Cliches

wilkie2006

Sorry in advance for this rant of a thread...

What are your views on cliches? They're my bete noire; I detest the things. I maintain that cliches are the preserve of the inarticulate, who can only express their boring ideas through using tired, hackneyed language.

Things like:
"Actions speak louder than words"
"He'd give you the shirt off his back"
"Give him an inch and he'd take a mile"
"He's a glutton for punishment"

... ugh, I can't even write more of this rubbish. These things are just "ready meals" for lazy, stupid people to spit out whenever they can't be ar@ed thinking about what they want to say.

There seems to be some idea that the Irish are a great lyrical, expressive people but actually we're not... we're as bland as Americans (well, most Americans)

What do other people think? Do cliches elicit the same reaction in you?

P. Breathnach

By definition, a cliché is substandard expression, because one is employing something that is overused. Not simply widely used, or frequently used, but over used (ya know wha' I mean).

In considering how people use language, I take account of the individual and the circumstances. You can not reasonably expect a young child, or a person of limited education, or a person using English as a second language, or a person under pressure, to formulate their thoughts and express them as elegantly as a master of prose writing (ya know wha' I mean).

In general, the use of clichés does not vex me. They are set expressions because they have some functionality (ya know wha' I mean).

I do have a strong aversion to the substitution of slogans for argument, which involves the implication that the slogan is some encapsulated truth. I'm not going to give examples, because people who accept those slogans might come along and be affronted, and then there would be an unnecessary row (ya know wha' I mean).

wilkie2006

P. Breathnach wrote: »

By definition, a cliché is substandard expression, because one is employing something that is overused. Not simply widely used, or frequently used, but over used (ya know wha' I mean).

I completely agree with your definition of a cliche. However, that's not quite the point I'm trying to make.

I maintain that cliches are a refuge of the inarticulate and are a sorry reflection of the standard of English that people possess. There are very few cliches that encapsulate an idea so effectively that to express it in any other way would be difficult. I certainly don't think that one needs to be a master of prose writing, as you put it, to substitute "at the end of the day" for something less hackneyed and boring.

From your post, it would seem that cliches are used exclusively by children, people with limited education and foreigners. I can understand, to a degree, why some of these people might rely on them, but unfortunately cliches are championed in all spheres of Irish society, including the middle class.

I just think it's sad that with a heritage of such luminary writers like Behan, Joyce, Beckett, Flann O' Brien, Kavanagh et al., we've lost any kind flare for language. Certainly the Irish are no longer a nation of scholars.

pickarooney

Why is the word 'hackneyed' always used to describe a cliché?

mathepac

wilkie2006 wrote: »

I completely agree with your definition of a cliche. However, that's not quite the point I'm trying to make. ...

Like I'm like totally down with your cliche def dude, but at the end of the day that ain't what I'm like tryin' to say, do ya get me?

I think reality is beginning to dawn. The incorporation of gangsta rap and txt mssgs into everyday speech has lead to the emergence of a patois that is both cliche ridden with the latest PR non-speak and almost an incomprehensible agglomeration of imported slang terms that in a few years English as she is spoke will be unrecognisable.

With rlatively little face-to-face communication these days and the proliferation of MLAs spoken English may soon be obsolete.

P. Breathnach

wilkie2006 wrote: »

... I certainly don't think that one needs to be a master of prose writing, as you put it, to substitute "at the end of the day" for something less hackneyed and boring.

I think that needs an edit.

From your post, it would seem that cliches are used exclusively by children, people with limited education and foreigners. I can understand, to a degree, why some of these people might rely on them, but unfortunately cliches are championed in all spheres of Irish society, including the middle class.

You overlooked a category: people under pressure. That comprises most of us, most of the time.

I just think it's sad that with a heritage of such luminary writers like Behan, Joyce, Beckett, Flann O' Brien, Kavanagh et al., we've lost any kind flare for language. Certainly the Irish are no longer a nation of scholars.

