Unnecessary and sometimes misleading use of synonyms to denote a single thing
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.
Bryan A. Garner in Garner's Modern American Usage proposes inelegant variation as a more appropriate name for the phenomenon, and asserts that, in coining the term elegant variation, Fowler was using elegant in a then-current pejorative sense of "excessively or pretentiously styled".Richard W. Bailey denies Garner's contention, suggesting that Fowler's use of elegant was a deliberate irony. Nevertheless, inelegant variation has been used by others, including Gerald Lebovits and Wayne Schiess.
Whereas in English elegant variation is often[how often?] considered a stylistic error, in other languages it might be considered good writing style.
In French, purists consider the rule of elegant variation (that is, using synonyms wherever possible) to be essential for good style. A humorist imagined writing a news article about Gaston Defferre: "It's OK to say Defferre once, but not twice. So next you say the Mayor of Marseille. Then, the Minister of Planning. Then, the husband of Edmonde. Then, Gaston. Then, Gastounet and then ... · Well, then you stop talking about him because you don't know what to call him next."
The Emperor received yesterday and to-day General Baron von Beck ... It may therefore be assumed with some confidence that the terms of a feasible solution are maturing themselves in His Majesty's mind and may form the basis of further negotiations with Hungarian party leaders when the Monarch goes again to Budapest.
Fowler objected to the passage because The Emperor, His Majesty, and the Monarch all refer to the same person: "The effect," he pointed out in A Dictionary of Modern English Usage (first edition, p. 131, col. 2), "is to set readers wondering what the significance of the change is, only to conclude disappointedly that it has none."
In The King's English (page 189), Fowler described a report of an art auction from the Westminster Gazette which, within twenty lines, described sales of pictures, using eleven synonyms for "sold for various sums" ("made, fetched, changed hands for, went for, produced, elicited, drew, fell at, accounted for, realized, were knocked down for"); also, it is not clear which of these words implied different success at the sale.
Fowler also quoted: "At the sixth round, there were almost as many fellows shouting out 'Go it, Figs', as there were youths exclaiming 'Go it, Cuff'. — Thackeray." Were older men supporting Figs and teenagers supporting Cuff? Or not?
Garner's Modern American Usage cites examples given by Morton, including "elongated yellow fruit" and others: billiard balls ("the numbered spheroids"); Bluebeard ("the azure-whiskered wifeslayer"); Easter-egg hunt ("hen-fruit safari"); milk ("lacteal fluid"); oysters ("succulent bivalves"); peanut ("the succulent goober"); songbird ("avian songster"); truck ("rubber-tired mastodon of the highway").
In a BBC TV report in March 2005: (Kabul had just fallen): "... he brought a satellite [communications unit] in ... [the road was impassable to wheeled traffic, so] he broke [the unit] down and carried it on donkeys ... with his load on 35 mules ...". "Mule" and "donkey" were used as elegant-variation synonyms, although they are different animals.
Another elegant variation nuisance can happen with dates: e.g., replacing "1947 ... 1963" with "1947 ... sixteen years later", which forces the reader to ferret back through the text for the previous date and then calculate the intended date. This can also cause ambiguity: "1947 [...] sixteen years later [...] twenty years later" may mean "1947 [...] 1963 [...] 1983" or "1947 [...] 1963 [...] 1967".
In a World War II war news report printed in The Daily Telegraph on 20 June 1943, we read, "The King was refused admission to an R.A.F. station in North Africa by a sergeant who demanded identification papers. The N.C.O., however, quickly recognized his Majesty and permitted him to enter." It is not clear whether the sergeant and the N.C.O. are the same man.
Confusion may result in cases which look like elegant variation but are not. For example:
A newspaper sub-editor who was accustomed to replacing game with match to avoid repetition may make an error with tennis, where a game is not the same as a match. Similarly, in cricket a draw (game ran out of time) is not the same as a tie (game finished with the same number of runs for each side).
In a local election for councillors, "Party A won" is not the same as "Party B lost", even if no third party had a chance of winning, because there is also the "hung condition", where no party has 50% or more of the seats.
An example in classical literature is in Virgil's Georgics iii 151-519, describing ploughing with two yoked oxen; Virgil calls one of the two oxen "taurus" (bull) and the other "iuvencum" (bullock (accusative case)); was the ploughman ploughing with a bullock and an entire bull? Or is it merely elegant variation?
^Hart, Geoff J. (March 2000). "The style guide is "dead": long live the dynamic style guide!". Intercom: 12-17. Although "elegant variation" (using synonyms and fancy language for the sake of variety) provides essential color and texture in creative writing, technical communicators generally avoid this form of elegance because popular consensus holds that such variation risks confusing less-sophisticated readers.
^ abGarner, Bryan A. (2009). Garner's Modern American Usage (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press. p. 462. ISBN978-0-19-538275-4.
^Lebovits, Gerald (March-April 2010). "Persuasive Writing for Lawyers--Part II". New York State Bar Association Journal. 82 (3): 60. Conversely, be aware of inelegant variation, in which a writer uses different words to mean the same thing. Inelegant variation confuses, whereas repetition has power
^Schiess, Wayne (July-August 2009). "You Can Use the Same Word Twice in the Identical Discussion". Austin Lawyer. Wayne: 6. SSRN1444012.
^Paterson, Ann (2006). "Painting with words". In Eugenia Loffredo, Manuela Perteghella. Translation And Creativity: Perspectives on Creative Writing And Translation Studies. Continuum. p. 88. ISBN0-8264-8793-9. Elegant variation. French tends to avoid repetition of proper names, with a description of the person, at second reference.
Led Digital Marketing Efforts of Top 500 e-Retailers.
Worked with Top Brands at Leading Agencies.
Successfully Managed Over $50 million in Digital Ad Spend.
Developed Strategies and Processes that Enabled Brands to Grow During an Economic Downturn.
Taught Advanced Internet Marketing Strategies at the graduate level.
Manage research, learning and skills at defaultlogic.com. Create an account using LinkedIn to manage and organize your omni-channel knowledge. defaultlogic.com is like a shopping cart for information -- helping you to save, discuss and share.