Prolixity
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Prolixity (from Latin prolixus, extended) in language refers to speech or writing which uses an excess of words, synonymous with verbosity. Prolix is the adjective form, synonymous with verbose.
Contents |
[edit] Introduction
By definition, prolixity is a reference to a perceived dysfunction in use of language. Prolixity occurs, in a given context, when more words bring diminishing returns at achieving the purpose of communication.
What is considered generally effective communication in one context may be seen as excess, prolix, in another. Contexts for language use will overlap, but include:
- public and private;
- personal and group;
- formal and informal;
- level of maturity;
- level of education;
- oral and written;
- nontechnical subjects and complex or technical;
- genre, e.g., poetry, nonfiction, various forms of fiction, screenplays.
Even within a given context, what is seen by some as purposeful and effective communication may be perceived by others as prolixity. Because communicating with language is an art, or craft, there is no objective test for what is excess and what is effective. Just as words mean whatever people generally think they mean, prolixity is whatever seems excessive to a significant number of hearers or readers, a subjective phenomenon.
Thus, useful discussion of prolixity will tend toward what is widely regarded as verbosity. Examples herein should be viewed in that light.
The term is also sometimes applied to obfuscatory speech or writing that is highly abstract and contains little concrete language, better known as logorrhea (though it is arguably a form of prolixity.)
[edit] Examples
In writing, prolixity can take many forms, including:
Excess description: Writing that is overflowing with ornate or flowery adjective-heavy language is known as purple prose. Tastes vary widely in this regard. What was once considered enthralling description can be considered excess by a later generation. An example:
- The tips of the cottonwoods and the oaks waved to the east, and the rings of aspens along the terraces twinkled their myriad of bright faces in fleet and glancing gleam.[1]
Long phrases: Often one word can take the place of an entire phrase, with little loss to the idea or feeling. Compare:
- Unfettered by any sense of responsibility, John allowed his mother to clean up after him.
- John irresponsibly allowed his mother to clean up after him.
Simile and metaphor: Used properly, simile and metaphor can add life to communication. Overuse can become overbearing.
- Their accounts of the affair came as close as newspapers usually come—as close as Mars is to Saturn.[2]
Assuming it fits the context, this simile might not be considered excessive if it was the only one used in several pages. If one of several in just a few paragraphs, however, it might be counterproductive.
Stating the obvious:
- She came over near me and smiled with her mouth and she had little sharp predatory teeth. ... He walked slowly across the floor towards us and the girl jerked away from me... [2]
Redundant expressions:
- We made advance reservations for 12 noon, my fellow classmates and I, eager to meet together again and renew a common bond which dates back to when we were young lads.
- My classmates and I made reservations for noon, eager to meet and renew a bond which dates to when we were lads.
Note that not all redundant expressions are easily discarded without stilting the language. Replacing foretell the future in "Could she really foretell the future?" with prognosticate may be far worse than a redundancy which has become accepted idiom. Similarly, some might prefer which dates back to to which dates to in the example above, depending upon context (though either phrase could easily be replaced with the single word from, or with which dates from.)
[edit] Concise language
By some accounts, Albert Einstein once said: "Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler." Restating this as a truism for language:
- Use the simplest possible language, but not simpler.
Mark Twain is known to have said:
- If I had more time, I would have written less.
Generally, the fewer the words that fully communicate or evoke the intended ideas and feelings, the more effective the communication.
William Strunk Jr. argued for concision in The Elements of Style, (1918):
- Vigorous writing is concise. A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts. This requires not that the writer make all his sentences short, or that he avoid all detail and treat his subjects only in outline, but that every word tell. (Emphasis added—see below.)
Ironically, even Strunk's passage could be streamlined by removing the italicized words, arguably with no loss in quality. Few would hold that his paragraph suffered from prolixity, however. This illustrates that there is a range of acceptability, that effective language is a judgment call.
