Writing English as a Second Language (2009)
theamericanscholar.org
theamericanscholar.org
What matters is not the origin of a word, but its modern usage. When you consider alternative ways to express a concept, use the words that a. convey the intended meaning with the necessary precision (Clarity), b. are commonly used (Simplicity) and c. result in short sentences (Brevity).
So I agree with the principles the author recommends, but I disagree with the examples. I find all three principles broken throughout the text, and although that might have been deliberate, it certainly doesn't feel like it.
> 'Don't be ambiguous', 'don't be too wordy, be brief', 'be orderly' and 'avoid obscurity' are the four Maxim's of manner. And I think those are frequently violated. In fact, there are certain schools of philosophy---not once I'm sympathetic with---where they are more or less systematically violated. I don't know if I've told you this story but I once had a conversation with a famous French philosopher who's a friend of mine and I said to him "Why the hell do you write so badly, pourquoi écris-tu si mal", and he said, "Look, if I wrote as clearly as you do people in Paris wouldn't take me seriously. You know, they would think it's childlike and naive." [...] In France you got to have 10% incomprehensible otherwise people won't think it's deep. (http://www.openculture.com/2013/07/jean_searle_on_foucault_a...)
I think this is one of the great contributions of the anglophone academic sphere, the idea that you should try to aim to be easy to understand.
Isn't it necessary to adapt your phrasing to your target? (I thought it worked this way in any language)
So, if I had translated that letter word by word, it would go something like this:
Dear Sir,
I bring to you, by way of this letter, knowledge of the defects that have befallen the equipment I purchased in...
Sounds a bit medieval.In my social class and area of the USA a native speaker would open directly with the problem.
"I purchased a widget from you on November 3rd with the expectation that it would..."
personally i have no problem with straight people, but some people care more about form than content
Dear XY,
I would like to inform you about problem with...
"I would like" give them feeling of choice, like they can decide not to deal with your problem, although they have to, but you at least pretend they have some choice.
While true, doesn't this ignore the concept of styles and related stuff? And doesn't every word has its own distinct flavor, that may subtly imply something? Like saying "individual" with a certain emphasis on the word, may put some stress on the aspect of individuality (maybe I'm wrong about English, but it surely works like this in my native language).
As a native Spanish speaker, I disagree: Unnecessarily long sentences are considered just as bad in Spanish as they are in English. The average Spanish sentence is a little longer than the average English sentence, but that's only because the average Spanish word is a little longer than the average English word.
Good verbs are like a universal principle of good language, as is the one thought per sentence rule. These rules might need to be tweaked - perhaps, for example, simple clauses can be strung together into a single sentence as dependent and independent clauses more easily in one particular language, but the universal part is then the simple clause with a good verb. These universal principles of good writing are like the foundation of the house - they have to be in place - , and everything else, like nice adjectives, proverbs, etc. are ornamental. The author's students are confusing the ornaments of their languages for the foundation.
The classic fetishism of Romance languages and exoticization of everything else is alive and well.