"By dint of sheer repetition, the central government etc. etc.", thus ran a sentence in "Redefining accountability" (Media Matters, The Hindu-Magazine, June 18, 2006, page 3). Later, in a corrections column seen online, the Reader's Editor (who replies to letters-to-the-editor) called attention to "by dint of sheer repetition", saying:
"As a reader points out, 'dint of' and 'sheer' are never used together. It is what grammarians call a tautological error."
What is a tautological error?
As explained by the Reader's Editor from India's national newspaper, "by dint of sheer repetition" is, well, repetitious. "By dint of sheer repetition" means exactly the same as "by dint of repetition", saving one word.
Or "by sheer repetition", saving two words.
Or "by repetition", saving three words.
The noun form of "tautological" is "tautology", from the Greek "tautologos". Tauto means "the same"; logos means "saying". Tautologos or tautology therefore means the use of two or more words to express one meaning, or saying the same thing twice, or plain wordiness.
Examples of tautology in both rhetoric and logic abound in everyday speech and writing, often unnecessary and unintentional. It's a good practice for journalists to avoid needless repetitions such as "adequate enough" ("enough" is enough).
In the olden days when newspapers carried only a few pages, leaving out meaningless chatter saved precious space for news. Today, newspapers carry dozens of pages (not to mention news online in seemingly endless cyberspace), economy is held less sacred by scribes of all colors and ilk.
Still, avoid repetition is a good rule to adhere to, especially if you are a writer of what is called "hard news".
The following newspaper examples are culled from Newsman's English by Harold Evans, former Editor of the Sunday Times and the Times, London:
"At an annual value of ￡1 million a year" (Either "a year" or "annual" is superfluous).
Some of the remarks made included (The remarks included).
Johnson discarded two other possible alternatives as being impracticable (If they weren't possible, they would not be alternatives).
In writing, sometimes repetition is intentional. This gem of redundancy from ESPNsoccernet.com (Playing the same old Toon, August 29, 2005):
"Twelve months later, if you can forgive the tautological mangling of two languages, it was almost deja vu all over again."
上一篇： Adjudge vs. judge