Listen to this article作品原文
项庄 《语言的过分发展》
不知别人是否有这样的感觉：人类的语言（或可包括文字）实在已经过分发展，发展的超过实际需要，以致大家废话连篇，真正有用的却不过寥寥几句。
古人已云“花如解语还多事，石不能言最可人”，可见古人亦已感废话太多之苦，乃激出了这样的反动心理。到了现代，“语言艺术”已做更进一步发展，又岂止“花如解语”而已哉！
有些话，实在用不着说的太明白，甚至根本用不着语言，所谓明人不必细说，又所谓可以意会而不可言传，所指正是这种微妙的境界。
不必细说而细说，不但是说与听的浪费，而且常把事情本身搞坏了。只可意会的而定要言传，好好的情绪可能忽然坠入恶趣，岂不弄巧成拙？譬如男女相悦，若口中不断说“爱”，那还成何体统？爱情若是需要如此表白，是否还能叫做爱情就颇堪怀疑了。推而至于一切感情，大致亦服从此一规律。
以行业论，外交家大概是废话最多之人，但他们受过专业训练，能把废话说得娓娓动听，似乎胸中颇有经纬，实则多半是绣花枕头草肚皮。职业外交家至近代渐趋落伍，恐与他们说废话太多不无关系。
以人种分（根据看各国影片所获印象），中国人并非说废话最多的民族，日本人和意大利人的长气最是吓人。
以年岁分，似乎人越老说的废话越多，可能由于老人的不甘寂寞。
以性别分，女性的废话无疑多于男性，则因她们的天赋思维方式重演绎而不重归纳，乃常抓不住要点所致。
以教育程度分，知识越高者反而废话越多，知识使他们偏于修饰语言的技巧，反不如因车卖奖者之能要言不烦。
废话又分两种，一种是自知的，如在集会中致词，一百句话中可能只有三句言之有物，但被迫用九十七句废话加以烘托。另一种是不自知的，他们习惯如此，一件事必定要从盘古开天地说起，又一路横生枝节，越说离题越远，到后来每每无法回到本题，就此不了了之，于是说者与听者面面相觑。
作品译文
The Overdevelopment of Language
I do not know if other people share my feelings that human language (which may include the written word) is now seriously overdeveloped, that is, developed beyond actual need, to the point that everybody prattles on the inordinate length, while all that truly needs to be said only a few words.
The ancients already had a saying, “flowers that seem to speak do more than their office; stones that are dumb show most consideration.”Such a reactionary sentiment was clearly provoked by distress at the prevalence of excessive verbiage even of yore. In the present day “the art of language” has further progressed: it is no longer a question simply of “flowers that seem to speak”!
There are some things that do not need to be stated explicitly, or even can dispense with words altogether: the expression “a clever person only requires a hint” and “can be intuited but not explained” refer precisely to these delicate states.
To go into detail when there is no need to go into detail is not only a waste of talking and listening, it often leads to ruination of the master itself. Very proper sentiments that can only be intuited and yet are required to be put into words may at a stroke be made to appear vulgar and in bad taste: isn’t this to be “too clever by half”? For instance, when a man and women delight in each other’s company, for the word “love” to be always on their lips would be most unseemly. If love needs to be so confessed it is very doubtful if it can be called love. The same rule would apply in the main to all states of feeling.
In terms of professions, diplomats are probably the greatest purveyors of verbiage, but they have receive professional training and can make their prolixity quite absorbing: they give the impression of having everything worked out, whereas in fact it is a case of “embroidered pillow case but straw stuffing”. The fact that professional diplomats are in our day not what they used to be has perhaps something to do with making too many speeches.
To distinguish between peoples (based on impressions gained from watching films from various countries), the Chinese are not the most given to verbiage: the stamina of the Japanese and Italians is the most intimidating.
To distinguish according to age, it would seem that verbiage increases the older one gets, possibly because of old people’s fear of being alone.
To distinguish according to sex, the verbiage of females is unquestionably greater than that of males, the reason being that their innate mode of thought is deductive rather than inductive, resulting in failure to seize the main point.
To distinguish according to standard of education, strangely enough the more learned the person, the greater the verbiage. Learning inclines him to indulge in verbal artistry, with the unfortunate consequence that he trails behind the “hawker and pedlar” in his ability to put a point in a nutshell.
Finally, verbiage can be divided into two kinds. The first is deliberate, as in making speeches in public: out of a hundred sentences maybe only three have any substance, but one is forced to use ninety-seven as padding. The second is unconscious: by force of habit the discourse has to go back to begin with the Creation, and then is beset by diversions and digressions along its course, leading the speaking further and further away from the point until invariably there is no way of getting back to it, and it finally grinds to a halt, leaving him and his listeners staring at each other blankly.
