Diction

This is a general term, and is applicable to a single sentence or to a connected composition. Bad diction may be due to errors in grammar, to a confused disposition of words, or to an improper use of words. Diction , to be good, requires to be only correct and clear. Of excellent examples of bad diction there are very many in a little work by Dr. L. T. Town send, Profe or of Sacred Rhetoric in Boston University, the first volume of which has lately come under my notice. The first ten lines of Dr. Town send's preface are: "The leading genius 1 of the People's College at Chautauqua Lake, with a [the?] view of providing for his course 2 a text-book, asked for the publication of the following laws and principles of speech. 3 "The author, not seeing sufficient reason 4 for withholding what had been of much practical benefit 5 to himself, consented. 6 "The subject-matter herein contained is an outgrowth from 7 occasional instructions 8 given 9 while occupying the chair 10 of Sacred Rhetoric." 1. The phrase leading genius is badly chosen. Founder, projector, head, organizer, principal, or president—some one of these terms would probably have been appropriate. 2. What course? Race-course, course of ethics, æsthetics, rhetoric, or what? [3] 3. "The following laws and principles of speech." And how came these laws and principles in existence? Who made them? We are to infer, it would seem, that Profe or Town send made them, and that the world would have had to go without the laws that govern language and the principles on which language is formed had it pleased Profe or Town send to withhold them. 4. " Sufficient reason"! Then there were reasons why Profe or Town send ought to have kept these good things all to himself; only, they were not sufficient . 5. "Practical benefit"! Is there any such thing as impractical benefit? Are not all benefits practical? and, if they are, what purpose does the epithet practical serve? 6. Consented to what? It is easy to see that the Doctor means acceded to the request , but he is a long way from saying so. The object writers usually have in view is to convey thought, not to set their readers to gue ing. 7. The outgrowth of would be English. 8. "Occasional instructions"! Very vague, and well calculated to set the reader to gue ing again. 9. Given to whom? 10. " The chair." The definite article made it nece ary for the writer to specify what particular chair of Sacred Rhetoric he meant. These ten lines are a fair specimen of the diction of the entire volume. Page 131. "To render a given ambiguous or unintelligible sentence transparent, the following suggestions are recommended." The words in italics are unnece ary, since what is ambiguous is unintelligible. Then who has ever heard of recommending suggestions ? Dr. Town send speaks of mastering a subject before publishing it . Publishing a subject? Page 133. "Violations of simplicity, whatever the type, show either that the mind of the writer is tainted with affectation, or else that an effort is making to conceal conscious poverty of sentiment under loftine of expre ion." Here is an example of a kind of sentence that can be mended in only one way—by rewriting, which might be done thus: Violations of simplicity, whatever the type, show either that the writer is tainted with affectation, or that he is making an effort to conceal poverty of thought under loftine of expre ion. Page 143. "This quality is fully stated and recommended," etc. Who has ever heard of stating a quality ? On page 145 Dr. Town send says: "A person can not read a single book of poor style without having his own style vitiated." A book of poor style is an awkward expre ion, to say the least. A single badly-written book would have been unobjectionable. Page 160. "The presented picture produces instantly a definite effect." Why this unusual disposition of words? Why not say, in accordance with the idiom of the language, "The picture presented instantly produces," etc.? Page 161. "The boy studies... geography and hates everything connected with the sea and land." Why the boy? As there are few things besides seals and turtles that are connected with the sea and land, the boy in question has few things to hate. On page 175, Dr. Town send heads a chapter thus: " Art of acquiring Skill in the use of Poetic Speech." This reminds one of the man who tried to lift himself over a fence by taking hold of the seat of his breeches. " How to acquire skill" is probably what is meant. On page 232, "Jeremy Taylor is among the best models of long sentences which are both clear and logical." Jeremy Taylor is a clear and logical long sentence?! True, our learned rhetorician says so, but he doesn't mean it. He means, "In Jeremy Taylor we find some of the best examples of long sentences which are at once clear and logical." Since the foregoing was written, the second volume of Profe or Town send's "Art of Speech" has been published. In the brief preface to this volume we find this characteristic sentence: "The author has felt that clergymen more than those of other profe ions will study this treatise." The antecedent of the relative those being clergymen , the sentence, it will be perceived, says: "The author has felt that clergymen more than clergymen of other profe ions will study this treatise." Comment on such "art" as Profe or Town send's is not nece ary. I find several noteworthy examples of bad diction in an article in a recent number of an Australian magazine. The following are some of them: " Large capital always manages to make itself master of the situation; it is the small capitalist and the small landholder that would suffer," etc. Should be, " The large capitalist... himself ," etc. Again: "The small farmer would... be despoiled... of the meager profit which strenuous labor had conquered from the reluctant soil." Not only are the epithets in italics superfluous, and consequently weakening in their effect, but idiom does not permit strenuous to be used to qualify labor : hard labor and strenuous effort. Again: "Capital has always the choice of a large field." Should be, "the choice offered by a large field." Again: "Should capital be withdrawn, tenements would soon prove insufficient." Should be, " the number of tenements would," etc. Again: "Men of wealth, therefore, would find their Fifth Avenue mansions and their summer villas a little more burdened with taxes, but with this increase happily balanced by the exemption of their bonds and mortgages, their plate and furniture." The thought here is