direct approach is usually best. State your point or offer your news
immediately and briefly, and then explain any other information the reader
needs to know.
Finding the proper tone is more difficult if you are delivering bad
news. In this case, taking an indirect approach may be a better strategy.
In the first few sentences, for example, you could begin on a positive note
by stating how much you want to work with the reader’s company or by
reminding the reader of times you accommodated his or her requests in the
past. When you do get to your point, try to minimize the reader’s
disappointment or anger by delivering the message in carefully considered
language that conveys your news clearly but tactfully.
Establishing a Courteous Tone
The fast pace of letters makes it easy to send a message
without fully considering the nuances of its tone. If you do not take the
time to think about your words and how they may be perceived, your letters
may seem overly blunt or even insulting.
A simple rule can keep you from writing inadvertently offensive
letters: Always ask yourself how you would feel if you received the message
you are sending. If you would bristle at its terseness, you can assume the
reader will as well. If you are unsure how the message might be taken, ask
for someone else’s opinion, or let it sit overnight and read it again the
next morning with a fresh eye.
If someone sends you a rude e-mail message (or “flame,” in e-mail
slang), take a moment to calm down before responding. The best way to douse
a flame is to write back using the most neutral and measured tone you can
muster. In some cases it’s best not to respond to a flame.
4. Style of a business letter
Now I will deal with some common writing problems that do not involve rules
of grammar. These problems—of parallelism, redundancy, and the like—are
more rhetorical than grammatical; that is, they involve choices you must
make as a writer trying to create a certain style of expression. You must
determine what stylistic choices will afford greater clarity and cogency to
each of your efforts to communicate. We all make different choices when
faced with different communicative tasks depending on what we feel will be
most effective. An expression that is appropriate for a formal letter may
be utterly off-putting in an informal message.
A successful and distinctive writing style is an elusive bird of
paradise. It is unmistakable once you see it but difficult to find. It
involves many things: creating an appropriate voice for your purpose,
choosing the right words for the subject and audience, constructing elegant
sentences whose rhythm reinforces their meaning, presenting an argument in
a logical fashion that is both engaging and easy to follow, finding vivid
images to make thoughts accessible to your readers. You can probably add to
this list. You may, for example, want to shock or jolt your audience rather
than court it, and this strategy requires stylistic features that are quite
different from those you would use for gentle persuasion.
Parallelism
Most memorable writing has as one of its recognizable features the ample
use of parallel grammatical structures. A basic guideline about parallel
constructions is to make sure that all the elements in a balanced pair or
in a series have the same grammatical form. That is, if you start with a
that-clause, stick with that-clauses; if you start with an infinitive,
stick with infinitives; if you start with a participle, stick with
participles; and so on. What you don’t want is a mixed bag, as in She had a
strong desire to pursue medicine and for studying literature or The
scientist asked for volunteers with allergies but who had not given blood
recently.
A second point is to make sure that once you have chosen the kind of
grammatical forms you want to make parallel, you structure them
symmetrically. Remember that an initial article, preposition, auxiliary
verb, or modifier will tend to govern all elements in the series unless it
is repeated for each element. For example, if you set up a series of nouns
with the first modified by an adjective, the reader will expect the
adjective to modify the rest of the series as well. Thus you should say The
building has new lighting, plumbing, and carpeting but not The building has
new lighting, plumbing, and different carpeting. The same is true for
articles: He brought the rod, reel, and bait. If you want to restrict a
modifier to only one noun, repeat the article for each noun: He brought the
light rod, the reel, and the bait.
When you spot a faulty parallel, recast the structure to give all
the elements equivalent treatment. If your new parallel construction does
not seem much of an improvement, rewrite the sentence completely to avoid
the parallel construction. Better to have no parallel structures than to
have parallel structures that sound overblown or stilted.
Faulty parallelism is all around us. We see and hear it every
day—often without taking notice. How many times have you heard Please leave
your name, number, and a brief message? After waiting for the tone, have
you ever objected to the imperfect symmetry of this sentence? In our most
recent ballot we presented some sentences with questionable parallelism to
the usage panelists to see how tolerant they would be. As we expected, they
had a range of opinions.
Crafting sentences with flawless parallelism takes effort and
practice. Even if your readers don’t notice or object when you make
mistakes, balance and symmetry are worth striving for in your writing.
