ and "edit" as ’revise and make ready for publication.’ The editing of draft translations does not always include the whole process of "making ready for publication," and in the case of translation as opposed to other types of writing, "updating" is irrelevant and "correcting" includes the correction of mistranslations. But otherwise the revision stage of translation has the same purpose as any other editing procedure: to look at the draft as a composition, written in a particular language, that must conform to certain writing standards and be "receivable" by prospective readers.The need for revision of drafts arises from two aspects of the drafting process that make it difficult at that stage to see how the text will appear to prospective readers:(i) While drafting the translation, the translator moves through the text relatively slowly and composes only a small fraction of the English translation before turning back to the French original. This fraction may get longer as the translator becomes more experienced, and the translator may work more quickly, but it will still be difficult for most of us to fully grasp the overall flow of the English text while it is being composed.(ii)While drafting, the translator must inevitably read the French first (since no English as yet exists), with the result that the meaning is coming into the translator’s mind from the French text, whereas the prospective reader will have to get the meaning from the English text.The revision procedure which I will now outline is designed to deal with problems arising from these two aspects of the drafting process. It does so by focussing on the English text: is the translation a coherent and genuinely English composition, and does it convey the desired meaning on its own, without there being any need to refer to the French? What the procedure specifically avoids is any repetition of the drafting procedure: first looking at a sentence of French, then turning to the corresponding English. It thus allows the translator to take a fresh look at the English, seeing it differently from the way it was seen during drafting.As far as I know there is no generally recognized procedure for revising. What follows is simply an adaptation to self-revision of the procedure for revising others which I have worked out for my own use over the past several years. Other procedures suiting individual translators are of course possible, but I think they must all be designed to deal with the problems that I have just mentioned.Step 1 Read a couple of paragraphs of the English without looking at the French.Comparison of original and translation is a part of revision (see Step 2), but revision cannot be reduced to an exercise in text comparison. Only by reading the draft without looking at the French—reading it not as a translation but as English—is it possible to determine whether the draft is a coherent and truly English composition, and how it will impress its Anglophone readership.During such a reading, certain problems of language and style can be identified: incorrect spelling, grammar and punctuation (which includes underlining and paragraphing); poor English usage; wrong level of language; gallicisms; language unsuited to the genre; poor intersentence transitions; excess verbiage; wrong focussing; wrong pronoun references, and uneuphonic effects.Remark b In some cases, problems can be corrected as soon as they are found; in others, correction must await comparison with the French (in Step 2).Three examples will illustrate the value of reading the English without first looking at the French:(i) excess verbiageIf you have just read "les renseignements qui se trouvent à la page 17," you are less likely to notice that your draft translation "the information which is found on page 17" probably needs streamlining to "the information on page 17."(ii) language unsuited to genreIf you have just read "acidifier chaque prélèvement (1 goutte CIH concentré)" you are less likely to notice, especially if you are new to scientific translation, that "acidify each sample (with 1 drop concentrated CIH)" needs changing to "add 1 drop concentrated HCI to each sample."(iii) incorrect focussing, wrong paragraphing, and wrong pronoun referenceSuppose you have translated the following passage:"Depuis une dizaine d’années, on parle beaucoup, surtout en Scandinavie, de l’acidification des lacs. Certains spécialistes attribuent ce phénomène aux pluies acides, tandis que d’autres proposent des explications différentes.Pour éclaircir ce problème, à la demande des pays nordiques, une étude très importante a été entreprise dans le cadre de l’OCDE, par 14 pays de l’Europe de l’Ouest. L’évaluation des transferts a été réalisée au moyen de modèles numériques de transport basés sur la conservation de masse du SO2 à l’intérieur d’un certain volume d’air en tenant compte du temps de réaction du SO2 sur les autres polluants. Des modèles de type eulérien, puis lagrangien, ont été utilisés pendant plusieurs épisodes. [Ils nécessitent la connaissance de la hauteur de la couche de mélange; celle-ci a été évaluée par des mesures du SO2 et des sulfates par avion. Comme résultat de cet effort, on commence à avoir une idée assez bonne au sujet du transport du soufre fossile remis en circulation par l’activité humaine, cependant on a à peine progressé quant à la compréhension de la corrélation entre le soufre et l’acidité libre des pluies.De vastes programmes de recherches (MAP3S et SURE) ont été récemment lancés aussi aux états-Unis d’Amérique, à ce sujet.Le CO2 est une autre substance dont il est difficile de dire, s’il est un polluant ou non.] L’homme joue certainement un rôle dans la mobilisation du carbone