|
|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
JAC Volume 6 |
 |
|
Editor: 
|
The Generational Cliché: Then You Saw It; Now They Don't1Gary A. OlsonIn “Clichés: Error Recognition or Subjective Reality?” (College English, February 1982), I tried to demonstrate that often we erroneously assume that our students can recognize clichés in their prose, and consequently we are tempted to treat these clichés as errors. For the study I selected 41 expressions from the lists of “Common Clichés” published in several current composition texts and devised a cloze test survey in which respondents were asked to supply the final word of each cliché. The survey revealed that 120 college freshmen could recognize no more than 50% of the “common clichés.” It also revealed that there may exist such a linguistic phenomenon as a generational cliché: a figure of speech once considered a cliché but which now, having fallen into disuse, is no longer by definition a cliché—an overworked figure of speech. For example, during the 1930’s the expression “snappy roadster” was a cliché, but now one rarely hears the expression. If generational clichés do exist, as this present study strongly suggests, we must redefine not only our conceptions of clichés but also our pedagogical approaches to them. Aside from numerous textbook declarations that clichés should be avoided, little has been written about cliché use; in fact, no substantive research has yet been published. Clearly, the most sophisticated, in-depth treatment of the subject is Anton C. Zijderveld’s speculative study, On Clichés: The Supersedure of Meaning by Function in Modernity (London: Roultedge and Keegan Paul, 1979). Approaching the subject from the perspective of a sociologist, Zijderveld argues that as expressions become hackneyed, their meanings are lost but they take on functional roles. For example, while there is little or no meaning in the common greeting “How are you today?” the phrase has become purely functional; such expressions allow persons to undertake routine communications without rethinking strategies at each new meeting.2 Thus, clichés help streamline social interaction in that they provide a means of expression that is automatic and necessitates no cognitive reflection. It is important to note that Zijderveld’s concept of the cliché
is metalinguistic. By cliché he means all hackneyed expressions,
gestures, social-behavioral phenomena, and set perceptions of reality,
not merely overused figures of speech. According to Zijerveld: This study examines clichés as figures of speech. In order to test the hypothesis that generational clichés exist, I devised a cloze test designed to determine whether different age groups respond to clichés differently. Using the lists of common clichés in 30 composition texts published from 1931 to the present (see Table I), I compiled a survey of 45 clichés, half of which seemed to be dated expressions.4 The survey asked respondents to provide their age and level of education and to supply the missing final word in each of the 45 clichés. TABLE 1 List of Texts Consulted5
Date Text Author 1931 Business English Ross 1935 Creative Writing Williams 1937 Writing and Rewriting Shaw 1939 American Composition and Rhetoric Davidson 1939 Plain English Handbook Walsh & Walsh 1940 Scribner Handbook of English Marckwardt 1940 Handbook of English Stratton 1942 A Writer’s Handbook of American Usage Habes 1942 Handbook of English Usage Canby, et. a!. 1946 Harbrace College Handbook Hodges 1950 Writing with a Purpose (1st ed.) McCrimmon 1951 English Grammar and Composition Warriner 1951 Current English Composition Geist, et. a!. 1952 An American Rhetoric Watt 1952 The Harper Handbook Wykoff, et. a!. 1960 McGraw-Hill Handbook of English Shaffer, et. A. 1964 Words and Ideas Guth 1965 Principles of Writing Halverson, et. a!. 1968 Handbook of Current English Perrin, et. a!. 1969 A Dictionary of Freshman Composition Smith 1973 Writing Well (1st ed.) Hall 1973 A Crash Course in Composition McMahan 1975 A Dictionary of Problem Words Shaw 1976 The Writing Commitment Adelstein, et. a!. 1977 Process and Thought in Composition D’Angelo 1980 Writing with a Purpose (7th ed.) McCrimmon 1980 Writing Is an Unnatural Act Raymond 1981 The Heath Handbook of Composition Elsbree, et. a!. 1982 Writing Well (4th ed.) Hall 1982 The Least You Know about English Glazier Before distributing the test, I decided to divide the responses into three age groups: below 30, from 30 to 50, and above 50. Since the test population ranged in age from 17 to over 70, this division provided three groups, each spanning roughly 15 to 20 years. To help ensure uniformity, I collected the identical number of surveys for each group. An impressive total of 4,011 respondents (1,337 per group) from 14 states completed the surveys. (Please see Table II). Such a large data base from various geographic regions helps add validity to the study’s findings. TABLE II List of States from which Responses Were Gathered Alabama Georgia New Jersey Virginia California Illinois New York Washington Connecticut Massachusetts North Carolina Florida Michigan South Carolina
In scoring the test, I always gave respondents the benefit of the doubt. For example, I awarded credit for misspellings and even for alternative words that sounded like the correct ones (last but not lease, for instance). I also gave credit for variant clichés, since several of the expressions on the survey allowed for variant answers (for example, drunk as a lord, skunk, sailor, etc.). The survey is printed below, with the answers (the words which completed the clichés in the composition texts) in parentheses. LANGUAGE SURVEY Directions: Thank you for completing this brief language survey. Please
supply the missing word in each figure of speech printed below. You
may not recognize each expression; simply leave blank those you do not.
