Talk:Elegant variation

Notes

• "is to set readers wondering what the significance of the change is, only to conclude that there is none.":-

Big rogerdee on that. I also get tired of seeing different words in the same text and wondering if they mean anything different or not. E.g. a game is a bout is a match in some sports, but not in tennis. Anthony Appleyard 06:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Your concern is valid in scientific, technical, or legal writing, and some other contexts. However, in a literary context, "wondering if [words] mean anything different or not" may be quite desirable. In addition, the sound of the language is at least as important as the meaning in literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.131.164.135 (talk) 13:15, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Errant hypothesis

Who says it's "unnecessary and misleading"? ( unfounded assertion) This is an opinion masquerading as a definition.

Using the same word repeatedly within a short bit of text causes a kind of echo in the reader's mind, which distracts him and interferes with cognition. (The same is true in music; a constantly repeated motif quickly becomes annoying.)

Further, employing synonyms or appropriate near-synonyms can add subtle shades of meaning and facilitate euphony, essential to readability. Any accomplished writer can tell you that.

The current article is simply erroneous. Sca (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

H.W. Fowler deprecated this stylistic error in 1926. The 3rd edition of his book (edited by R.W. Burchfield, 1998) also deprecates it. So does Bryan Garner in Garner's Modern American Usage (2009). Wahrmund (talk) 21:47, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Fowler is dated. As to the others, I can see where this position would be true of scientific or techical writing, but absolutely not for literary prose, for the reasons stated above. Quatsch! Sca (talk) 22:00, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Sca, are you claiming that the term "elegant variation" applies to all uses of synonyms within a text, and that such word variation is only sometimes unnecessary? The current definition is saying that the term "elegant variation" applies only to those synonyms which are unnecessary. Your supporting argument is that varied terminology is sometimes desired, which contradicts nothing in this article, because such variation — by definition (as currently presented in the article) — falls outside the scope of the term. 2605:6000:EE4A:2900:6250:C93B:E4D4:B4BC (talk) 01:01, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Negativity

The article seems to me, on the whole, to present the phenomenon in a negative light. I would have thought anybody who calls it "elegant variation" thinks positively of it, unless using the phrase sarcastically or referring to others' use of the phrase.

Looking at the lead paragraph: "Elegant variation is the unnecessary and sometimes misleading use of synonyms to denote a single thing. It often comes from the belief that simple parallel structure is monotonous or harms euphony or compositional tone. Elegant variation can produce problems including loss of clarity, muddled metaphor, and inadvertent humor."

The use of the phrase "unnecessary and sometimes misleading" already sets the tone. While the second sentence may be at face value a justification for elegant variation, the third sentence seems to be criticising this viewpoint rather than simply providing an alternative viewpoint.

As such, I claim that we need to refactor the article to balance better the arguments for and against the style, and generally make it more neutral. I have just had a go at rewriting the opening sentence as a starting point. — Smjg (talk) 18:06, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

You miss the point. The term by definition means inappropriate use. EEng 18:20, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I second EEng. Popcornduff (talk) 19:25, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. I've just re-read the "Inelegant variation" section. OK, so maybe Henry Watson Fowler coined the term based on a now obsolete meaning of "elegant" or as a deliberate irony. But does this mean that the sequence of words means inappropriate use? What about people using these two words with their respective literal meanings? Are you claiming that, if somebody varies the language used in a piece of speech/writing for good effect, this is neither elegant variation per Fowler's definition, nor elegant variation per the literal meanings of the words? Then what is it called when such constructions are used to good effect? The article should address this.

It's not up to Wikipedia to look at a piece of writing and say whether it's elegant variation - that would be original research. Instead, Wikipedia defines what elegant variation is, as described by sources, regardless of how you might interpret the term or what its words literally mean. Popcornduff (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Moreover, if "elegant variation" does indeed mean inappropriate use, then the article contradicts itself when it talks about the French position.

And Popcornduff, re your edit "unnecessary - that covers all communication basically": All communication isn't within a piece of speech or writing. Using different terms within the same piece is quite different from using different terms in completely unrelated conversations, works of literature, etc. — Smjg (talk) 16:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

For the purposes of defining elegant variation it's not necessary to say it's in writing, speech, or both. If you're using synonyms then you're either writing or speaking (at least in English). Popcornduff (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

E‑L‑E‑G‑A‑N‑T V‑A‑R‑I‑A‑T‑I‑O‑N

What about semaphore flags, huh? HUH? They might be in the navy or something. EEng 18:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I didn't claim it was. The key phrase here is "within a piece". But you probably wouldn't typically refer to such a thing as a "piece" without further qualification, so "of speech or writing" serves to clarify what is meant. — Smjg (talk) 17:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what "within a piece" can possibly add. Obviously it's within some quantity of speech or writing, or else it wouldn't exist at all. Popcornduff (talk) 17:11, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• Smjg, this is getting silly. Elegant variation is a term of art for something which by definition is inappropriate [1]; next you'll be marking our articles on cliche and officialese and verbosity as POV. As for All communication isn't within a piece of speech or writing, well, DUH, but the reader doesn't need to be told that here we're talking about within a piece of writing – by your reasoning our article oxymoron would have to read An oxymoron is a rhetorical device that uses an ostensible self-contradiction within a single piece of writing. EEng 18:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)