fossile et dans sa présence accrue dans l’atmosphère. La circulation globale du CO2 est à peu près expliquée. Ce qui l’est moins, c’est son rôle dans le changement éventuel du climat…"And suppose your draft of the bracketed portion of the passage reads:"…To use these models, the height of the mixing layer must be known, and it was determined by measurements of SO2Sulfur dioxide and sulphates taken from a plane. This study has begun to give us a good idea of the extent of the transport of fossil sulphur put into circulation by human activity, but there has been little advance in our understanding of the relation between sulphur and free acids in rainfall.Large-scale research programs on this subject (MAP3S and SURE) have recently begun in the United States as well. It is also difficult to tell whether CO2 is or is not a pollutant…" If you are revising by going through the text making a sentence-by-sentence comparison with the French, and if you have just read the last French sentence in the bracketed passage, then the last sentence of the draft may appear to convey the right meaning. But in fact there is a problem. The sentence as it stands will normally be read with the following stress pattern: "It is also difficult to tell whether CO2 is or is not a pollutant." But this does not flow on coherently from what precedes. The argument is "as with SO2Sulfur dioxide (just discussed), so with CO2." To get this meaning, the "also" of the draft would have to be read as going with "CO2" only, not with the entire expression "difficult to tell whether CO2 is or is not a pollutant." To obtain this result, the sentence would have to be read: "It is also difficult to tell whether CO2 is or is not a pollutant." But that is not the stress pattern a first-time reader will use. The problem becomes apparent if the sentence is read not in isolation after a reading of the corresponding French, but immediately after reading the preceding English. (Possible revision: "Another substance which may or may not be a pollutant is CO2.")Besides revealing this focussing problem, independent reading of the above draft brings out the need for reparagraphing. A new paragraph should be opened at the sentence beginning "This study. . . ." As the draft stands, the study in question appears to be the study of the mixing-layer height, whereas in fact the reference is to the OECD study as a whole. (The paragraph should perhaps begin "The OECD study…"). The one-sentence paragraph beginning "Large-scale research programs…" should be made into the second sentence of the preceding (newly-created) paragraph.Finally, continuous reading of the English reveals a problem of pronoun reference. The expression "on this subject" in the one-sentence paragraph could be interpreted as referring only to the "relation between sulphur and free acids in rainfall," a restriction which may not be intended. While the need for change here can be identified during Step 1, correction must await comparison with the French in Step 2, at which time the meaning of "à ce sujet" is checked. (Solution: delete "on this subject," to allow for both the restricted and more general interpretation of the topic of the "large-scale research projects.")There is one type of problem which is not a matter of language or style but can nevertheless be both identified and corrected during Step 1. Since attention is focussed on the prospective readers rather than on the original author during this step, it may be apparent that certain things in the draft are unsuitable for the particular readership of the specific translation at hand. For instance, if you have just read, in a meteorology text written in France, that "la Météorologie nationale accomplit deux tâches principales," you will be under the influence of the French and therefore less likely to realize that your translation "the national weather service performs two main tasks" may not be suitable for Canadian readers: it may be necessary to write "the French national weather service."Step 2 Read a sentence or so of the English, then look at the French and compare.This is the test-comparison procedure, where omissions and mistranslations are identified in the chunk of the draft which has just gone through Step 1.Judgments about the quality of the draft of a given sentence or expression can now be made in the light of the overall meaning of the paragraphs considered during Step 1 (the most common source of error in drafting is insufficient attention to context).During comparison, the English is once again read first, so that the meaning comes from it, uninfluenced by any prior reading of the French.Problems which are solvable fairly quickly are corrected as they are found. In more difficult cases, place a question mark in the margin and circle the problematic expression in pencil, for resolution in Step 3. Note that the paragraphs under consideration may resolve problems that were left question-marked in an earlier chunk of the text: an earlier problematic term may now appear in a new and clarifying context, or a problematic concept may be repeated in clearer terms. These terminological and conceptual problems may be ones that were not noticed during drafting, or they may be ones which were deliberately left for resolution during revision (more on this below).Once sentence-by-sentence comparison is complete, Steps 1 and 2 are applied to the next chunk of text. Before proceeding, however, you may find it useful to reread the whole revised chunk. This does three things which you may not have dealt with during sentence-by-sentence comparison. (a) Verify that the revisions you have made fit into the flow of the text: no matter how good a revision