Suggesting that we should all aspire to use the language in the manner of Behan, Joyce, Beckett, O'Brien (who, you might remember, created the Catechism of Cliché), Kavanagh, et al (who he?) is verging on the preposterous; further, it would be exceedingly difficult to write like all of them, given how different their writing styles were. Do you think that their contemporaries wrote wonderfully, and generally did not resort to cliché?

P. Breathnach

pickarooney wrote: »

Why is the word 'hackneyed' always used to describe a cliché?

Please tell us.
[You know that you want to.]

wilkie2006

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think that needs an edit.

Do you now? What would you suggest?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Suggesting that we should all aspire to use the language in the manner of Behan, Joyce, Beckett, O'Brien (who, you might remember, created the Catechism of Cliché), Kavanagh, et al (who he?) is verging on the preposterous; further, it would be exceedingly difficult to write like all of them, given how different their writing styles were. Do you think that their contemporaries wrote wonderfully, and generally did not resort to cliché?

I'm not suggesting that people should speak or write like writers, I'm merely saying that the idea that we're a nation who command an interesting and varied tongue is untrue. In my opinion, it's unfortunate that cliches are used so extensively to articulate ideas that could be expressed so easily with even a basic vocabulary.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

et al (who he?)

Is that necessary?

P. Breathnach

wilkie2006 wrote: »

Do you now? What would you suggest?

To substitute A for B means that A takes the place of B. Take it from there.

I'm not suggesting that people should speak or write like writers, I'm merely saying that the idea that we're a nation who command an interesting and varied tongue is untrue.

You are the one who brought in writers as some kind of touchstone. You took exceptional people and set them in the discussion as reference points for some fanciful notion of an Irish gift for language.

In my opinion, it's unfortunate that cliches are used so extensively to articulate ideas that could be expressed so easily with even a basic vocabulary.

And in my opinion, it hardly ever matters. Not never: hardly ever. Most utterances are gone within seconds of their creation; most written expressions are almost totally ignored within a few days (if not sooner).

Is that necessary?

No. But I enjoyed writing it. Not in a big deal way, but as a small excursion into light-heartedness. It's the sort of thing that some real writers do.

wilkie2006

P. Breathnach wrote: »

To substitute A for B means that A takes the place of B. Take it from there....


No. But I enjoyed writing it. Not in a big deal way, but as a small excursion into light-heartedness. It's the sort of thing that some real writers do.

(Take the above as just an example...)

Wow, I'm slightly taken aback by your hostility here. The whole thing about cliches is just my opinion - I don't think that you need to be so aggressive.

BrensBenz

Hey, nice thread.
There is some excuse for cliches from those whose spoken language is based on imitations of American sit-com dialogue and X-Factor judge-speak but we, in Ireland, are blessed with a source of decades-old "hackneyed cliches" from the educated ranks of Irish journalism. It appears that Irish students of journalism fail their exams if they do not include in their reports:

• The age(s) of suspect(s) and defendant(s)
• What the defendant(s) is / are wearing
• The defendant was “stone-faced”
• "Gardai are appealing for witnesses"
• "Emergency services had to use cutting equipment"
• "The scene is closed for technical examination"
• The title and name of the State Pathologist
• "Sources close to the minister / Taoiseach...”
• Neighbours claiming that "nothing like this has ever happened here before"

But, at least most cliches have a universally understood meaning….except, that is, the cliche “in the public interest” which means something entirely different to a journalist than to the rest of us.

P. Breathnach

wilkie2006 wrote: »

(Take the above as just an example...)

Wow, I'm slightly taken aback by your hostility here. The whole thing about cliches is just my opinion - I don't think that you need to be so aggressive.

I'm not being aggressive.

On the examples you instance:
1. You asked a question; I answered it in a succinct manner.
2. You seemed to take umbrage at a piece of levity; I told you it was a piece of levity, and in the very same paragraph, I further indulged in levity.

