Redundancy

Overuse of the same words or phrases can make your work boring to read and can even discredit
your arguments.

Redundancy is typically understood to have the property of being unneeded, unnecessary, and/or
repeated.

When it comes to writing, redundancy is defined as text that, in some way, provides more
information than is necessary to accomplish the goal(s) of the writing.

As a reader, if you find yourself saying to yourself, "alright, I understand it already!" or "get on it
with it, will you?" then you are likely surrounded by duplicate writing.

There are three main reasons why you should avoid writing in a redundant fashion:

The reader will likely grow frustrated since it disrupts the natural flow of your writing.

What you're trying to say in your writing is often directly or indirectly contradicted by this (e.g.,
establish a specific claim or explore a particular idea)

It bespeaks an inexperienced level of writing on your part and could leave a sour taste in the reader's
mouth.

What follows is a breakdown of three distinct forms of duplicate writing, along with suggestions for
how to prevent each in your own work.

Just two quick disclaimers before we get started.

There aren't always clear and fast rules about sentence structure and the like, and often
disagreements about whether a piece of text is redundant are more a reflection of differences in
taste or style.

Some of the below examples may not apply in all situations, so take what follows not as hard and
fast rules but as broad principles that will lead you in the correct direction in the vast majority of
instances.

Overstating its significance is an everyday example of redundancy that most of us can relate to.

It's used to describe writing where there's too much detail.

It's true that determining how much detail is "too little" or "too much" is generally a question of
opinion rather than hard data.

In some cases, though, the existence and impact of excessive description are so blindingly clear as to
invite little debate.

Examples:

A. "He was just a little lad, hardly a child. Obviously, he was not an adult at the tender age of four.
Being a kid, he naturally gravitated toward other youngsters for playmates. Because he was still a
minor, he did not have any peers his own age. Twelve months beyond 36 months, and one year
beyond three years, he was 48 months old. Both physically and emotionally, he was still a young
man. It had been just four years since his birth, so he was not yet elderly.

Indeed, we comprehend! Now he's four years old!

The overripe banana was in front of her. B. The fabric was dark in tone and felt very smooth to the
touch. No longer was it ready for consumption. Some days earlier, it would have been perfect, but
now it wasn't. Bananas turn a bright green when they're ripe, but this one was a murky brown
instead. Banana had turned brown and squishy from being overripe; it had previously been yellow.

Indeed, we comprehend! This banana has reached its peak ripeness.

C. “

I know I certainly couldn't accomplish that on my own. Personally, I couldn't do it because it's not my
style. Honestly, I just wouldn't feel right pursuing that path. It's possible that other people could deal
with the situation, but I couldn't. It's just my opinion, though.

Indeed, we comprehend! You are speaking your mind and sharing your worries.

Ways to prevent:

By weighing the answers to the two sets of questions below, you can find the sweet spot between
describing things too thoroughly and not describing them enough.

Please tell me how the reader will react to this. If she does watch it, will she be interested enough to
stay watching? What if she gets bored, loses interest, or gives up on the text because it's too
difficult?

Have I gone into more detail than was absolutely necessary to make my argument clear? Should that
be the case, do I really need those supplementary adjectives? How are they facilitating my argument
making, if at all? (They're probably not helpful at all.)

Sometimes I feel like a voice is nagging at me, telling me that I've used too much detail in my writing.

If you, too, are plagued by a critical inner voice, learn to pay attention when it urges you to "cut the
fat" off your work.

But there is one thing he would rather ignore, and that's..."

When used in the same context, the words "although" and "but" serve the same purpose, namely to
qualify (provide additional context for) the preceding statement or set of statements.

Keep in mind that only one of these can be used.

C. "However, the attorneys did produce three separate witnesses."

Similar problems to those outlined in the "although, but" example can be found here.

No other study has used the model to empirically analyse... D. "Other than Brown's (2011) analysis
of the impact of rising inflation rates on the ability of the ordinary American to acquire a mortgage,
no other study has employed the model to..."

The phrase "other than..." at the beginning of the sentence exists solely to prevent the second half
of the sentence from requiring the use of the word "other" and is therefore redundant.

The proper (non-redundant) form of this line reads as follows: "No study has employed the model to
empirically analyse the impact of rising inflation rates on the capacity of the average American to get
a mortgage,"
Since the first 'other' qualifies the words that come after the comma ('no study has...'), there is no
need to repeat the term after the comma.

