0
Anonymous Posted 15 years ago
Linguistics Studies
Verbality vs. verbosity
Hi, I'm currently doing some work for my English Language A-level and I've chosen to base it on William Labov's theory of verbality and verbosity - that some texts are marked by verbality (effective language which communicates the speaker's or writer's message efficiently) whilst a lot is verbose (obfuscatory language which uses vocabulary with high prestige to sound like they know what they're talking about whilst not actually communicating much at all).
I understand these two concepts well enough and am arguing that swearing, slang, fillers, etc. is not 'bad language' whereas verbose language which confuses the reader/listener is, but I need examples to illustrate my point in my article.
Does anyone know of any good examples of verbose speakers/writers, who do not really say much but say it in such a way as to sound intelligent and knowledgable? Politicians spring to mind here...not sure which to go with though.
Likewise, can anyone tell me a good speaker/writer who communicates clearly and concisely, getting their message across quickly and not confusing their audience?
Any suggestions would be great, thanks for reading!
Benedict
I understand these two concepts well enough and am arguing that swearing, slang, fillers, etc. is not 'bad language' whereas verbose language which confuses the reader/listener is, but I need examples to illustrate my point in my article.
Does anyone know of any good examples of verbose speakers/writers, who do not really say much but say it in such a way as to sound intelligent and knowledgable? Politicians spring to mind here...not sure which to go with though.
Likewise, can anyone tell me a good speaker/writer who communicates clearly and concisely, getting their message across quickly and not confusing their audience?
Any suggestions would be great, thanks for reading!
Benedict
Top answer
I'm not sure I can think of any suitable straw men, off hand; but there seems to be an element of circularity in the theory. Thus writers we understand are labelled "efficient", while writers we don't understand are labelled "obfuscatory". The terms of the hypothesis therefore presuppose the existence of the distinction the hypothesis itself proposes.
- I'm not sure I can think of any suitable straw men, off hand; but there seems to be an element of circularity in the theory.
- Thus writers we understand are labelled "efficient", while writers we don't understand are labelled "obfuscatory".
- The terms of the hypothesis therefore presuppose the existence of the distinction the hypothesis itself proposes.
- * There is also an assumption that the "good" use of language always involves concision, clarity, and effective communication of a "message".
- When I had to speak to the Inland Revenue earlier today, I successfully avoided all three.
Get the Weekly English Kit 📬
New words, one handy idiom, and a 2-minute quiz — delivered to your inbox to keep your streak alive.
2 Answers
0
I'm not sure I can think of any suitable straw men, off hand; but there seems to be an element of circularity in the theory.
Thus writers we understand are labelled "efficient", while writers we don't understand are labelled "obfuscatory". The terms of the hypothesis therefore presuppose the existence of the distinction the hypothesis itself proposes. *
There is also an assumpti
Thus writers we understand are labelled "efficient", while writers we don't understand are labelled "obfuscatory". The terms of the hypothesis therefore presuppose the existence of the distinction the hypothesis itself proposes. *
There is also an assumpti
00
AnonymousDoes anyone know of any good examples of verbose speakers/writers, who do not really say much but say it in such a way as to sound intelligent and knowledgable?Dickens offers several examples in the form of characters in his novels. I wish I could be more specific, but I seem to recall a passage or two in Bleak House that calls attention to this ver
0
Related Questions