If I wanted to be aggressive, believe me that you would notice the difference.

wilkie2006

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I'm not being aggressive.

With respect, I disagree with that. I found a number of your posts to be provocative and confrontational:

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Please tell us.
[You know that you want to.]

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I think that needs an edit.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

et al (who he?)

P. Breathnach wrote: »

It's the sort of thing that some real writers do.

What you call levity, I call churlishness.

P. Breathnach

wilkie2006 wrote: »

With respect, I disagree with that. I found a number of your posts to be provocative and confrontational...

This thread seems to have morphed into a discussion of my posting style, and wilkie2006 taking offence where none was intended.

I think that my initial post in this thread indicates how I treat things. It was a considered reply, laced with a little levity. It is a pity that wilkie2006 did not tune into my style, and misunderstood the intent of some things I posted later.

I am quite happy to clarify the particular extracts from the thread about which wilkie2006 complains:
- "Please tell us. [You know that you want to.]": pickarooney jested, and I responded in kind. It was a trivial exchange.
- "I think that needs an edit.": Only in a language forum would I say anything about another poster's use of language. It was genuinely intended to be helpful, and I regret that it was seen as being anything else.
- "et al (who he?)": that, ironically, is a clichéd joke much used in Private Eye in the past (I rarely read Private Eye nowadays, so I don't know if it is still used). I am flummoxed by the thought that it might be seen as aggressive.
- "It's the sort of thing that some real writers do.": I was commenting on something I had posted myself. It was actually intended as a bit of light-hearted self-deprecation.

BrensBenz

No sooner had I expressed pleasure with this thread, more in anticipation of what might be contributed than in the existing posts, I jotted the below and then didn't even bother posting it:

"Well, it COULD HAVE been a nice thread until this tsunami of micro pedantism and umbrage-taking took over."

It's difficult, even with smilies, to convey a “correct” tone of voice when the reader(s) is / are chomping at the bit to be offended. My advice (aim for my chest, just left of centre) is to grow an extra layer of skin before posting a rebuff / correction / rebuttal. So someone somewhere disagrees with you. So what! You know you’re infalla….inflama…..unfally…..always right. He whose feet are set in concrete, can only look like a 40 Watt lamppost.

P. Breathnach

I was once asked to produce a report for the local paper on a juvenile soccer match when there was no real journalist available. The decisive goal was the result of a comedy of errors, capped by the goalkeeper fumbling his effort to pick up a slow-rolling ball and the ball having just enough momentum to get over the line. I improved the story a bit, using the "crashing to the net" cliché (there wasn't even a net).

Youngsters who had played in the match thought it a good and accurate report.

We live in a world mediated by cliché.

BrensBenz

Very insightful but.....What? No rattling woodwork? Was the game "a crucial decider"? Did the coach even do the clap hands over head ritual? Was the injury list whipped up to the level of a Shakespearian drama?
Slightly off topic but what about wedding photography? Any effort to be creative is derided by the middle-aged experts in the silly hats.

P. Breathnach

BrensBenz wrote: »

Very insightful but.....What? No rattling woodwork? Was the game "a crucial decider"? Did the coach even do the clap hands over head ritual? Was the injury list whipped up to the level of a Shakespearian drama?...

I don't know what else was in the report: I wrote it; I didn't read it.

It must be tough being the manager of a football team: the first thing that happens is a public unveiling.

pickarooney

BrensBenz wrote: »

No sooner had I expressed pleasure with this thread, more in anticipation of what might be contributed than in the existing posts, I jotted the below and then didn't even bother posting it:

"Well, it COULD HAVE been a nice thread until this tsunami of micro pedantism and umbrage-taking took over."