Please do not look these expressions up before answering. We are studying
how different age groups respond to certain figures of speech, so your
correct age is important. DO NOT SUPPLY YOUR NAME. Thank you for your
assistance. (least)
The data from the 4,011 respondents show a strong connection between age and the ability to recognize the test expressions. The respondents in the above 50 age bracket (hereafter called Group A) recognized 84% of the clichés (an average of 38 of the 45).6 The average age of these respondents was 62. (Please see Table III.) By contrast, the respondents in the 30 to 50 age bracket (Group B) recognized only 69% of the test expressions (31 of the 45). The average age of these respondents was 38. Members of the below 30 age bracket (Group C) recognized only 51% of the clichés (23 of the 45). This score corresponds closely with the results of the original College English study. The average age of respondents in Group C was 19; most members of this group were college freshmen.
TABLE III Average Test Scores by Age Group There is a clear progression in the ability to recognize the test expressions as the age of the respondents rises. Group B recognized 18% more clichés than did Group C, and Group A recognized 15% more than did Group B (33% more than did Group C). This range of 33% from highest to lowest age bracket is a significant span, illustrating a clear connection between age and cliché recognition. In addition, the data show that the respondents’ level of formal education was not a significant factor. The members of Group A, with the highest cliché recognition rate, had the lowest level of education: 4 years of high school to 1 year of college. The members of Group B, with only the second highest scores, had the highest educational level: 4 to 5 years of college. (Please see Table IV.) If the level of education were a determining factor, Group B, which contained many respondents with advanced degrees (including many English teachers and professors), would have scored significantly higher. TABLE IV Educational Levels While educational level did not seem to have a bearing on the groups’ ability to recognize the expressions, the types of clichés (dated or current, as determined by their currency in the composition texts consulted) seemed most relevant. For example, 89% of the respondents in Group A recognized “stood him in good stead,” while only 32% of those in Group C did. A surprising 61% of those in Group A answered “drunk as a lord" (the cliché selected from Principles of Writing), while only 3% in Group C did (most picked an alternative such as “drunk as a skunk”).7 Another striking example is the expression “his filthy lucre.” While 56% of the respondents in Group A recognized the expression, only 34% of those in Group B and a mere 2% of those in Group C recognized it. In fact, the same type of progression is evident with most of the clichés I had considered from the outset to be “dated.” Such expressions as “the acid test,” “going to rack and ruin,” “monarch of all he surveys,” "beard the lion in his den,” and “many a slip between cup and lip” were all recognized by most members of Group A, a lesser number of those in Group B, and few in Group C. Certainly, many of the expressions selected from the lists of common clichés are no longer “common”; they are leaving or have left our idiomatic vocabulary. Older native speakers generally recognize these expressions because at one time the phrases were much more current than they are now. Many younger native speakers have never heard the expressions. It is reasonable to conclude, then, that such dated expressions are technically not clichés, or perhaps they are a subset of clichés: generational clichés. The only researcher who touches on the possibility of generational
clichés is, again, Anton Zijderveld in the work mentioned previously.
Zijderveld sees clichés as part of the socialization process
and as tools in helping youngsters learn their native language. Stock
expressions are passed down through generations, thereby contributing
to language acquisition and to adaptation to the values and thought
system of a particular culture. Only in one short paragraph, however,
does Zijderveld reflect on clichés falling in and out of use The facts of this present study, however, raise important considerations. First, we must fine-tune our definition of clichés. If “beard the lion in his den” is no longer recognized as a common expression by most people under 50 years old, is it really a cliché—a hackneyed figure of speech? Doesn’t it then fall into some “other” category? Dead expressions? Former clichés? Generational clichés? Is there a time, then, when it becomes acceptable or even beneficial to resurrect a generational cliché and use it effectively in a piece of modern prose? John LeCarre, the acclaimed author of espionage novels, has used variations of “beard the lion in his den” several times in a few of his most recent novels, Smiley's People in particular. This dated cliché seems to enhance not detract from the quality of LeCarre’s prose, and certainly neither he nor his editor appears to have had any qualms about using the expression. Most clichés began as original and powerful expressions—so powerful that everyone decided to use them. When we deliberately use a generational cliché in our writing, aren’t we then opting to use a powerful expression and one which is no longer hackneyed? In other words, perhaps the dated cliché, since it is no longer overused, still contains its original evocative power, so that its judicious use may actually enhance rather than sully prose. The results of this study have pedagogical as well as theoretical implications. What advice do we give our students on the subject? Surely, we wish students to create original, fresh expressions and to avoid hackneyed ones; but we can no longer simply send them to the list of common clichés in their textbook and warn them to “watch out for these expressions.” No longer can we presume, either (as both the present study and the initial College