Talk:Elegant variation

Errant hypothesis
Who says it's "unnecessary and misleading"? 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 &mdash; by definition (as currently presented in the article) &mdash; 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)


 * What about semaphore flags, huh? HUH? They might be in the navy or something. EEng 18:59, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Indeed there is Nelson's famous signal 'England confides' vs. 'England expects' (and England itself meaning Britain), albeit variation as replacement rather than repetition in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.13.185.2 (talk) 17:37, 13 December 2021 (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 ; 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)


 * You are talking nonsense here. If somebody uses the word "fire" in a casual conversation with a friend, and uses the word "conflagration" in a novel with no connection to this casual conversation, how are the two within a single piece of anything?
 * What? Why does this matter? Popcornduff (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * OK, I think I understand the point you're trying to make here. I think you're covering for an exceptional circumstance that no reader would be worrying about. There's nothing to gain in adding words just to cover this sort of concern. It's optimising for the wrong thing. Popcornduff (talk) 00:38, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * Furthermore, neither of you has answered the question of what it is called then when such constructions are used to good effect. Is it called "inelegant variation"?  Furthermore, what about when you just want to refer to such a construction without making any judgement of whether it's to good or bad effect?  There must be a name for at least one of these.... — Smjg (talk) 00:16, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
 * If such a term exists (beyond just "variation") and you can find a good source describing it then maybe we can add it to the article. Until then who cares? Popcornduff (talk) 00:36, 2 September 2019 (UTC)


 * I've just had a quick look at the sources. It may be the case that Fowler, the coiner of the term, was criticising the style, but this doesn't mean that pejorativeness is an integral part of the term's definition.  Indeed, in  it doesn't appear that he gives a definition of the term at all.  As such, I'm made to wonder whether the source you've cited is accurately representing Fowler's intention.  And none of the online sources actually cited in the article seem as I look to indicate this being part of the definition.  So it seems that whether this is part of the definition is a matter of debate.  As such, the article ought to give more-or-less equal weight to both sides of this debate. — Smjg (talk) 00:00, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I said earlier this was getting silly; it's now getting insane. You seem to be unable to read between the lines of the sources, and three experienced editors (not to mention every high school English teacher) disagree with you: elegant variation is a pejorative term, and (to repeat) under your reasoning our articles on cliche and officialese and verbosity should me marked POV as well. Stop. EEng 11:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
 * It is not the job of WP readers to read between the lines of sources. If you've read between the lines and thereby established that some of these sources consider "elegant variation" to be a pejorative term, how about explaining here which particular sources they are and how they say this?
 * Moreover, in this case, it needs to be clarified in the article, so that it doesn't look like it's just saying that "elegant variation" just means this style of writing, thereby prompting POV concerns. I've just attempted to do this.  Moreover, the contradiction of this with the content of the 'In poetry' and 'In other languages' section needs to be resolved somehow (though this is a contradiction issue rather than a POV issue). — Smjg (talk) 23:58, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm talking about we editors who need to read between the lines, and yes we do that: if a source says The press conference showcased Trump's incisive intellect and deeps sense of history, anyone writing (in an article) that Source X complimented Trump's intellect and sense of history would demonstrate a complete inability to interpret sources. Anyway, let's see... Fowler wrote
 * It is the second-rate writers, those intent rather on expressing themselves prettily than on conveying their meaning clearly, and still more those whose notions of style are based on a few misleading rules of thumb, that are chiefly open to the allurements of elegant variation.
 * Does that do it for you? <b style="color: red;">E</b><b style="color: blue;">Eng</b> 01:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, here's the Economist in 2012, with a piece on '"Elegant variation", the good and the bad', subheading 'Varying word choice can be a bad thing. Or a good one' -- suggesting that variety is valuable, that the 'dislike of a tic can itself become a tic', and that even more baroque form of elegant variation can have their place.  Our article should consider that.  Jheald (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Recent edits
some recent edits are problematic: The overall tone of the article has been changed as well to praise elegant variation rather than to describe it. Overall, I think that the previous state of the article is a better starting point than these recent edits. --Macrakis (talk) 19:48, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * this edit removed a quote and source footnote with the comment "this is from an unedited blog, not a reliable source". In fact, this was published in Intercom: The Magazine of the Society for Technical Communication in March 2000. There was indeed a link to the author's web site, which had a reprint of the article; as it happens, the official archives of Intercom only go back to 2006, so this is helpful.
 * This edit calls elegant variation "an element of English usage". I am not quite sure what "an element of English usage" is; maybe a stylistic device?
 * The same edit gives the advice "Elegant variations should be used to avoid awkwardness, ambiguity, or monotony." in WP's voice. There are two problems here: WP doesn't give advice, stylistic or otherwise; and the source is misrepresented -- yes, it does concede that variation should be used if there is "some awkwardness, such as ambiguity or notieable monotony" (p. 176), but the overall point of the article is to discourage EV.
 * This edit misuses the Notes and Queries source, which says nothing about Fowler (it predates him by many decades) and uses the phrase EV in a different sense.
 * This edit claims that Bailey's review says that Garner misrepresents Fowler, but in fact the article never says that. The purported "linguists made of straw" (p. 152) mentioned in the preceding paragraph are Amis, Gilman, Whitcut, Greenbaum, Buckley, and Safire, and the review talks a couple of pages later about how Garner agrees with Fowler about EV (p. 153-4).
 * I agree with you but somehow I'm not in the mood to go to that mat on this. I'm behind you 100% though. <b style="color:red;">E</b><b style="color:blue;">Eng</b> 01:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * The issue, Macrakis, is not just these examples that you want to discuss, but it’s wrong to remove content that is properly sourced, and to remove proper sources with no explanation. It is also wrong to then add content that is unsourced and original research.  And just because you don’t understand something (like an element of style) is not a proper reason to delete and replace good sound content.