so simple that we easily divine it; but, if we look at the sentence at all carefully, we find that, though we supply the ellipses in the most charitable manner po ible, the sentence really says: "Men would find their mansions more burdened, but would find them with this increased burden happily balanced by the exemption," etc. The sentence should have been framed somewhat in this wise: "Men... would find their... mansions... more burdened with taxes, but this increase in the taxes on their real estate would be happily balanced by the exemption from taxation of their bonds, mortgages, plate, and furniture." Again: "Men generally... would be inclined to laugh at the idea of intrusting the modern politician with such gigantic opportunities for enriching his favorites." We do not intrust one another with opportunities . To enrich would better the diction. Again: "The value of land that has accrued from labor is not... a just object for confiscation." Correctly: "The value of land that has resulted from labor is not justly ... an object of confiscation." Accrue is properly used more in the sense of spontaneous growth . Again: "If the state attempts to confiscate this increase by means of taxes, either rentals will increase correspondingly, or such a check will be put upon the growth of each place and all the enterprises connected with it that greater injury would be done than if things had been left untouched." We have here, it will be observed, a confusion of moods; the sentence begins in the indicative and ends in the conditional. The words in italics are worse than superfluous. Rewritten: "If the state should attempt to confiscate this increase by means of taxes, either rentals would increase correspondingly, or such a check would be put upon growth and enterprise that greater injury would," etc. Again: "The theory that land... is a boon of Nature, to which every person has an inalienable right equal to every other person, is not new." The words theory and boon are here misused. A theory is a system of suppositions. The things man receives from Nature are gifts , not boons : the gift of reason, the gift of speech, etc. The sentence should be: "The declaration (or a ertion ) that land... is a gift of Nature, to which every person has an inalienable right equal to that of any other person, is not new." Or, more simply and quite as forcibly: "... to which one person has an inalienable right equal to that of another, is not new." Or, more simply still, and more forcibly: "... to which one man has as good a right as another, is not new." By substituting the word man for person , we have a word of one syllable that expre es, in this connection, all that the longer word expre es. The fewer the syllables, if the thought be fully expre ed, the more vigorous the diction. Inalienability being foreign to the discu ion, the long word inalienable only encumbers the sentence. "We have thus 1 pa ed in review 2 the changes and improvements 3 which the revision contains 4 in the First Epistle to the Corinthians. It has 5 not, indeed, 6 been po ible to refer to 7 them all; but so many illustrations 8 have been given in 9 the several cla es described that the reader will have 10 a satisfactory 11 survey of the whole subject. Whatever may be said of other portions 12 of the New Testament, we think it will be generally admitted that in this Epistle the changes have improved the old 13 translation. They are such as 14 make the English version 15 conform more completely 16 to the Greek original. If this be 17 true, the revisers have done a good work for the Church. 18 If it be true 19 with regard to all the New Testament books, the work which they have done will remain 20 a ble ing to the readers of those books for 21 generations to come. But the ble ing will be only in the clearer presentation of the Divine truth, and, therefore, it will be only to the glory of God." This astonishingly slipshod bit of composition is from the pen of the Rev. Dr. Timothy Dwight. If the learned Profe or of Divinity in Yale College deemed it worth while to give a little thought to manner as well as to matter, it is probable that his diction would be very different from what it is; and, if he were to give a few minutes to the making of verbal corrections in the foregoing paragraph, he would, perhaps, do something like this: 1, change thus to now ; 2, write some of the changes; 3, strike out and improvements ; 4, for contains changes substitute some other form of expre ion; 5, instead of has been , write was ; 6, strike out indeed ; 7, instead of refer to , write cite ; 8, change illustrations to examples ; 9, instead of in , write of ; 10, instead of the reader will have , write the reader will be able to get ; 11, change satisfactory to tolerable ; 12, change portions to parts ; 13, not talk of the old translation, as we have no new one; 14, strike out as superfluous the words are such as ; 15, change version to text ; 16, substitute nearly for completely , which does not admit of comparison; 17, substitute the indicative for the conditional; 18, end sentence with the word work ; 19, introduce also after be ; 20, instead of remain , in the sense of be , use be ; 21, introduce the after for . As for the last sentence, it reminds one of Mendel ohn's "Songs without Words," though here we have, instead of a song and no words, words and no song, or rather no meaning. As is often true of cant, we have here simply a syntactical arrangement of words signifying—nothing. If Profe or Dwight were of those who, in common with the Add is ons and Macaulays and Newmans, think it worth while to give some attention to diction, the thought conveyed in the paragraph under consideration would, perhaps, have been expre ed somewhat in this wise: "We have now pa ed in review some of the changes that, in the revision, have been made in the First Epistle to the Corinthians. It was not po ible to cite them all, but a sufficient number of examples of the several cla es described have been given to enable the reader to get a tolerable survey of the whole subject. Whatever may be said of the other parts of the New Testament, we think it will be generally admitted that in this Epistle the changes have improved the translation. They make the English text conform more nearly to the Greek. This being true, the revisers have done a good work; and, if it be also true with regard to all the New Testament books, the work which they have done will be a ble ing to the readers of these books for the generations to come."