Answer: Adding "Out" After a Vocalization

[http://users.livejournal.com/traycer_/]

starwatcher307 asked: Is it correct to add "out" after a vocalization? (i.e. "he hissed out", "he gasped out", etc.)

With examples from Harry Potter.


Eliminating Unnecessary Words

Using the word "out" after a vocalization is not correct simply because it happens to be a redundancy, or words in a phrase that expresses the same thing. Why say more when you can say less?

The Oxford Companion to the English Language defines redundancy as more of anything than is (strictly) needed, usually resulting from repetition or duplication. In other words, repetition is never a good thing, especially when it occurs within a single sentence. Let's look at an example:

Harry nearly stumbled as he ran through the Forbidden Forest, his breath frosting in the air. "I think we've lost them," he gasped out.

In the above example, the word out is useless. It just adds clutter to the sentence because we get the exact same meaning with the word, "gasped". Try reading the above without the word out.

Harry nearly stumbled as he ran through the Forbidden Forest, his breath frosting in the air. "I think we've lost them," he gasped.

This sounds much more dramatic, doesn't it? The writing is concise and is not dragged down by extra baggage. We, as readers, don't need to be told twice that Harry gasped the words. We got it the first time.

William Strunk put a finer point on this when he wrote about sentence structure in his book, "Elements of Style":

"A sentence should contain no unnecessary words, a paragraph no unnecessary sentences, for the same reason that a drawing should have no unnecessary lines and a machine no unnecessary parts."
- From "Elements of Style" - http://www.bartleby.com/141/strunk5.html#13

To reiterate, using out when expressing how a person speaks adds more words to the story than are necessary and should never be included in the dialogue tag.


For more information on dialogue, see this excellent post written by lady_ganesh.

Comments

[pathology-doc.livejournal.com]

The converse of this would seem to be: "If you need the word to preserve rhyme and meter in a song, poem or ballad, go for it."

Alternatively, it seems to me that having a character say it would at least lay the blame for the extra word at the character's door. After all, we know that how we speak is (generally) not how we write. e.g.:

"I shall pursue you to the ends of the earth!" Draco said to Harry as wizards in white coats dragged him through the Great Hall and away to St Mungo's. "I shall scream out your name and my lusts for you on every street corner from here to Durmstrang!"

[starwatcher]

.
That's how I do it. I try to use 'correct' grammar in narration, but use 'colloquial' grammar in dialog. And that changes, depending which character is speaking.
.

[http://users.livejournal.com/traycer_/]

Hee!! I loved the vision of Draco being dragged off by men in white coats! :)

I confess that I have very little knowledge of constructing poetry, so you may be right in that respect. I don't know…

As for how a character speaks, it's very true that they may say it wrong based on their upbringing and circumstances. And it's so easy to insert the extra words into the character's dialogue because of our own use of language. In fact, I have to be very careful when editing my own work to make sure I find all the references to "just", and delete more than half of them while I'm at it. I just have this habit of using that word all the time. :)

No matter if the character says it or not within the dialogue, redundancy should not be used after a vocalization, or in a dialogue tag, as the question was posed (at least how I interpreted it).

[sid]

Would 'cried out' be an exception? Since 'cried' on its own could be taken to mean 'sobbed', which would be the wrong interpretation.

[starwatcher]

.
There are a few exceptions, which I don't recall unless I'm using them; 'cried out' is one of them. Sometimes adding the 'out' makes the meaning clearer, although even 'cried' may be sufficient, depending on the context and structure of the sentence.

I check my internal grammar monitor whenever I use 'out' with a manner of speaking. In - moaned out, groaned out, shouted out, snapped out, snarled out, roared out - the 'out' adds nothing. But 'forced out', 'ground out' and 'pointed out' need to go together. (IMO, YMMV.)
.

[http://users.livejournal.com/traycer_/]

As I mentioned to sidlj, 'cried out' really isn't an exception, because you could use the word 'yelled' and get the same result.

But 'forced out', 'ground out' and 'pointed out' need to go together

Again, there are alternate words that could be used in these examples, but just as important, these words should not be used as vocalization. 'Ground out', for example, is a baseball term, but even if used (liberally) as a vocalization, you could still replace it with 'growled'. And 'forced out' is another example of having absolutely nothing to do with vocalization and should not be used in that context.

Basically, there are no exceptions to the rule when it comes to redundancies. We just need to find an alternate way of saying something to get our meaning across.

[starwatcher]

.
because you could use the word 'yelled' and get the same result.

True. But for me, there's also a rhythm and 'flavor' of chosen words -- sometimes one fits where the thesaurus-equivalent doesn't. Totally subjective, but it works for me.

