Repeating yourself is also a very good example of how written natural language and spoken natural language are very different beasts.
If you look at good, effective oratory style, and write it down, it looks totally horrible. One of the major differences is more repetition. When all the words are present, written down on a page, it's easy to go back and re-read. People can also go along at their own pace, make sure they understand before moving on, and are generally more in control of their experience.
In spoken language, the opposite is true. You have one chance to express yourself, and you have to make sure it's successful, despite the listening abilities of the audience. So while written language favors variation of vocabulary, because the same word repeated a dozen times stands out as bad style, spoken language uses it as a basic tool of getting a point across.
When I deliver presentations, I insert tons of back-references, repeating previous points or conclusions. When using powerpoint, I also insert a lot of forward-references, giving a brief outline of the topics to be immediately covered. I generally try to mimic how, if I were reading an equivalent paper, I would be flipping back through the pages or how I would have to read something a second time to understand it.
At the lower level, even sentences are allowed to repeat themselves a lot more in speech than in writing. Where a written story may use a pronoun, speech is more likely to repeat the full noun for emphasis. You can also use the trick of repeating a phrase with different vocal characteristics to emphasize it, which simply doesn't translate into writing without being awkward.
I second this. I sometimes notice people talking to me and repeating the same thing 3, 4 times, just with different words. Please! It gets on my nerves a bit. Say it once, I'll ask if I don't understand. If you need me to understand, and want assurance that I have, repeat it twice and feel free to ask 'Got it?'
I think some of this problem could be averted by better communication skills on our part. If I notice someone repeating something to me, maybe it means they don't think I've gotten it, so the best response would be to say it back to them in my own words. I've found this technique to be marvelous when I can remember to use it. ;)
It would have been nice for the author to recognize that the reason that we have the DRY principle is because there is a natural need to repeat. If information and processes didn't need to be repeated then DRY wouldn't exist in the first place.
I wouldn't describe it so much as a natural need to repeat -- rather that we use references to link concepts.
e.g.
I have an allergy attack.
Allergy medication will relieve an allergy attack.
I desire allergy medication.
I will go to the drug store and ask for allergy medication.
The underlying model consists mainly of the concepts of allergy, attack, and medication. These concepts are repeated several times, because we are describing relationships between them. Note that each use adds significant new information.
However, the sense of repeat used in the submitted article rather concerns redundancy, whereby the concept itself or a particular relationship is repeated in a redundant manner, without adding new information. This is merely to prevent miscommunication.
I would say that's pretty close to true, yes. If you look at most successful human communication, the important points are almost always repeated. If the communicator is good, he will have rephrased things such that you don't immediately notice that the same thing is being said over and over, but it's definitely there.
I struggle with this question when I write. On the one hand, I sometimes feel like I am "repeating myself but with rephrasing". On the other hand, I find that those instances of rephrasing adds content. I often get accused of being excessively long-winded, yet when I shorten things too much, I get wildly misunderstood.
I find that many people don't have the context. I suspect part of it is that I don't see the world the same way most people see it. Shorter remarks rely on shared context to be properly understood. Example: In my teens, I remarked to my father that I was considering "running" (something). I was a role playing gamer considering taking up gamemastering. He assumed I meant jogging for exercise. I didn't bother to try to correct. It seemed futile.
This sometimes bites me.. I find myself frustrated when I am repeating myself. I'm usually thinking, "but I said that like 2 minutes ago wtf". Nice explaination.
If you look at good, effective oratory style, and write it down, it looks totally horrible. One of the major differences is more repetition. When all the words are present, written down on a page, it's easy to go back and re-read. People can also go along at their own pace, make sure they understand before moving on, and are generally more in control of their experience.
In spoken language, the opposite is true. You have one chance to express yourself, and you have to make sure it's successful, despite the listening abilities of the audience. So while written language favors variation of vocabulary, because the same word repeated a dozen times stands out as bad style, spoken language uses it as a basic tool of getting a point across.
When I deliver presentations, I insert tons of back-references, repeating previous points or conclusions. When using powerpoint, I also insert a lot of forward-references, giving a brief outline of the topics to be immediately covered. I generally try to mimic how, if I were reading an equivalent paper, I would be flipping back through the pages or how I would have to read something a second time to understand it.
At the lower level, even sentences are allowed to repeat themselves a lot more in speech than in writing. Where a written story may use a pronoun, speech is more likely to repeat the full noun for emphasis. You can also use the trick of repeating a phrase with different vocal characteristics to emphasize it, which simply doesn't translate into writing without being awkward.