Hey, isn't the word "process" redundant in the example from the Borneo Bulletin?

Welcome to you, Norah. I had to go searching for your ref.--I am not meticulous in reading my W.'s A. D., I'm afraid. But you did make me go and check Monday's Word--I do love them the best, because of the little narratives that go with them. And I found out--Anu's back, Anu's back! All's right with the world again.
Anyway--the quote is "Japanese anger over the kidnappings and North Korea's nuclear weapons ambitions have stalled the rapprochement process between Tokyo and
Pyongyang."
And the def. is:
Establishing or reestablishing of cordial relation,
especially between nations.
Oh man--every time I'm about to type yes or no to your question, I see the argument for the other way! We need an expert, please!

In the context of Anu's definition, perhaps it could be considered slightly redundant (not that there's anything wrong with a little redundancy now and then for the sake of clarity, but). AHD4 gives another definition that has rapprochement as the product and not the process, and, using this definition I would say that is definitely not redundant.

http://www.bartleby.com/61/59/R0045900.html

I think "rapprochement process" is correct. Rapprochement between two countries that have been bitter enemies requires many conciliatory actions on both sides over a long period of time, so it is a process.

Let's see, I think my point is that rapprochement is a state, not a process, and that it may take a process to reach it but in this context whether or not there's been a long history of friction it's a little like saying "enmity process" ...

you're arguing for my side, honey

I dunno. Anu's definition was that of a process, so, given that definition, I'd go along with the idea of its being redundant*, with the disclaimer of my first post. If we are defining it as a state, the rapprochement process is the process of reaching that state. I still see no problem with that usage. But I'm just one voice in the AWAD Usage Panel.

*Remembering that the language is full of redundancies, many staunchly defended by the most prescriptive of grammarians.

arguing for my side

And reaching a different conclusion?

My dictionary gives two definitions, one "the re-establishing, etc..." and the other "the state of...", so I stand corrected, both are acceptable uses.

I stand corrected

Why is it we "stand" corrected? Does that imply that we have been corrected but our dignity remains intact because we have not been knocked off our feet?

Just wondering where the term came from?

Why is it we "stand" corrected?

The definition of stand covers quite a bit of real estate. 8a is the one to take particular note of, but compare with some of its neighbors:

http://www.bartleby.com/61/16/S0701600.html

8a. To be in a specified state or condition: I stand corrected.

Personally, I can't stand being corrected ... but I guess it's better to take it standing up than lying down.

It used to be that when corrected, you had to go way back and sit down.

or stand (corrected) in the corner