Tips for avoiding:

This second type of redundancy can be avoided by slowing down your thoughts and writing and
fighting the impulse to work hastily and carelessly.

To improve, you should pay more attention to the meanings and effects of the words you use.

My best piece of advice if you find yourself often repeating the same words in your writing is to
consider the purposes of each phrase.

Words in a sentence do more than only set off mental images in the mind of the reader; they also
serve grammatical, logical, and syntactic purposes, ensuring that the sentence as a whole 'works'
when put together correctly.

In the same way as the various dials and dial settings on a camera all serve different purposes in
order to produce a final photograph, the various words and word combinations in your writing all
serve different purposes in order to produce a final logical statement.

Asking yourself why you're using words like "also," "although," "and," "as well," "but," "although,"
and "too" might help you spot this second sort of duplication and eliminate it from your writing.
Could I get away with changing the order of the words without changing the meaning of the
sentence?

Is there a duplication of meaning between two or more components of this sentence? Is there any
reason why I shouldn't get rid of one of them if that's the case?

In what way am I attempting to make myself understood? Do this word (or these ones) really assist
me convey what I want to say? (If not, you may want to 'axe' it.)

Type Three Redundancy (Technical Redundancy, Uncreative Repetition, Etc.)

As an editor, I frequently come across instances of redundancy like the ones discussed so far.

In addition to these variants, we may also identify a handful of types of redundancy that I will
collectively discuss here for the sake of brevity.

Primitive Synopsis:

In the first place, there's the concept of technical redundancy.

When used in a scientific or grammatical context, this word describes unnecessary detail. As a result,
the content becomes disorganised and filled with unnecessary technical details (such as excessive
references).

According to Foucault (1977:24), for instance, academics need to "free [them]selves of the idea that
penality is above all (if not primarily) a means of reducing crime."

In this case, there is no need to cite the identical quote twice; either the first citation should remain
as-is and the second should be removed, or the second citation should remain as-is and the first
should be removed.
Steps to Preventing Mistake No. 1 Learn the foundational principles upon which today's citation
formats are based, and work within those constraints.

In order to get you started, here are some good resources:

The official A.P.A. citation manual is available at: (supplementary links: 1, 2, 3)

• The Complete Guide to the Chicago Style of Citation (supplementary links: 1, 2, 3)

* The first, second, and third Harvard citation manuals

• The Modern Language Association's Official Manual of Style (supplementary links: 1, 2, 3).

Review, Part 2:

The second issue is what some may call uninspired repetition.

This is writing that restates the same basic premise or argument over and over again without
providing any extra background information, specific examples, or subtleties that would aid the
reader in better understanding and appreciating the point being made. The resulting prose is boring
and seems excessively "sluggish," "long-winded," and circular.

Unlike the other types of redundancy we've looked at, redundancy as unimaginative repetition is
more likely to spark disagreement and discussion.There is a tight line between reiterating a major
idea in a creative manner to emphasise its relevance and guarantee its intelligibility and doing it in a
way that is boring and contributes nothing to the reader's emotional or psychological effect or
understanding of the material.

Another illustration:

Her position on 'x' is immoral. It's a violation of our sense of what's decent and what isn't.
Contradicts all that is good, just, right, and noble. It lacks any sort of moral foundation. No morals or
honesty can be found in it.These five phrases don't really prove much, other than that the
politician's stance on issue x is unethical.

Despite the paragraph's extensive list of alternative words for "morally reprehensible," none of them
contribute meaningfully to the text by explaining why her convictions are morally defective and in
what ways.

The paragraph, therefore, is superfluous.

In order to avoid any misunderstanding, there are situations in which it is not only permissible but
also recommended to state the same argument or assertion several times in a single written piece.

If you're a doctoral student writing a dissertation, for example, you should keep the document
cohesive and easy to understand by reminding the reader how each chapter supports your central
point.However, this repetition is still goal-directed, as opposed to being mindless; rather than
rehashing the same points over and over, the intention here is to rearticulate the project's defining
ideas at strategic intervals so that the reader may better understand how they relate to the rest of
the work.

