13

It seems to me that "time period" is frequently used in speech and writing. But isn't it redundant?

  • These books were written during different time periods
  • These books were written at different times
  • These books were written during different periods

Not sure if this might be the best example but it seems that the same meaning can be conveyed without using time period.

Improve this question
10
  • 1
    I don't understand what any of you are talking about. If we say that two events were at different times, we mean only that they were not simultaneous. If we say that they were at different time periods, we mean something more, that the difference in time is significant because it places the events in different contexts (as an author's career, the cultural climate, the historical context). If I meant that they were at different time periods, I would not say they were at different periods; that's just not idiomatic. I would say that they were at different time periods.
    – Chaim
    Commented Sep 5, 2018 at 15:58
  • 4
    Heh heh. It's one of the things that makes my face twitch. I found the following fragment in a document that was about to be submitted to a federal regulator. "in the time period of time when it began to resume again" I replaced it with "when it resumed"
    – puppetsock
    Commented Sep 5, 2018 at 16:36
  • 2
    @Chaim I think you get the core of the question - Does the phrase "time period" have any use that can't be (better) conveyed by either just "time" or just "period" on their own. -- I think your explanation is the basis of a decent answer, if you'd care to write it up.
    – R.M.
    Commented Sep 5, 2018 at 19:31
  • 5
    Certainly "at different times" and "in different periods" have different meanings. For example, a book written in 1950 was written at a different time to one written in 1951, but they're both from the same period.
    – David Richerby
    Commented Sep 5, 2018 at 23:02
  • 1
    @Chappo I don't understand your remarks. I agree that the use of the word "period" alone might suggest menstruation, or class periods, or periods of play in some sport... The issue on the floor is not a moral debate about our attitude toward menstruation, but rather a speaker's or author's desire to be understood clearly.
    – Chaim
    Commented Sep 6, 2018 at 16:08

3 Answers 3

Reset to default
10

While period does refer to calculated time, it also refers to more organic (temporally contiguous) divisions. We reference Picasso's 'Blue Period' as a piece of time associated with when Picasso painted blue things. The length of time associated with the Victorian Period is usually stated as 1837-1901, but this is only one of many attributes of the Victorian Period/Era.

So while you're correct in theory, in practice, we use 'time period' as referring to the numerically quantifiable length of time. This sets it apart from a period's other attributes.

Improve this answer
2
  • 1
    In my question I am not referring to a specific historical Period but simply as a synonym of time. Your answer doesn't address my main question, it's more a specific use of Period.
    – Herman Toothrot
    Commented Sep 6, 2018 at 9:44
  • 1
    And I'm saying that your third example is ambiguous, as you could be referring to the mathematical periods or the cultural/historical periods. So if you're trying to remove confusion or redundancy, your second and third examples are not exact equivalents.
    – Carduus
    Commented Sep 6, 2018 at 13:45
6

Technically, you are correct. However, the phrase is idiomatic. It sounds better than your second example, while in your third example the "periods" might be misconstrued as a reference to a hockey game.

Improve this answer
6
  • I think hockey games are the last meaning you would associate to "periods", especially in countries where hockey is almost unknown.
    – Herman Toothrot
    Commented Sep 9, 2018 at 7:39
  • @HermanToothrot: With the exception of Argentina, Italy and Singapore, I don't know much about "countries where hockey is almost unknown." I hear that in such countries hockey is normally referred to as "ice hockey." Which would lead me to believe, would it not, that, since you refer to it as simply "hockey," you don't happen to be a resident of one of those countries either. I may be wrong.
    – Ricky
    Commented Sep 9, 2018 at 15:26
  • Ahah, that is a funny point. I actually didn't say 'ice hokey' because I spent time in North America. British people for example, I don't think they associate 'periods' to hockey. But maybe some native speaker will chime in.
    – Herman Toothrot
    Commented Sep 9, 2018 at 19:44
  • 1
    What about Indian, Austrialian, and New Zealand?
    – Herman Toothrot
    Commented Sep 11, 2018 at 7:32
  • 1
    @HermanToothrot: Two years later: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_hockey_in_India
    – Ricky
    Commented Jun 1, 2020 at 21:09
5

Paul Brians, professor at Washington State University, classifies using both as a "common error":

time period

The only kinds of periods meant by people who use this phrase are periods of time, so it’s a redundancy. Simply say “time” or “period.”

Improve this answer
1
  • 5
    Well, that depends on context. In a history paper, I would call it a mistake.
    – Lambie
    Commented Sep 5, 2018 at 15:54

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.