looks by itself, it is not an improvement if it does not work in context. (b) Identify any language changes necessitated by a given revision: if in the sentence "The little enthusiasm and the lack of volunteers for an office baseball team are easily explained," the subject has been revised to "the lack of enthusiasm and volunteers," then "are" needs changing to "is." (c) Ensure a smooth transition to the next chunk, and terminological consistency within and between chunks.After the whole text has gone through Steps 1 and 2, it may be of value (especially with long texts) to list, page-by-page on a separate sheet of paper, all the matters that have been question-marked in pencil during Step 2. This can be useful in ensuring that a problem on page 9 of the text and a similar one on page 39 are solved consistently. It can also facilitate discussion of problems when consulting the author or another resource person over the telephone. Finally, it can help organize the final resolution of problems in Step 3.Step 3 For each unresolved problem, decide the priority and appropriate strategy for its resolution.During both the drafting and revising stages of translation, it should be borne in mind that not all problems are of equal significance. It is especially important to be aware of this during the last step of revision, when final decisions must be made and time is of the essence. The translator should always be asking "What is important to my readers and what is not?"Some problematic concepts and terms are more central to a text than others, and should be accorded higher priority for resolution (see strategies A and B below). Generally speaking, concepts are more important than terms (see strategy C). And depending in part on the genre and the purpose of the translation (eg. whether it is to be published or not), language and style problems will vary in importance: well-crafted sentences may be very important in the translation of a speech for public distribution but they are not so important in the translation of an inter-office report to be read by five or six individuals. In a scientific text, even one that is to be published, do not waste time pondering linguistic trivia ("as regards," "in regard to" or "with regard to") when conceptual problems remain.There are six basic strategies for the final resolution of problems: (A) do more research (B) omit (C) invent an expression (D) fudge (E) place a question mark in the translation (F) correct the source-text author. Solutions C to F may call for a translator’s footnote, though footnotes should be avoided if possible.(A) Do more research.This is the most time-consuming strategy and is therefore applicable only to the central concepts and terms. The other strategies provide relatively speedy resolutions and are thus applicable to lower-priority problems, and in some cases to higher-priority problems where it appears that resolution by research would take an unacceptable length of time.(B) Omit.Where a concept is marginal or irrelevant to the subject of the text, and it is not clear how to express it in English, it can sometimes be omitted. For instance, I once translated a text on the causes of avalanches. The text began with a description of how the scientist arrived in a nice little Alpine village: the cattle were coming home and there were some pretty flowers growing in the meadows. The author then proceeded to name these flowers. At this point, I had left a blank space in my draft: as anyone who has translated biology texts will know, it can be extremely difficult to determine the right English common name of an animal or plant given only the French common name. Since this was not a biology text, however, I decided that the names of the flowers were irrelevant, and simply left them out. (Later, I deleted the whole passage about the village because its personal and anecdotal quality was foreign to comparable English scientific writing.)(C) Invent.If you have understood a concept in the French but cannot find the "official" English term, call a halt to your research and invent an English expression that conveys the idea. If you have found something which may be the English term, this could be added in a footnote.(D) Fudge.If it is not clear which of two possible meanings of an expression in the French text is correct, and there is an English wording which conveys both meanings, the problem can sometimes be left unresolved. Example: the deletion of the expression "on this subject" in the acid rain text discussed under Step 1. An alternative approach would be to express one possible meaning in the text and the other in a footnote.(E) Question mark.If you just do not understand an expression in the source text, do not pretend to have understood it. It is the mark of a professional to admit being stumped when she or he is stumped. Take a guess and enclose the expression in (?) question marks (?). A footnote may be added, giving a dictionary equivalent of the French (what some people call a literal translation) and perhaps an additional possible meaning. Question-marking is obviously undesirable in translations that are to be published.