АкушерствоАнатомияАнестезиологияВакцинопрофилактикаВалеологияВетеринарияГигиенаЗаболеванияИммунологияКардиологияНеврологияНефрологияОнкологияОториноларингологияОфтальмологияПаразитологияПедиатрияПервая помощьПсихиатрияПульмонологияРеанимацияРевматологияСтоматологияТерапияТоксикологияТравматологияУрологияФармакологияФармацевтикаФизиотерапияФтизиатрияХирургияЭндокринологияЭпидемиология

The Cliche. Aclicheis generally defined as an expression that has become hackneyed and trite

Acliche is generally defined as an expression that has become hackneyed and trite. It has lost its precise meaning by constant reiteration; in other words it has become stereotyped. As "Random House Dictionary" has it, "a cliche... has lost originality, ingenuity, and impact by long over-use..."

This definition lacks one point that should be emphasized; that is, a cliche strives after originality, whereas it has lost the aesthetic generating power it once had. There is always a contradiction between what is aimed at and what is actually attained. Examples of real cliches are: rosydreamsofyouth, thepatteroflittlefeet, deceptivelysimple.

Definitions taken from various dictionaries show that cliche is a derogatory term and it is therefore necessary to avoid anything that may be called by that name. But the fact is that most of the widelyrecognized word combinations which have been adopted by the language are unjustly classified as cliches. The aversion for cliches has gone so far that most of the lexical units based on simile (See p. 164) are branded as cliches. In an interesting article entitled "Great Cliche Debate" published in the NewYorkTimesMagazine '* we can read the pros and cons concerning cliches. This article is revealing on one main point. It illustrates the fact that an uncertain or vague term will lead to various and even conflicting interpretations of the idea embodied in the term. What, indeed, do the words stereotyped, hackneyed, trite convey to the mind? First of all they indicate that the phrase is in common use. Is this a demerit? Not at all. On the contrary: something common, habitual, devoid of novelty is the only admissible expression in some types of communications. In the article just mentioned one of the debaters objects to the phrase "Jack-of-all-trades" and suggests that it should be "one who can turn his hand to any (or to many kinds of) work." His opponent naturally rejects the substitute on the grounds that "Jack of all trades" may, as he says, have long ceased to be vivid or original, but his substitute never was. And it is fourteen words instead of four. "Determine to avoid cliches at all costs and you are almost certain to be led into gobbledygook."

Debates of this kind proceed from a grossly mistaken notion that the term cliche is used to denote all stable word combinations, whereas it was coined to denote word combinations which have long lost their novelty and become trite, but which are used as if they were fresh and original and so have become irritating to people who are sensitive to the language they hear and read. What is familiar should not be given a derogatory label. On the contrary, if it has become familiar, that means it has won general recognition and by iteration has been accepted as a unit of the language.

But the process of being acknowledged as a unit of language is slow. It is next to impossible to foretell what may be accepted as a unit of the language and what may be rejected and cast away as being unfit, inappropriate, alien to the internal laws of the language, or failing to meet the demand of the language community for stable word combinations to designate new notions. Hence the two conflicting ideas: language should always be fresh, vigorous and expressive, and on the other hand, language, as a common tool for intercommunication should make use of units that are easily understood and which require little or no effort to convey the idea and to grasp it.

R.D. Altick in his "Preface to Critical Reading" condemns every word sequence in which what follows can easily be predicted from what precedes.

"When does an expression become a cliche? There can be no definite answer, because what is trite to one person may still be fresh to another. But a great many expressions are universally understood to be so threadbare as to be useless except in the most casual discourse... A good practical test is this: If, when you are listening to a speaker, you can accurately anticipate what he is going to say next, he is pretty certainly using cliches, otherwise he would be constantly surprising you."¹

Then he gives examples, like Weare gathered hereto - daytomourn ('the untimely death') ofourbelovedleader ...; Wordsareinadequate ('to express the grief that is in our hearts').

"Similarly when you read," he goes on, "if one word almost inevitably invites another, if you can read half of the words and know pretty certainly what the other half are, you are reading cliches."

And then again come illustrations like Wewatchedtheflames ('licking') atthesideofthebuilding. Apall ('of smoke') hungthickovertheneighbourhood ...; Heheardadull ('thud') whichwasfollowedbyanominous ( 'silence').