There are certain constructions that are notorious for throwing things out
of whack. I listed some of them below.
both … and …
comparisons with as and than
compound verbs
either … or / neither … nor
not only … but also
rather than
Passive Voice
Writing handbooks usually include warnings about the passive voice—it
is wordy and clumsy and leads to static rather than dynamic writing. There
is truth to this, certainly, but the passive voice also has legitimate
uses, and in many instances it is preferable to the active voice.
Such phrases as "The material will be delivered"; "The start date is
to be decided"; "The figures must be approved" are obscure ones leaving
unsettled who it is that delivers, who decides, and who does the
approving. Which side it is to be? Lawsuits are the plausible outcome
of leaving it all unsettled. Passives used in contracts can destroy the
whole negotiations. "You will deliver" is better for it identifies the
one who will do delivering. Certainly, "must be approved by us" violates
other canons. "We shall have the right but not the obligation to approve"
is less unfortunate.
There is no doubt that passives do not suit business letters, and
if they go all the way through without adding something like "by you" or
"by us" they are intolerable. Once in a long while one may find passives
used purposely to leave something unresolved.
Redundancy
A certain amount of redundancy is built in to the English language,
and we would never consider getting rid of it. Take grammatical number, for
instance. Sentences such as 'He drives to work' and 'We are happy' contain
redundant verb forms. The -s of drives indicates singularity of the
subject, but we already know the subject is singular from the singular
pronoun he. Similarly, are indicates a plural subject, which is already
evident from the plural pronoun we. Number is also indicated redundantly in
phrases like this book and those boxes, where the demonstrative adjective
shows number and the noun does as well.
But there are redundant ways of saying things that can make the rest
of your writing seem foolish. Many of these are common expressions that go
unnoticed in casual conversation but that stick out like red flags in
writing. Why say at this point in time instead of now, or because of the
fact that when because will do? Something that is large in size is really
just large. The trouble lies less in the expressions themselves than in
their accumulated effect. Anyone can be forgiven for an occasional
redundancy, but writing that is larded with redundancies is likely to draw
unwanted laughs rather than admiration.
Listed below are some of the more problematic redundancies.
but … however
close proximity
consensus
consider as / deem as
cross section
else
empty rhetoric
equally as
free gift
from whence
inside of
mental telepathy
old adage
rarely ever / seldom ever
reason is because
reason why
refer back
revert back
VAT tax
Wordiness
In a world in which efficiency has become a prime value, most people
view economy in wording as a sign of intelligence. Its opposite, therefore,
is often considered a sign of stupidity. Most of us are busy and impatient
people. We hate to wait. Using too many words is like asking people to
stand in line until you get around to the point. It is irritating, which
hardly helps when you are trying to win someone’s goodwill or show that you
know what you’re talking about. What is worse, using too many words often
makes it difficult to understand what is being said. It forces a reader to
work hard to figure out what is going on, and in many cases the reader may
simply decide it is not worth the effort. Another side effect of verbosity
is the tendency to sound overblown, pompous, and evasive. What better way
to turn off a reader?
It is easy to recommend concision in expression but much harder to
figure out how to achieve it. In general, wordy writing has three
distinguishing characteristics: weak verbs, ponderous nouns, and lots of
prepositional phrases. The three are interconnected.
The key to writing clearly and concisely is to use strong active
verbs. This means that you should only use the passive voice when you have
a solid reason for doing so. If you look down a page you have written and
see that you are relying on forms of the verb be and other weak verbs like
seem and appear, you can often boil down what you have written to a
fraction of its size by revising with active verbs.
Here is an example:
It is essential to acknowledge that one of the drawbacks to the increased
utilization of part-time employees is that people who are still engaged
full-time by the company are less likely to be committed to the recognition
and identification of problems in the production area.
This passage has 45 words. We can boil it down to 14 by cutting out the
unnecessary words, using active verbs, and using noun modifiers to do the
work of prepositional phrases:
Using more part-time employees often makes full-time employees less
willing to report production problems.
A certain amount of repetition and redundancy has its uses. It
never hurts to thank someone and add that you appreciate what was done. The
recapitulation of the major points in a complicated essay can be a generous
service to the reader, not a needless repetition. If you keep focused on
what you are trying to accomplish and on what will help your readers or
your listeners, you will have less need to remember formal rules of good
writing. You will be able to trust your instincts and your ear.
