아시는 분은 알겠지만, Williams의 책 Style: Toward Clarity and Grace 는 영어 글쓰기의 바이블과도 같은 책이죠. 이제 학기도 끝나가고, 글쓰기 능력도 늘리고 싶어, 이 책을 다시 읽는 겸 정리도 해볼까합니다 (노트필기에 가깝긴 한 것 같습니다). 엄연히 말하면 철학은 아니지만, 여기에 영어 글쓰기에 관심있는 사람들이 있으니 올려봐요.
Chapter 2
First Two Principles of Clear Writing
(1) the subjects of the sentences name the cast of characters,
and
(2) the verbs that go with those subjects name the crucial actions those characters are part of.
나쁜 예시:
1b. Our lack of knowledge about local conditions precluded determination of committee action effectiveness in fund allocation to those areas in greatest need of assistance.
설명: 이 문장에서 캐릭터는 "we," "committee," 그리고 "areas" 입니다. "우리"가 로컬 컨디션들을 몰랐고, "우리"가 커미티 액션을 막았으며, "커미티"가 규정했으며, "지역들" 이 도움을 필요로 합니다. 이것들을 처음 두 법칙에 적용시키면 다음과 같이 문장이 형성됩니다:
"Because we knew nothing about local conditions ,we could not determine how effectively the committee had allocated funds to areas that most needed assistance."
이로써 훨씬 더 클리어한 문장들이 형성이 됩니다. 이것이 clarity를 향한 첫걸음입니다.
Nominalizations
영어 동사들은 원형이 있고, 그 원형들의 변형이 여러 개 존재합니다. 윌리엄스의 예시들은 다음과 같습니다:
discover -> discovery
move -> movement
resist -> resistance
react -> reaction ...
이 동사들은 변형을 거쳤고, 이것을 "nominalization"이라고 부릅니다 (nominalization도 nominalization 이죠). 윌리엄스는 이 nominalization이 좋은 경우도 있고 안 좋은 경우도 있다고 합니다. 안 좋은 경우는 다음과 같습니다:
- When the nominalizaiton follows a verb with little specific meaning, change the nominalization to a verb that can replace the empty verb.
Ex)
The police conducted an investigation into the matter.
-> The police investigated the matter.
여기 보시게 되면 invest -> investigation으로 간 nominalization이 무의미하다는 것을 알 수 있습니다. 그렇기 때문에 investigation을 invest로 바꿔주게 되면 문장이 더 클리어해집니다.
- When the nominalization follows there is or there are, changethe nominalization to a verb and find a subject:
Ex)
There is a need for further study of this program.
-> The engineering staff must study this program further.
이 문장을 보게 되면 "there is"가 나왔고, 그렇기 때문에 nominalization을 제거해야합니다. 또, 이 과정에서 아까 봤던 주어/동사의 법칙이 적용된 것을 알 수 있습니다.
- When the nominalization is the subject of an empty verb, change the nominalization to a verb and find a new subject.
Ex)
The intention of the IRS is to audit the records of the program.
-> The IRS intends to audit the records of the program.
- When you find consecutive nominalizations, turn the first one into a verb. Then either levae the second or turn it into a verb in a cluase beginning with how and why:
Ex)
There was first a review of the evolution of the dorsal fin.
-> First, she reviewed the evolution of the dorsal fin.
->-> First, she reviewed how the dorsal fin evolved.
- We have to revise more extensively when a nominalization in a subject is linked to a second nominalization in the predicate by a verb or phrase that logically connects them:
Ex)
Their cessation of hostilities was because of their personnel losses.
-> They ceased hostilities because they lost personnel.
Cessation과 loss가 둘 다 nominalization 이며 "was because"으로 연결되어있습니다. 또 다른 예시는 다음과 같습니다:
Ex)
The discovery of a method for the manufacture of artificial skin will have the result of an increase in the survival of patients with radical burns.
-> If researchers can discover how to manufacture artificial skin, more patients will survive radical burns.
여기까지가 피해야하는 nominalization입니다. 이제 nominalization이 득이 될 때를 설명하겠습니다.
- The nominalization is a subject referring to a previous sentence.
Ex)
These arguments all depend on a single unproven claim. This decision can lead to costly consequences.
- The nominalizations names what would be the object of its verb:
Ex)
I do not understand either her meaning or his intention.
- Some nominalizations refer to an often repeated concept.
Few issues have so divided Americas as abortion on demand.
Passives and Agents
영어 글쓰기에 있어서, 우리 모두 "수동태는 멀리하라"라는 말을 들어봤을 것입니다. 하지만 수동태를 쓰면 안 된다는 것은 아니죠. 이 섹션에서 윌리엄스는 수동태를 언제 써야하는지에 대한 법칙들을 제시합니다.
- We avoid stating who is responsible for an action, because we don't know or don't care, or because we'd just rather not say.
Ex)
Those who are found guilty of murder can be executed.
Valuable records should always be kept in a fireproof safe.
- You can make your sequence of subjects appropriately consistent. In this next passage, the writer wanted to write about the end of WW II from the point of view of Germany and Japan. So she put Germany and Japan into the subject of a verb, regardless of whether the verb was active or passive:
Ex)
By March of 1945, the Axis nations had been essentially defeated; all that reamined was a final, but bloody, climax. The borders of Germany had been breached, and both Germany and Japan were being bombed around the clock. Neither country, though, had been so devastated that it could not resist.