English one confirm), that all the expressions we recognize to be hackneyed will be recognized automatically by our students to be so. Clearly, the subject of clichés is psychologically complex and deserves much more attention than it has received. Besides indicating that generational clichés exist, the research data reveal some other interesting facts about cliché recognition. Many respondents clearly had heard certain clichés before, but their answers illustrate that they did not know the meaning of the expressions. For example, often respondents supplied sound-alikes in place of the expected word. Perhaps the most striking illustration of this phenomenon is with the phrase “nipped in the bud.” An astounding 184 respondents, with representatives in all three groups, answered “nipped in the butt.” Butt, of course, sounds almost indistinguishable from bud but carries with it a totally different meaning. And it is in fact this meaning that respondents seem to have had in mind. Consider: 16 respondents answered ass; 4 behind; 4 end; 2 can. It appears that many respondents not only confused the sound of these lexical units but also the meaning. The data illustrate other examples of this phenomenon. In response to the cliché “last but not least,” 20 answered lease, 6 leash, and 2 yeast. What do these people think these clichés mean? What do they visualize when they hear them? Another 24 respondents wrote “bury the hatch” ; 25 said “turn over a new lease” ; and 59 answered “conspicuous by his actions.” Clearly, these respondents have heard the expressions but are not deriving the meaning that these clichés originally embodied. And what about the 83 respondents who wrote “fit as a fittle” ? Most of these people, many in Groups A and B, must surely know how to spell fiddle. Do they think there is another word spelled f-i-t-t-l-e with some other meaning? What do they think “fit as a fiddle” means? Do they visualize a violin? The data reveal close to 50 additional examples of this interesting phenomenon, but I’ll provide just five more: 7 respondents, most of them from Group A, wrote “monarch of all he conveys” ; 8 said “from every walk of light” ; 11 answered “straight and narrow patch” ; and 18 wrote “few and far beyond.” Finally, with the phrase “at one fell swoop,” 2 respondents supplied scoop, 11 stroke, and 15 sweep. While it can be argued that the percentage of respondents who confused each of the clichés is insignificant, the data in the larger sense are important: a substantial number of respondents from all age groups and educational levels did show that though they had heard certain common expressions, they nevertheless did not understand their meanings. Considering only the misunderstood clichés mentioned above, 500 respondents had confused at least one of the expressions. (Generally, few respondents confused more than one cliché, and no one confused more than three.) This cognitive ambiguity about the meaning of clichés correlates
closely with one of Zijderveld’s theories: that there is a strong
"behaviouristic stimulus-response mechanism” built into cliché
use, in that such prefabricated expressions trigger pre-determined responses
(Fowler’s “associated reflexes”). That is, neither
the cliché user nor the listener thinks (in the true sense of
the word) of the expression’s actual meaning; both parties avoid
cognitive reflection. Clearly, the respondents who answered “
monarch of all he conveys ” or “from every walk of light
” could not have been pondering the semantic meaning of these
phrases. Zijderveld writes: The fact that many people fail to reflect cognitively when using clichés does not seem to disturb Zijderveld. In fact, he contends that because clichés play a clearly functional role in conversation, they have value. He writes, “In the cognitive vagueness, emotional instability and normal uncertainty brought about by modernization, clichés provide the individual with clarity, stability and certainty” (p. 46). Nevertheless, it is not clear how anyone can reconcile such a statement with the apparent evidence that clichés carry little or no semantic meaning for many speakers and writers. Even in its most elemental form, communication is a difficult process. Vague, hazy, meaningless expressions cannot but make such a process even more difficult. At a time when experts and lay-persons alike are demanding more precision and accuracy in communication, it is hard to defend clichés, despite their social functionality. This sound-alike phenomenon, coupled with evidence of the generational cliché, illustrates how little we really know about clichés and how readers and writers process them cognitively. The present study is only a beginning; much more research needs to be conducted. First, we must discover the relationship between cliché recognition and the cognitive process: how does a reader’s brain process clichés in context? Is a hackneyed expression devoid of meaning, so that a reader treats it like a blank, a mere functional word in the sentence’s proposition? Both this study and Zijderveld suggest that such is the case. Or does a cliché really transmit meaning? Perhaps we should not demand that an expression transmit a logical, semantic, left-brain type of meaning; perhaps intuitive, right-brain meaning is just as important. When does a cliché become a non-cliché? And most importantly, how, in the light of our new and imperfect understanding of clichés, do we treat the subject in our classrooms? Must we as English professors seek artificially to preserve the egregiousness of any expression that has ever been used? May we not inform students of clichés that are past and passing even as we strive against those that are to come? In short, if we are honest, have we any choice but to reopen what has clearly emerged as a prematurely shut case? University of South Florida NOTES 1 I am indebted to Louis Middleman of Virginia Polytechnic Institute
for suggesting the title of this essay and for reading and making valuable
comments on an early draft. |
||
|
 |
 |
|||||||||
|
|||||||||