 * I’ll go through your examples, I may not agree with them, but I will go along with good faith — as you do. The first example you give links to a blog published by the author and no one else, which is not a proper reliable source. If the blog-content was published in a magazine then it should be sourced and the blog should be removed as a source.  There is nothing in the essay to support this Wikipedia content:   “Variation, when misused, can draw undue attention to itself or create ambiguity, particularly in legal writing, scientific writing, and other technical writing".  It is unsourced Original Research.


 * Regarding the second example you ask what element of English usage is. You ask if it’s a stylistic device.  I wouldn’t put it that way, device doesn’t sound quite right, but I think you’re on the right track.  I would say it’s a part of the English language, it’s usage, it’s style.   You might check a very notable book on English usage titled “Elements of Style” by Strunk and White, or any good dictionary.  If you delete content you need to give a reason.


 * Regarding your third example, you don’t like the word “should”, though (as you indicate) the source uses the word “should”, it could be edited to add a phrase something like: “According to Fowler variation should be used…” etc.  Instead of deleted the content.  You opinion about the “overall point of the article” is your opinion, and your interpretation, I happen to disagree with your interpretation, but on Wikipedia the opinions of editors can be a problem — instead editors should try to reflect accurately what the sources say.


 * Your 4th example — regarding the Notes and Queries source — that edit is not the edit that added that particular source. The Notes and Queries source uses the phrase elegant variation decades before Fowler in the same sense that Fowler uses the phrase.  The claim that Fowler “count the expression” is not sourced.


 * Your 5th example — Garner may agree with something and he may misrepresent as well. Garner does indeed misrepresent Fowler and when Bailey indicates that Garner uses the “straw man” device of fallacious reasoning, it is device that uses a misrepresentation. - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 04:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Rather than saying "it’s wrong to remove content that is properly sourced, and to remove proper sources with no explanation", it would be more useful to bring up the specific cases.
 * As I said before, the first example is a reference to an article in the magazine Intercom: The Magazine of the Society for Technical Communication, which is a perfectly reliable source. It happens that that article is not available online at the Intercom site (cf. WP:OFFLINE), but the author has made a copy available on his site. I suppose we could remove that link, but that doesn't seem very helpful to the reader. I do agree that the statement "Variation, when misused..." doesn't belong in the lead.
 * The expression "element of English usage" is not widely used -- Google finds only one example besides this article -- and is not (to my ear) idiomatic. I am perfectly aware of Strunk and White and condescension is unnecessary ("I think you're on the right track"). You say "device doesn't sound quite right", but "stylistic device" is standard terminology.
 * Third example: it's not that I "don't like the word “should”". As I clearly said, the problem is giving advice in WP's voice. As for the overall point of the "Elegant variation" article in The King's English, it is abundantly clear that Fowler and Fowler are criticizing elegant variation -- the 5+ page article starts with "Variation of this kind is often necessary in practice; so often, that it should never be admitted except when it is necessary", followed by five pages of examples of variation which they consider objectionable, and not a single example where they recommend it.
 * You claim that "The Notes and Queries source uses the phrase elegant variation decades before Fowler in the same sense that Fowler uses the phrase." Let's look at it. It is quoting a certain T.N. who comments that a stanza in the second edition of Fairfield's translation of Tasso is an "elegant variation" of that in the first edition. It is not talking about using synonyms to replace repetitions of a word.
 * Could you please quote the passage where Bailey says that Garner misrepresents Fowler? --Macrakis (talk) 21:09, 20 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Macrackis, when you say it would be "useful to bring up the specific cases" — here are two:  With no explanation you deleted Fowler’s definition of "Elegant Variations" from the lead, and you deleted an example Fowler gives of when a writer should use Elegant Variations.  Those are specific cases and they are both extremely important and fundamental to this article.