This passage shows that the author has been led into the erroneous notion that everything that is predictable is a cliche. He is confusing useful word combinations circulating in speech as members of the word stock of the language with what claims to be genuine, original and vigorous. All word combinations that do not surprise are labelled as cliches. If we agree with such an understanding of the term, we must admit that the following stable and necessary word combinations used in newspaper language must be viewed as cliches: ' effective guarantees', ' immediate issues', ' thewhipandcarrot policy', ' statementofpolicy ', 'to maintain some equilibrium between reliable sources', ' buffer zone', 'he laid it down equallyclearly that...' and soon.

R. D. Altick thus denounces as cliches such verb and noun phrases as 'to live toaripeoldage ', 'to grow byleapsandbounds ', 'to withstand thetestoftime ', 'to let bygonesbebygones ', 'to be unabletoseethewoodforthetrees ', 'to upsettheapplecart ', 'to have an aceupone ' ssleeve '. And finally he rejects such word combinations as 'the fullflush of victory', 'the patter of rain', 'part and parcel ', 'a diamond intherough ' and the like on the grounds that they have outlasted their freshness.

In his protest against hackneyed phrases, Altick has gone so far as to declare that people have adopted phrases like ' clock - work precision', ' tight - lipped (or stony) silence', ' crushing defeat', ' bumper - to - bumper traffic', sky - rocketing costs' and the like "...as a way of evading their obligation to make their own language."

Of course, if instead of making use of the existing means of communication, i.e., the language of the community, people are to coin "their own language," then Altick is right. But nobody would ever think such an idea either sound or reasonable. The set expressions of a language are 'part and parcel' of the vocabulary of the language and cannot be dispensed with by merely labelling them cliches.

However at every period in the development of a language, there appear strange combinations of words which arouse suspicion as to their meaning and connotation. Many of the new-born word combinations in modern English, both in their American and British variants, have been made fun of because their meaning is still obscure, and therefore they are used rather loosely. Recently in the NewYorkTimes such cliches as ' speaking realization', ' growing awareness', ' rising expectations', 'to think unthinkable thoughts' and others were wittily criticized by a journalist who showed that ordinary rank and file American people do not understand these new word combinations, just as they fail to understand certain neologisms as opt (= 'to make a choice'), and revived words as deem (= 'to consider', 'to believe to be') and others and reject them or use them wrongly.

But as history has proved, the protest of too-zealous purists often fails to bar the way to all kinds of innovations into standard English. Illustrative in this respect is the protest made by Byron in his "Don Juan":

"... ' freetoconfess '' — (whence comes this phrase?

Is't English? No —- 'tis only parliamentary)."

and also:

" Astrangecoincidence to use a phrase

By which such things are settled nowadays."

or

"The marchofScience (How delightful these cliches are!)..."

(Aldington)

Byron, being very sensitive to the aesthetic aspect of his native language, could not help observing the triteness of the phrases he comments on, but at the same time he accepts them as ready-made units. Language has its strength and its weaknesses. A linguistic scholar must be equipped with methods of stylistic analysis to ascertain the writer's aim, the situation in which the communication takes place and possibly the impact on the'reader to decide whether or not a phrase is a cliche or "the right word in the right place." If he does not take into consideration all the properties of the given word or word combination, the intricacies of language units may become a trap for him.

Men-of-letters, if they are real artists, use the stock of expressive phrases contained in the language naturally and easily, and well-known phrases never produce the impression of being cliches.

Here are a few examples taken from various sources:

"Suzanne, excited, went ontalkingnineteentothedozen ." (Maugham)

"She was unreal, like a picture and yet had an elegance which made Kitty feelallthumbs ." (Maugham)

"Because the publisher declares in sooth

Throughneedles ' eyesiteasierforthecamelis

Topass, than those two cantos into families." (Byron)

"Redda had that quality... found in those women who... putalltheireggsinonebasket ." (Galsworthy)

"As thelaststrawbreaksthe laden camel ' sback, this piece of underground information crushed the sinking spirits of Mr. Dombey." (Dickens)[23]

Дата добавления: 2015-09-27 | Просмотры: 701 | Нарушение авторских прав