It's difficult, even with smilies, to convey a “correct” tone of voice when the reader(s) is / are chomping at the bit to be offended. My advice (aim for my chest, just left of centre) is to grow an extra layer of skin before posting a rebuff / correction / rebuttal. So someone somewhere disagrees with you. So what! You know you’re infalla….inflama…..unfally…..always right. He whose feet are set in concrete, can only look like a 40 Watt lamppost.

Pedantry, for crying out loud.

I'm never sure if that word is just a set-up.

tac foley

Hackneyed - First recorded use in 1735 - after the Hackney cab, a greatly-used London conveyance so common that it is used as a metaphor - as common as a Hackney cab - banal, trite, so often used.

Also, in North America, abbreviated to make a derisive cognomen - a worn-out and work-tired journalist can be referred to as a 'Hack'.

tac

wilkie2006

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Youngsters who had played in the match thought it a good and accurate report.

We live in a world mediated by cliché.

Fair enough, I do agree with that. In fact, watching an old post-match interview with Alan Shearar prompted the thread ("Well, at the end of the day, I'm here to put the ball in the back of the net")

You're right that cliches can help to illustrate/liven up a topic that's difficult to understand or not especially interesting in the first place (no criticism implied). I accept that there's a time and a place for them.

Notwithstanding this, I still consider cliches to be the "greyest" collection of words available to us. As per an earlier post, I'd say they're almost like ready meals.

PB, let's have a conciliatory hug. Just keep your hands to yourself (no, not really)

P. Breathnach

wilkie2006 wrote: »

...PB, let's have a conciliatory hug.

I'm fine with that.

Just keep your hands to yourself (no, not really)

I need them for keyboarding.

On further reflection - no, scrub that, it's more a half-formed thought - perhaps we should simply recognise that most people, in most circumstances, do not take a great deal of care in formulating how they express themselves. The unconsidered use of clichés is not the problem, but is merely an aspect of that phenomenon.

There is also the unimaginative use of metaphor, as in football managers being unveiled. Interestingly, we also have the ignorant use of metaphor: how many people who use the expression "taken aback" know the literal meaning of the phrase?

Is "sick as a parrot" a cliché? It's an odd expression to describe a state of extreme disappointment. But it seems to convey an intensity of feeling that the more accurate "extremely disappointed" fails to manage.

As I said before, in most circumstances I don't think these things matter very much. There are situations where it does matter. Examples:
1. Published writing, especially writing that one might expect or hope to be of enduring interest;
2. Broadcast words where the broadcaster has some responsibility for the content;
3. Documents that might have legal or commercial significance.

wilkie2006

P. Breathnach wrote: »

I need them for keyboarding.

Oooh, ya tease.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

On further reflection - no, scrub that, it's more a half-formed thought - perhaps we should simply recognise that most people, in most circumstances, do not take a great deal of care in formulating how they express themselves. The unconsidered use of clichés is not the problem, but is merely an aspect of that phenomenon.

Yes, agreed. Absolutely. Using this post to redact some of my earlier statements, I take issue with cliches though not necessarily those who use them (I think that these are two very separate ideas that may have fused along the way). However, I maintain that whatever the reason for their use (a paper's readership, time pressure, stress... whatever), cliches are still crude and boring expressions to communicate anything.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

how many people who use the expression "taken aback" know the literal meaning of the phrase?

Although not exactly the same thing, if you're interested in etymology I'd recommend "Wordgloss: A Cultural Lexicon" by Jim O'Donnell.

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Is "sick as a parrot" a cliché? It's an odd expression to describe a state of extreme disappointment. But it seems to convey an intensity of feeling that the more accurate "extremely disappointed" fails to manage.

Yes, I definitely consider that a cliche. Depending on the context, couldn't something like "devastated" or "shattered" be used in its place?

P. Breathnach wrote: »

There are situations where it does matter. Examples:
1. Published writing, especially writing that one might expect or hope to be of enduring interest;
2. Broadcast words where the broadcaster has some responsibility for the content;
3. Documents that might have legal or commercial significance.

Definitely agree.