 * Your comments about “Stylistic devices” etc. are interesting.


 * Garner misrepresents Fowler when Garner says: "H. W. Fowler devised the name "elegant variation" for the ludicrous practice of never using the same word twice in the same sentence or passage." The Fowler doesn’t say that.  Here’s how F.G. Fowler & H.W.Fowler (in the King’s English) define "Elegant Variation":  "The substitutions of one word for another for the sake of variety."  They go on to say that variations are sometimes necessary, and they give examples of when variations of this sort should be used, and examples of when they are misused.  To find Bailey indicating that Garner misrepresents Fowler, you have to see above in my response to your fifth point — I already addressed this — it’s in my comment about the “straw man” fallacy.


 * I’m not sure what point you’re making when you say that "Fowler and Fowler are criticizing elegant variation" — the word "criticizing" — they certainly are critics of the language, and criticism (in the sense of discussing and reflecting on) is what they do, but sometimes criticizing is used more informally — when someone is simply dissing or putting down. I think the major thrust of their article in Modern English Usage — is to point out Elegant Variation being misused. You also say that the Fowlers give "not a single example where they recommend it."  But they do.  One example is the first example in this Wikipedia article’s "Example section".  That’s from the King’s English.  Another example of Fowler recommending the use of Elegant Variation is in Modern English Usage.  It’s the one that begins: "Arrangements are being made to continue the production of these houses…" (etc.)  I think it’s the first example they give.  Right? - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 05:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)


 * There is no requirement to include a given quote verbatim simply because it is well-sourced. The quote was "the replacement of recurring words with synonyms for the sake of variety" and the paraphrase was "a writer’s substitution of "one word for another for the sake of variety."". Frankly, I don't think either is ideal, but let's worry about improving the wording rather than insisting on quoting Fowler verbatim. After all, the King's English is primarily of historical interest; the lead should discuss current usage first. The current' edition of Modern English Usage'' reads:
 * ...misguided avoidance of repetition which leads the user into stylistic traps that are anything but elegant...
 * which I think is clearer.
 * The article's wording about Bailey's review is highly misleading, as I said above. Your own claim that Garner misrepresents Fowler is something else again. The "straw men" mentioned in the review do not include Garner.
 * I am using "criticize" in the common English sense of judging negatively, not in the sense of practicing (literary) criticism. In modern English, "criticize" is almost always used negatively -- are you perhaps not a native speaker of English? That might explain some of our disagreements here.
 * The first example in the article is not, in fact, from The King's English, but from Modern English Usage, which if anything is more critical of elegant variation, listing "avoidance of repetition (Elegant variation)" as a "fetish" (s.v. fetishes). He gives this as an example of using a word "with a different application", which he is distinguishing from elegant variation. I will remove the example because it is not relevant.
 * In "Arrangements are being made to continue the production of these houses", he is recommending using a pronoun ('them'), and not recommending the use of a synonym at all. --Macrakis (talk) 20:13, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Regarding the recent edit that deleted one of the examples given in Fowler (which I restored)
The edit I undid restores an example that demonstrates the idea of Elegant Variation (which is the title of this article). A variation at times is needed, and at other times a variation is not needed (according to Fowler and others).

The example that was deleted shows a variation being needed — the writer uses the word "serious" twice — once in its adjective form and once in it’s adverb form:

That repetition may cause a reader to stumble or be confused, but the sentence is certainly inelegant. If the writer had used a variation (as Fowler suggests) that might improve the sentence:

(All that is basically from Fowler.) If this article is going to give examples to illustrate the idea of Elegant Variation, the examples should show both, when variation is needed — and when it is not.