Hee! I don't follow baseball, so didn't know about 'ground out'. But as for 'forced out' -- if we're trying to convey a manner of speaking, I don't see why it couldn't be valid in certain limited circumstances.
.

[http://users.livejournal.com/traycer_/]

You could certainly use whatever words you wanted to. It's your story after all. It won't be grammatically correct, but nothing is stopping you from going with the words you want. Most people do that anyway. :)

The same goes for using 'forced out'. If you want to use it, go for it! But vocalization is dependent upon sound, and 'forced out' is not a sound, no matter how you look at it. Granted, it describes how sound is propelled, but it does not describe the actual sound itself. Check out this link to learn more about vocalization, and the words you can use to describe it. http://www.thefreedictionary.com/Vocalization

People don't 'force out' ideas and words, they say, ask or think them.

[starwatcher]

.
People don't 'force out' ideas and words,

I respectfully disagree. 'Force' implies working against a physical or psychological stress. When I read that the character 'forced out' an utterance, I can hear the strain in their voice. But it doesn't often appear; most of our characters aren't in such dire straits.

Thanks for the link; it's a nice resource.
.

[http://users.livejournal.com/traycer_/]

Not necessarily, because you could use 'yelled' and still get the same result, with fewer words. There is always a workaround to avoid redundancies.

[lady-lirenel.livejournal.com]

I'm thinking the added 'out' is a remnant from the Anglo-Saxon where there was a slight difference between 'sendan' and 'onsenden'. They added the prefix in order to make a slight change in meaning. I think we tend to add words to give a slight difference in meaning as well, we just don't add them as prefices.

Or I could be completely wrong. Not quite awake yet.

[starwatcher]

.
a remnant from the Anglo-Saxon where there was a slight difference between 'sendan' and 'onsenden'.

Cool! I wasn't aware of that structure.

I think we tend to add words to give a slight difference in meaning as well,

I can see it in some instances -- the difference between 'cried' and 'cried out' that sidlj mentioned. But if there's a difference between 'shouted' and 'shouted out', it's too slight for me to notice. Perhaps there's a regional variation and/or meaning that others might not recognize.
.

[lady-lirenel.livejournal.com]

Yah, it works for some words more than others. It could be that there used to be a bigger difference and it's just faded over time. Of course, depending on the sentence "shouted out" could work: like if they're talking about a "shout out" to someone over the radio or something.

And sometimes "out" makes the sentence a little more poetical:

Harry looked over the lake.
Harry looked out over the lake.

I think it just depends on the word and the sentence structure.

[http://users.livejournal.com/traycer_/]

We don't want to take the word 'out' totally out of the English language! We need it when taking out the trash and holding out for a bigger raise, and yeah, even when Harry is looking out over the lake. :) We just don't need it in terms of describing how something was said.

Also, 'shouted out' is not the same as the term 'shout out', at least not in my mind. 'Shout out' is a greeting, whereas 'shouted out' is an action, which again, should not be used as a way to describe vocalization. That'd be like saying 'hello' is the same as 'helloed' (is that even a word?). *g*

So yeah, I'm thinking that 'shouted out' would not work no matter how it's used as a dialogue tool.

[lady-lirenel.livejournal.com]

I suppose you're right, Of course, my Study of Language teacher was a linguist, not an English teacher. Apparently linguists are of the opinion that anything can be made a word if you add the correct ending, even if it isn't traditionally a word. Like googling or something like that.

[http://users.livejournal.com/traycer_/]

I think the reason why the difference is slight, is because we are used to hearing this in our everyday language. 'One and the same', 'the end result' and 'basic necessities' are all redundant phrases that sound okay to me, and I know I've used them in the past. And because these phrases are familiar, the tendency to believe they are correct goes without saying. Basically, if everybody else is saying it, then it must be okay. But it's not okay as far as grammar rules are concerned. And grammar is what holds together a well-written story.

Perhaps there's a regional variation and/or meaning that others might not recognize.

I'd definitely be interested in hearing the results of this! :)

[http://users.livejournal.com/traycer_/]

History of language! My favorite subject. :)

This sounds plausible, and is a great reference as to why we add on extra words. Not that we are correct in adding those words, but it's nice to know how we got to this point. *bounces happily* Thanks for this!!

[lady-lirenel.livejournal.com]

You're welcome! I love trying to figure out how words came to be as they are now.

[lmichelle599.livejournal.com]

Love your icon. So fuckin' cool.

[http://users.livejournal.com/traycer_/]

Hee! I know! I saw it and immediately had to have it. :)