how do i recognize and eliminate overused/empty phrases and words?

>>9166040

Strunk's rule 13: omit needless words

ctrl+f

>>9166040
omit needless words
avoid repeat the same expression to the point of redundancy
edit, edit, edit. Revise, revise, revise.
expand your vocabulary every once in awhile
revisit queer and unfamiliar words you learned lately to refresh them in your mind

>>9166048
i'm not talking about filler words or ones that can be eliminated. rather hackneyed ones and clichées

>>9166074
what if i also want to eliminate them in my speech? i can't edit and revise that easily

i have picked up the habit of being aware of others using such words/phrases and it makes all you say/write meaningless. now i wonder how often i do the same

>>9166078
Leave it be for a while then come back to it. Near-future you will be almost a different person.

>>9166078
Only by through experience reading. "Politics and the English Language" by Orwell is helpful, although he's guilty of some of his own sins in the very essay.

In my opinion, the "heart for mind" metaphor is one such. Not only is it overused, it's a holdover from when humans didn't know whether one's seat of knowledge and memory was in the chest or in the head, since when one stabbed one in either of those places one would end up dead regardless. So I tend to avoid things like "He knew in his heart..." etc.

>>9166040
>>9166078
I can give you examples from your own posts. In your first one you could've just said "How do I eliminate extraneous words?" You don't need to specify "recognize" because obviously you need to recognize it before eliminating it. So just cut to the chase. You say "overused/empty" in an attempt to be more descriptive of the kinds of things you want to get rid of; in the process you end up cluttering your sentence, making your meaning MORE obscure, not less. More words might seem like your being more descriptive, but usually it works out to be the opposite.

Look, for instance, at your second post. "Filler words or ones that can be eliminated." Those are the same thing. Just pick one phrase and use it. By using both, you're not making your meaning any clearer.

>>9166094
>only by through
Jesus fuck, I guess I'm retarded. Meant "only through," that "by" came out like a parapraxis

>>9166086
Can't do it on the fly, but if you notice you say a certain phrase often you can consciously stop using it.

>>9166040
You could do what John Ashbery does and slurp up every empty phrase, every cliche, and fill it up with something preternaturally off; or, you can just read his zillion poems and make a list.

>>9166100
that was helpful.

how can i train this?

>>9166134
Read some tech writing manuals and practice.

>>9166091
might work

but obviously not for spoken words

>>9166094
that's exactly what i mean. it feels like every language is cluttered with such phrases

>>9166134
The point of writing is to convey information, even if you're writing fiction. Just get in the habit of asking yourself: "Does this make my meaning clearer?" If not, cut it. You can always practice flowery prose later

If you can't recognize hackneyed language on sight then you are not a very experienced reader. Ironically it's the people with "plebeian" taste that are often much better at spotting cliche and hackneyed phrases than those who only read selected works of genius. There's no substitute for experience after all. Without having read many works of mediocre literature your only basis for identifying cliches are the ones you memorized out of style guides, which just makes your advice entirely artificial rather than something born out of personal knowledge and experience.

>>9166143
Every language is cluttered with such phrases. But you don't have to use them.

Another rule that helped me (from Orwell, again): If the metaphor doesn't make physical sense, don't use it. I like this example, from Paul Ryan: "We will stand shoulder to shoulder with the Syrian people and sow the seeds of change."

Now, how the fuck can you sow seeds if you're standing shoulder to shoulder? Are you all going to bend, sow, and stand back up in unison? I guess Syrians are natural line dancers, or something.

Seriously, "Politics and the English Language," by George Orwell.

>>9166143
i've never thought of that!
thanks for the idea, anon

>>9166148
i will use this test in the future. thanks!

you guys got any more advice?

>>9166157
i'm not only talking about spotting them in written form.
i want to get rid of them in general

>>9166158
would that book have any merit if the language i usually use isn't english?

>>9166181
It's an essay, not a book. You can find the pdf online easily.

I would say it does, if you're fluent enough to understand his rant about word etymology. Though this is the most useless part, the essay falls to pieces without it.

>>9166188
off to reading it then