(F) Correct source text.An expression may be problematic because the author made a mistake. If you decide that this is indeed the case, simply correct the error in the translation (perhaps with a footnote explaining the original), or alternatively write [sic] in the text and add a footnote if necessary to explain the problem.Having now described the three steps in my revision procedure, I should point out, before concluding, that what the translator does during revision depends to some extent on what he or she did during drafting. There can be various divisions of tasks between the drafting and revising stages of translation. For instance, in my own drafting practice, I do not try to solve all the conceptual and terminological problems that I find. Instead, for reasons that would take too long to explain here, I use the revision stage to solve some of these problems. Also, I like to move fairly quickly through the original composing of sentences. This means not necessarily including every aspect of the meaning of the French text, and not stopping to think of the mot juste if it does not come to me immediately. Instead, I concentrate on getting a thoroughly English-sounding sentence down on paper. Then I use the revision stage to bring the English closer to the French than my original draft, to the extent time permits.Consider for example the following sentence from a Le Devoir editorial (Mar. 1/79): Il n’y a pas deux semaines, le même Globe and Mail pointait du doigt la presse francophone en lui reprochant d’avoir voilé les écarts de comportement du premier ministre québécois lors de la visite de M. Raymond Barre.The following draft is acceptable:Less than two weeks ago the Globe and Mail singled out the French-language press for not fully dealing with the Quebec premier’s bad behaviour during the visit by French prime minister Raymond Barre.But (as a reading of the original context would confirm) the draft can be brought closer to the French by changing "singled out" to "was pointing a finger at," "not fully dealing with" to "glossing over" and "bad" to "improper." Note, in passing, that the need to translate "M. Raymond Barre" as "French prime minister Raymond Barre" (for Anglophone readers who may not know or may have forgotten who Barre is) was noticed during drafting in this case. If it had not been noticed, the resulting problem could have been caught during Step 1 of revision.While many divisions of tasks between the two stages of translation are possible, I would counsel against any approach which leaves the elimination of Gallic syntax and style to the revision stage. My view is that once you have composed one of those awful sentences which are really French, but disguised in English words, it is very hard to get rid of them. You may not even notice them because, as their author, you have a certain personal commitment to them. Better to start with something thoroughly English, if slightly inaccurate, and then improve during revision.I have mentioned that tasks can be divided in such a way that a certain amount of "writing" is left to the revision stage; that is, certain problems are deliberately left unresolved during drafting. It is also the case that a certain amount of "editing" can be done during the drafting stage. Changes can be made in a drafted sentence just after it is written down. Indeed, we all probably do a certain amount of mental "editing" before we write down a first draft. And theoretically, I suppose there is no limit to this. That is, it is conceivable that some people might have the mental ability to carry out the whole revision procedure either in their heads before they have written anything down, or else just after they have composed the draft of a sentence. In this case, no distinct revision stage would be required. The translator would sense what the finished text would read like while composing it. But this ability, if it exists, is probably very rare. It would therefore not be wise to set as a goal the elimination of the revision stage. However, the amount of work required during revision can be reduced, with practice and by experimentation with various drafting procedures.RemarksRemark aOnly in "training revision" would a reviser ask the first question, with a view to showing new translators how she or he would have translated a given passage.Return to remark a referrerRemark bIn this article, my aim is to deal with the "how" of revision rather than the "what". For an interesting discussion (unfortunately without sufficient exemplification) of the types of problem one is trying to identify and resolve during revision, see Thaon and Horguelin, A Practical Guide to Bilingual Revision, Montreal, Linguatech, 1980.Return to remark b referrerSource: Favourite Articles (language professionals’ insights on English language issues)
Number of views: 1,641
Style myths
One reason I’m a writer is Mrs. Graham, my Grade 9 English teacher at Malcolm Munroe Memorial Junior High in Cape Breton, Nova Scotia. Brusque, towering, occasionally apoplectic and always, always right, Mrs. Graham hectored and drilled every adolescent who slouched sullen-faced before her on how to write a paragraph, create a transition, use a semicolon. In contrast to her drill sergeant bearing, Mrs. Graham was more an advocate of should than must. She taught us principles of good writing, but never packaged those principles as absolutes. That’s admirable. Surely for anyone trying to penetrate the swampy heads of thirteen- and fourteen-year-olds, not typically prized for their sound judgment and subtle discernment, absolutes are a temptation, one that some teachers must succumb to. Why else would so many people hold fast to certain "rules" of effective writing that they picked up in school, dragged doggedly behind them through post-secondary studies, then installed without question in their professional lives? The sad truth is, the way we learn to write in school is often at odds with the way we should write at work. At school, the aim is to produce writing that conforms to certain guidelines. In the workplace, the aim is usually to convey information to readers. Mastering the art of informational writing often means jettisoning lessons we learned from teachers and