5. Lexics of business letters
From the lexicological point of view isolated words and phrases mean
very little. In context they mean a great deal, and in the special
context of contractual undertakings they mean everything. Contract
English is a prose organised according to plan.
And it includes, without limitation, the right but not the
obligation to select words from a wide variety of verbal implements and
write clearly, accurately, and/or with style.
Two phases of writing contracts exist: in the first, we react to
proposed contracts drafted by somebody else, and in the second, which
presents greater challenge, we compose our own.
A good contract reads like a classic story. It narrates, in orderly
sequence, that one part should do this and another should do that, and
perhaps if certain events occur, the outcome will be changed. All of
the rate cards charts, and other reference material ought to be ticked off
one after another according to the sense of it. Tables and figures, code
words and mystical references are almost insulting unless organised and
defined. Without organisation they baffle, without definition they
entrap.
In strong stance one can send back the offending document and request
a substitute document in comprehensible English. Otherwise a series of
questions may be put by letter, and the replies often will have
contractual force if the document is later contested.
Contract phrases
Now it appears logical to examine the examples of favourite
contract phrases, which will help ease the way to fuller examination of
entire negotiations and contracts. A full glossary is beyond reach but in
what follows there is a listing of words and phrases that turn up in great
many documents, with comments on each one. The words and phrases are
presented in plausible contract sequence, not alphabetically.
"Whereas" Everyone's idea of how a contract begins. Some lawyers
dislike "Whereas" and use recitation clauses so marked to distinguish them
from the text in the contract. There the real issue lies; one must be
careful about mixing up recitals of history with what is actually being
agreed on. For example, it would be folly to write: "Whereas A admits
owing B $10,000..." because the admission may later haunt one,
especially if drafts are never signed and the debt be disputed. Rather
less damaging would be:
e.g. "Whereas the parties have engaged in a series of
transactions resulting in dispute over accounting between them..."
On the whole "Whereas" is acceptable, but what follows it needs
particular care.
"It is understood and agreed" On the one hand, it usually adds
nothing, because every clause in the contract is "understood and agreed" or
it would not be written into it. On the other hand, what it adds is an
implication that other clauses are not backed up by this phrase: by
including the one you exclude the other. «It is understood and agreed»
ought to be banished.
"Hereinafter" A decent enough little word doing the job of six
("Referred to later in this document"). "Hereinafter" frequently sets up
abbreviated names for the contract parties.
e.g. "Knightsbridge International Drapes and Fishmonger, Ltd
(hereinafter "Knightsbridge").
"Including Without Limitation" It is useful and at times essential
phrase. Earlier I've noted that mentioning certain things may exclude
others by implication. Thus,
e.g. "You may assign your exclusive British and Commonwealth rights"
suggests that you may not assign other rights assuming you have any. Such
pitfalls may be avoided by phrasing such as:
e.g. "You may assign any and all your rights including without
limitation your exclusive British and Commonwealth rights".
But why specify any rights if all of them are included? Psychology
is the main reason; people want specific things underscored in the
contracts, and "Including Without Limitation" indulges this
prediction.
"Assignees and Licensees" These are important words which
acceptability depends on one's point of view
"Knightsbridge, its assignees and licensees..."
suggests that Knightsbridge may hand you over to somebody else after
contracts are signed. If you yourself happen to be Knightsbridge, you
will want that particular right and should use the phrase.
"Without Prejudice" It is a classic. The British use this phrase all
by itself, leaving the reader intrigued. "Without Prejudice" to what
exactly? Americans spell it out more elaborately, but if you stick
to American way, remember "Including Without Limitation", or you may
accidentally exclude something by implication. Legal rights, for example,
are not the same thing as remedies the law offers to enforce them. Thus
the American might write:
"Without prejudice to any of my existing or future rights or
remedies..."
And this leads to another phrase.
"And/or" It is an essential barbarism. In the preceding example I've
used the disjunctive "rights or remedies". This is not always good
enough, and one may run into trouble with
"Knightsbridge or Tefal or either of them shall..."
What about both together? "Knightsbridge and Tefal", perhaps, followed by
"or either". Occasionally the alternatives become overwhelming, thus
Страницы: 1, 2, 3, 4
