Linguists and writing teachers use "redundancy" differently, and it's a technical term for both groups.  To a linguist, redundancy includes anything in the structure of language that is predictable. The puff of air (aspiration) found after initial /p/, /t/, and /k/ (pin, tin, kin) vs. the absence of it after /sp/, /st/, /sk/ (spill, still, skill) is a redundant feature in speech.  The -s suffix on a singular third person present verb is redundant; it's predictable from the presence of a third singular subject.  "That" or a "wh-" word at the beginning of a relative clause is predictable and therefore redundant.  Wriiting teachers don't concern themselves with such structural redundancies, but language is impossible without it.  In that sense, it's natural.  For the writing teacher "a pair of twins" is redundant because it contains an unnecessary repetition of the dual number of both "pair" and "twins."  I suspect we all agree this sort of redundancy, while natural enough or it wouldn't occur so readily, is not desirable.

Herb
 
Herbert F. W. Stahlke, Ph.D.
Emeritus Professor of English
Ball State University
Muncie, IN  47306
[log in to unmask]
________________________________________
From: Assembly for the Teaching of English Grammar [[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Eric Muhr [[log in to unmask]]
Sent: December 1, 2009 4:55 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Reducing redundancy

Natural. Not sold on desirable.

On Tue, Dec 1, 2009 at 2:39 PM, Brett Reynolds <[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
On 2009-12-01, at 3:32 PM, Eric Muhr wrote:

> It may be clear, but it's also redundant. The construction can be simplified in order to cut down on the possibility of misinterpretation. Communicators who fail to consider the problem of ambiguity demonstrate a lack of empathy for their audience and a lack of clarity in thought.

Reduce redundancy to reduce ambiguity, eh?

Many determiners in the quoted text above seem superfluous (e.g., a lack -> lack)?
Are the modals auxiliary verbs 'may' and 'can' really needed?
Surely 'in order' is out of order.
And since the pronoun 'it' is obviously singular, conjugating 'be' for subject verb agreement is disagreeable.
Actually, many languages get by just fine without marking number, so we might as well do away with plural forms.
'Communicators' are clearly human so 'who' is redundant. Replace with 'that'.

Or perhaps a certain amount of redundancy is natural and even desirable.

Best,
Brett

-----------------------
Brett Reynolds
English Language Centre
Humber College Institute of Technology and Advanced Learning
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
    http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at: http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/