Ways to prevent the second:

Here are some questions to ask yourself to make your prose less boring and more engaging if you
notice that you're continually repeating yourself (and/or if others complain about this feature of
your writing):

I don't know how many times I have to keep repeating myself. Is it vital to express everything
verbally? If I cut away one or more of these, would my writing still make sense and convince
readers? (If you answer "yes," you should "cut" right away.)

Have I seen essentially identical reiterations of this point in different places? Do any of these
elucidate my claims more thoroughly by providing additional context, new facts, or insights, or by
establishing links to other portions of the text?

Do I keep harping on the same point because I'm trying to circumvent a word restriction or because I
don't want to think deeply (or at all) about a few of the topics at hand?

Archaism

In the past, to inspire terror meant more than just to be frightening. But how many modern listeners
know that "wherefore" in "wherefore art thou Romeo?" refers to "why" rather than "where"? Does
anyone still use shan't (shall not) when they mean won't? Maybe just in Great Britain. Words like
these are instances of archaisms because they are so outdated that they have fallen out of common
usage or because few people understand their meaning.

An archaism is an outmoded term that has been relegated to academic or specialised use. The Greek
term archakós, which means "ancient," is where we get our word archaism. Despite the fact that
archaisms are, by definition, no longer commonly used, I'll give you a few examples from
Shakespeare and legal language and explain what they mean:

The inherent existence of archaisms is due to the fact that language evolves over time unless it is
forcibly frozen in one form or another. The various varieties of contemporary English are descended
from Shakespeare's Elizabethan English. The most conservative and traditional sectors of our society,
such as law, government, and religion, are the only places where archaisms are still in use, making
them the most essential. But archaisms can also be used by anybody, at any time, in speech or
writing, to give one's language an air of antiquity and also to give one's language a feeling of official-
ness, monarchy, or religious authority.

An archaism is something that is extremely antiquated or dated. A literary work is considered archaic
if it employs obsolete terminology or a bygone style of writing that is unfamiliar to readers today.
There is a key distinction between archaic and obsolete language, which might lead to some
confusion. Even though they aren't frequently used anymore, most people today are nonetheless
familiar with archaic words and can understand ancient writing. On the other hand, only specialists
in ancient writings would be able to decipher obsolete writing, and most people have never ever
heard of obsolete phrases. This extract from a course on the subject can provide you with additional
information on the distinction between archaic and obsolete language.

Instances of Outdated Words

Here are some examples of "archaic" words and their contemporary equivalents to provide further
background.
The pronouns "thee" and "thou" are frequently seen in archaic literature, but "you" is the preferred
modern alternative.

Instead of the more common "see" or "observe," "behold" was used.

It's more likely that the term "doth" would be used if someone was planning to "do" something.

As an alternative to "yes" and "no," "aye" and "nay" were frequently used.

In addition, I prefer the older form of the word "betwixt" over the more common "between"
nowadays.

Most Frequently Made Errors in Writing Top 10 Formal Flaws:

Avoid Using All Capital Letters words like "the" and "and"

It is not necessary to capitalise the words "the," "an," and "a" in the title, except at the beginning.

The Gorgola Monster is One Terrifying Creature This Summer

False: Summer of the Gorgola Monster, a Truly Terrifying Creature

Remove Extra Spaces Between Sentences

Two spaces are not necessary between sentences. This "guideline" dates back to when people still
used typewriters. Adding the extra space between words is no longer necessary because modern
word processors do it automatically.

To wit: The Gorgola Monster surfaced from the depths. He roared after a thorough shake-off.

Instead of this, the Gorgola Monster surfaced from the ocean. He roared after a thorough shake-off.

Avoid Using More Than Three Periods After an Ellipsis

A standard ellipsis consists of three periods.

Like this: "I don't know..." her voice faded off

Not like this: "I don't know......," she fumbled.

To avoid confusion, always use "fewer" instead of "less" in this situation.

You should say "less" for items that cannot be counted and "fewer" for things that can.
After the Gorgola raid, I saw that we had less of everything, including flowers and wheat.

But this isn't it: after the Gorgola invasion, I saw that we had significantly less flower and flour than
before.

5. When combining clauses, use a comma to separate them if necessary

Independent clauses should be separated by commas.

I shrieked like a baby and scampered away like a duck when the Gorgola growled and charged.

Instead, the Gorgola roared and rushed, and I sobbed like a baby and quacked like a duck.