professors, lessons that don’t serve readers well. MYTH: Formal writing is preferable to informal. FACT: Informal or less formal writing is often preferable because it engages readers and is easier to understand. In school, many of us learned to write "formal prose": essays, lab reports, research papers and the like. That experience accounts for the widespread conviction that the best writing is formal and academic—writing that someone has laboured over, cramming it full of stilted syllables. The late Charles W. Morton, associate editor at the Atlantic Monthly, once dubbed this the "elongated yellow fruit" school of writing. Morton borrowed the term from one reporter’s description of the bananas police used to lure some escaped monkeys back into captivity. Morton, appalled by this puffery, asked fellow journalists to submit other examples of writing that was not content with precise, ordinary words. He got what he asked for, including a Boston American ski column that called snow "the elusive white substance" and a Travel magazine description of skiers running the slopes on "the beatified barrel staves." The belief that writing must be buttoned-up and long-winded, that it must at all times carry the sombre tones of Writing, is one of the most tenacious style myths around. The truth is that the best way to please readers is to write as informally as the situation will allow. Address readers directly, use a few contractions, choose simpler words, write shorter sentences. The message gets through much more easily when the divide between the reader and the writer is narrow, when the reader feels almost part of a conversation. Granted, formality is linked with genre and audience. Cabinet briefings, legislation and UN addresses must by necessity be formal. Promotional material, websites and newsletters are often not. Many other documents fall somewhere in between. To write effectively, we must gauge our medium and our audience, then adopt the right tone. But we must also be mindful that to convey information clearly, we have to engage our readers. That’s as hard to accomplish with formal writing as it is to play baseball in wedding garb. Example: In order to effectuate the production of writing whose quality is exceptional, it is not a requirement that formal language be employed in every circumstance or eventuality. That is, writing well doesn’t have to mean writing formally. MYTH: Good writing is always in the third person. FACT: First and second person are fine in most types of writing, and are preferable in some. This myth is tied to the previous one. Just as many people were schooled to drape their writing with the cloak of formality, so they were instructed to avoid any references to first and second person. Once students move beyond grade school and the obligatory "what I did during summer vacation" essays, they are discouraged from writing papers that say "I believe such-and-such" or "You may find that so-and-so." First and second person are too direct, they are told, and too personal. As a result, many people forgo we and you in their workplace writing. But the fact is, readers are people, and like most of us, they like to talk to and read about other people. Most of us don’t really want to get our safety tips for overseas travel from a branch or a unit, or our statistics on consumer spending from an institute or a trade group. We want to get them from human beings. Using first person (I, we, us) when referring to the writer or originator of the information and second person (you) when referring to the reader or receiver is one of the most effective ways to convey information. The reason is simple: the more directly we address our readers, the more likely they are to pay attention. That is particularly the case for documents that give directions, instructions, policies, guidelines, procedures and advice. Example: It is common for individuals who teach writing to recommend that people creating workplace documents consider the benefit of first and second person on the audience. In other words, I encourage you to think about how first and second person can benefit your audience. MYTH: Never write a one-sentence paragraph. FACT: Occasionally, one sentence may be all a paragraph needs. Once again, it’s common to pick up this myth in the schoolroom. In Grade 9, Mrs. Graham had us memorize the classic paragraph structure: first, a topic sentence to announce what the paragraph will cover; next, three to five sentences that support the topic; then a sentence that either sums up or telegraphs the next paragraph. But Mrs. Graham never said a paragraph had to contain that many sentences, and I learned later, from reading good authors, that one sentence is sometimes enough. A single-sentence paragraph can serve as a neat transition between major ideas or large sections. If the transitional statement is clear enough, there may be no need to belabour it for the sake of having more sentences. As well, a single-sentence paragraph can emphasize a key point, boosting its contrast, for instance, or its dramatic effect. A single-sentence paragraph also has the virtue of being short. Short paragraphs are nearly always better than long ones because they break down ideas and make them easy to digest. As William Zinsser says in his classic On Writing Well: "Writing is visual—it catches the eye before it has a chance to catch the brain. Short paragraphs put air around what you write and make it look inviting, whereas a long chunk of type can discourage a reader from even starting to read." First impressions matter, no less in writing than in life. Example: The "But Mrs. Graham" paragraph above is only one sentence long. It creates a