This is part of an ongoing discussion (in the section above), and editors need to be careful not to try to win an argument, by saying "to hell with the discussion I’m going to have it my way" and then bailing on the discussion and going ahead and editing in spite of what anyone else thinks. There are better ways to resolve disputes (see Dispute resolution) than by “edit warring”. - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 12:47, 22 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Let's look at the full passage in Fowler:
 * The fatal influence is the advice given to young writers never to use the same word twice in a sentence....
 * The advice also gives a useful warning that a noticeable word used once should not be used again in the neighbourhood with a different application. This point will be found fully illustrated in ; but it may be shortly set out here, a kind providence having sent a neatly contrasted pair of quotations: (A) Dr. Lebbé seriously maintains that in the near future opium-smoking will be as serious as the absinthe scourge in France;...
 * The repetition found here is not the repeated use of a word for the same thing. As he says, the word is used "with a different application". The example is precisely to show an example of repetition whose avoidance does not constitute "elegant variation".
 * Kindly assume good faith. I was not "trying to win an argument" by editing in spite of others' contributions. You pointed out this example in your comments, and when I looked at it, I realized that the article was misrepresenting it. I also explicitly mentioned my rationale here on the Talk page, so it's not as though I was trying to pull a fast one.
 * For that matter I never "added content that is unsourced and original research". I reverted to the status quo ante and added no content of my own. --Macrakis (talk) 22:57, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Macrakis, I appreciate all that, and all your dealing with complexities. We may not agree on everything, but there are things we do agree on.  It’s interesting that Fowler’s article has the identical title as this one, and he (or they) did a great job of sticking to the point — which is the meaning indicated by his title.  He, of course, as I said before, uses examples to show when a variation might be needed, and also when a variation is not needed.  Which, I believe, might reflect a part of what you’re saying.  What Fowler said still still seems to stand.  I see what you mean about status quo ante — nice phrase!  I think you and I both agree that we need to assume good faith, and also, as I said earlier, that Wikipedia editors need to take care about that. - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 12:30, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Fowler uses "elegant variation" to talk about the use of synonyms to refer to the same person or thing and avoid repeating its ordinary name. In this passage, he is distinguishing "elegant variation" from the avoidance of other kinds of repetition (which he discusses in a different article) -- "seriously" and "serious" are certainly not referring to the same thing. That is, not all avoidance of repetition is "elegant variation". --Macrakis (talk) 16:56, 25 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Your suggestion (that "Fowler uses elegant variation to talk about…" etc.) is an interesting interpretation, but it seems too restrictive, and doesn't seem to fit with The King’s English article, where Fowler says that he includes under the heading Elegant Variation "all substitutions of one word for another for the sake of variety." In the example about opium-smoking he suggests the substitution of one word (serious) for another (grave), which seems to illustrate that. Your other interpretation (that he is "distinguishing…" etc.)  I think more than "distinguishing" he's actually "including" the example — that's why it's in the article. - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 03:14, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Fowler's language is often colorful and suggestive rather than precise, and it changes from edition to edition.
 * But in this case I think he's quite clear. EV is "...for the sake of variety". In the serious/grave case, he is suggesting a substitution not for variety, but for clarity, as the two instances of "serious" are not at all referring to the same thing.
 * In any case, the article should be focused on the current meaning of the phrase, though of course the history is important as well. --Macrakis (talk) 23:10, 26 May 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree that history and currency are both important. The trick is, as always, finding reliable sources.  There may be various ways that people understand the phrase (people being people), but to find a reliable source that discusses historical meanings versus current meanings, or changes, or misunderstandings … (that kind of thing) might be a challenge.  The phrase is a bit neglected in terms of critical analysis, and the way Fowler dealt it in Modern English Usage certainly left room for interpretation, which I think was uncharacteristic of him.  (I see your point about clarity vs. variety) - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 13:41, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * There are plenty of reliable sources. One could start, for example, with the current edition of Fowler, which summarizes the 1926 definition of EV as "the way in which 'second-rate writers' and 'young writers' fall into various stylistic traps in their effort to avoid using the same word in a sentence." There are lots of other sources. --Macrakis (talk) 18:32, 27 May 2021 (UTC)


 * My reference wasn’t to reliable sources in general, what I said (above) regarded a "reliable source that discusses historical meanings versus current meanings" etc. You tend to twist words.  You also misrepresent the current edition of Fowler when you claim it "summarizes the 1926 definition" (that's your interpretation).  The book actually says Fowler used the "expression to describe the way" etc.  There’s no indication that the definition has changed — no indication that there is a 1926 definition and now a 2021 definition. - GümsGrammatiçus (talk) 11:24, 28 May 2021 (UTC)


 * Again, please assume good faith. I may have misunderstood what you intended, but I didn't "twist" your words.
 * I didn't say that the 2015 definition is different from the 1926 definition; I said that the 2015 edition summarizes the original definition, by quoting the exact words summarizing the definition. I don't understand how that's my interpretation. At this point, I think we need to find some outside reviewers, because we don't even seem to agree on what seem to me like straightforward statements in our sources. --Macrakis (talk) 13:37, 28 May 2021 (UTC)