"-Ly" Adverbs Should Not Be Hyphenated

If the first modifier is an adverb ending in "ly," then you shouldn't use a hyphen to join the two
modifiers together.

Even after the Gorgola bit my arm, the ripped game warden still wouldn't shoot it.

Not like this, though: even after the Gorgola bit my arm, the toned game warden still wouldn't shoot
it.

Be sure to include the period at the end of a quote in the correct spot.

Periods and commas should be placed inside the quotation marks, whereas colons and semicolons
should be placed outside.

It went something like this: the warden declared the Gorgola to be "endangered," and I retorted
that, obviously, I was the one who was in danger.

The warden claimed the Gorgola was in danger, but I pointed out that I was the only one who
actually was.

Lists of many adjectives or describing phrases should not include commas (8.

Use a semicolon to separate list items when one or more of the list items contains a comma.
I did an inventory and found one bite mark, two pairs of yellow sneakers in a size small, and three
smashed flowers.

As an alternative, I took stock and found: [insert number of items here] 1 bite mark 2 pairs of yellow
size small sneakers 3 smashed flowers

Avoid putting a comma before an action beat in your writing.

Never put a comma at the end of a line of dialogue unless the action beat stops the sentence or if
you're using a speaker tag (he said/she said) to introduce the next line.

Put simply: "You're completely ineffective." I stormed away from the warden.

No, I told the warden, "You're useless, and I'm leaving without talking to you."

Do not capitalise a person's title unless you are using it in place of their name.

Only when serving as a direct substitute for a given name should titles like "mom" or "dad" be
capitalised.

Here's what I did: I dialled my dad's number and inquired to speak with mom regarding the most
effective means of keeping a Gorgola away from a tent site.

In contrast, I contacted my father and requested a conversation with my mother about how to
effectively prevent a Gorgola from entering a campsite.

Circumlocution

It's called circumlocution when someone talks in circles or goes around in a circle. This is the strategy
you employ when you want to talk about something but don't want to directly mention it.

The secret to effective circumlocution is a statement that is far longer and more convoluted than is
strictly necessary. It's just a fancy way of saying "my automobile," which is what I actually drive to
and from work each day.

In most cases, the use of circumlocution is an error made by the writer when they are at a loss for
the clearest and shortest possible articulation of their ideas. However, as we shall see, there is often
a reason for the obfuscation. While the term "circumlocution" often carries a negative connotation,
it can also be used to describe a person's method of speaking. A long, flowery passage may feel like
an evasion to someone. The same passage, however, could strike another reader as fascinating and
original. It's a matter of personal preference, especially with the value placed on simplicity versus
embellishment.

In this context, "periphrasis" can be used instead of "circumlocution."

Since directness and clarity are typically associated with strong writing, the antithesis of these
qualities (circumlocution) is virtually usually indicative of subpar prose. There is an unspoken
agreement between writers and readers that concise writing is more valuable. When you pick up a
book or read an article, you hope that the writer will provide you with an entertaining tale or an
insightful argument in the least amount of words feasible. In exchange for your time and focus, the
writer will keep you from becoming bored. Avoiding direct confrontation in favour of avoiding the
matter entirely (a.k.a. "circumlocutions") is a common way to break this agreement.

In a few instances, though, as we'll see in section 6, writers will use obfuscation on purpose. In these
situations, the circumlocution serves a function, yet it is still a flaw because the best authors can
achieve the same results without using them.

Circumlocution Examples

Dark Lord Voldemort is commonly referred to in the Harry Potter series as:

Who is it? He who shall not be named, of course.

Because uttering Voldemort's name brings down his curse, several obfuscations are employed. Many
religions forbid their followers from using the proper names of holy or evil beings, and this
euphemistic practise is analogous to that.

In one episode of Firefly, Captain Reynolds uses the euphemism "not burdened with an
overabundance of learning" to mean "dumb" or at least "uneducated" when speaking to an
adversary. In this scenario, Captain Reynolds is demonstrating his idiocy both in action and in words
by trying to talk around issues rather than directly addressing them.

Mark McGwire, a baseball great, was grilled by lawmakers about whether or not he ever used PEDs
(steroid-like substances) during his career. McGwire refused to address any of the questions, saying,
"I'm not here to talk about the past." In this way, he successfully sidestepped having to give a direct
response to the question.