transition between the lessons of the past in the previous paragraph, and those of the present in the upcoming paragraph. MYTH: Use synonyms wherever possible to avoid the monotony of repetition. FACT: Using synonyms can cause confusion; repetition of some terms is essential for clarity. Well-meaning teachers (like Mrs. Graham) encourage their students to build vocabulary by learning synonyms. An admirable goal, no question. After all, describing everything as nice, good or interesting is lame, and there’s a wide world of verbs out there besides be, do and make. It’s one thing to vary our vocabulary when writing for academic, literary or other writerly reasons; it’s another to do it when writing for informational, reader-centred reasons. In the latter case we need to keep terms consistent, particularly when naming specific things or concepts. If something is a strategy, we need to call it a strategy. If, for the sake of variation, we later call it a program, then a project, then a plan, readers get confused. Is the summer employment strategy the same thing as the summer work project? Or are they different? The trick is to distinguish between good repetition and bad repetition. Bad repetition comes from mindlessly recycling words, especially verbs, modifiers or catch phrases that we could either spell off or weed out. Good repetition comes from intentionally using the same term to keep the reader on track. Good repetition clarifies and reinforces, reassuring us that a policy is a policy, a surveyor a surveyor, a hard drive a hard drive. The more difficult the material, the more unvarying the specific terms should be. Example: The repetition of certain words that don’t need to be repeated constitutes excessive repetition and can be seen as bad repetition. On the other hand, the repetition of a term to prevent confusion among similar terms can be seen as good repetition. Mrs. Graham also taught us that every essay requires a conclusion (another myth, since it’s okay to dispense with a formal ending once in a while). I would like to conclude by acknowledging that it can be tough to let go of misconceptions, especially ones we’ve nurtured for years or even decades. But when those misconceptions interfere with clear communication, when they put the writer’s needs and preferences before the reader’s, letting go is the only thing to do.Source: Peck’s English Pointers (articles and exercises on the English language)
Number of views: 1,622
clear communication: turn nouns into verbs
(A similar topic is discussed in French in the article Communication claire : remplacez les noms par des verbes.) Here are three pitfalls to avoid if you want to make your texts easy to read and to understand. Noun-heavy sentences The use of verbs as replacements for nouns helps in the development of a simple style of writing. Yikes! That sentence may be grammatically correct, but it sounds awkward and doesn’t make much sense at first glance. Problem That sentence is made up mostly of nouns. Count them: use, verbs, replacements, nouns, development, style and writing. That’s 7 nouns in an 18-word sentence! No wonder it’s so hard to read. Solution If you replace some of those nouns with verbs, the sentence automatically becomes clearer: Replacing nouns with verbs helps you develop a simple style of writing. And you can take it one step further for an even easier read: Replacing nouns with verbs simplifies your writing. Hidden verbs and noun clusters By drawing out the hidden verbs, you also eliminate the clusters of nouns that can make your message muddy. For example, you can start with a sentence like this: This document will help in the development, implementation, evaluation and revision of new policy strategies. And turn it into something like this: This document will help you develop, implement, evaluate and revise new policy strategies. Generic verbs followed by a noun If a sentence contains a verb like be, give, have, make or take, followed by a noun, you can probably cut out those generic verbs and turn the noun into the main verb. Here are a few noun-heavy verb phrases that you can cut down to a single verb. Examples of expressions that should be turned into verbs Instead of Use be able; have the ability can conduct an analysis analyze give a description describe give a presentation present give your authorization authorize have the intention intend; plan make a change change make a decision decide make a promise promise make a recommendation recommend make an attempt attempt offer a suggestion suggest take under consideration consider If you start turning nouns into verbs, your writing will become more direct and your message clearer.Source: Writing Tips Plus (English language problems and rules)
Number of views: 1,591
clear communication: use the active voice
(A similar topic is discussed in French in the article Communication claire : privilégiez la voix active.) While the passive voice is useful in moderation and is common in administrative writing, it tends to be wordy and impersonal. (An example: The form will be sent tomorrow.) Give preference to the active voice, in which the subject performs the action and is generally near the beginning of the sentence, making it easier for the reader to understand the message. (An example: I will send the form tomorrow.) Instead of this: It is requested that recommendations be submitted concerning ways and means whereby costs arising out of the use of the facsimile might conceivably be shared by both directorates. Write this: Please recommend ways in which the two directorates could share the cost of the fax machine.Source: Writing Tips Plus (English language problems and rules)
Number of views: 1,587