Writing Analytically, 6th Edition - Rosenwasser, David & Stephen, Jill [248]
* * *
Formal and Colloquial Styles: Who’s Writing to Whom, and Why Does It Matter?
Generalizations About Style
There are many ways of conveying a message.
The way you phrase a message constitutes a significant part of its meaning.
Your phrasing gives your reader cues that suggest your attitude and your ways of thinking.
There are no transparent (absolutely neutral) delivery systems.
All stylistic decisions depend on your sensitivity to context— who’s talking to whom about what subject and with what aims.
The last of these generalizations concerns what is called the rhetorical situation. Rhetoric is the subject that deals with how writers and speakers behave in given situations and, more specifically, how they can generate language that produces the effects they desire on a particular audience. Obviously, as you make stylistic choices, you need to be aware of the possible consequences of making certain statements to a certain audience in a certain fashion.
How you say something is always a significant part of what you say. To look at words as words is to focus on the how as well as the what. Imagine that you call your friend on the phone, and a voice you don’t recognize answers. You ask to speak with your friend, and the voice responds, “With whom have I the pleasure of speaking?” By contrast, what if the voice instead responds, “Who’s this?” What information do these two versions of the question convey, beyond the obvious request for your name?
The first response—“With whom have I the pleasure of speaking?”—tells you that the speaker is formal and polite. He is also probably fastidiously well educated: he not only knows the difference between “who” and “whom” but also obeys the etiquette that outlaws ending a sentence with a preposition (“Whom have I the pleasure of speaking with?”). The very formality of the utterance, however, might lead you to label the speaker pretentious. His assumption that conversing with you is a “pleasure” suggests empty flattery. On the other hand, the second version—“Who’s this?”—while also grammatically correct, is less formal. It is more direct but also terse to a fault; the speaker does not seem particularly interested in treating you politely.
The two hypothetical responses represent two different levels of style. Formal English obeys the basic conventions of standard written prose, and most academic writing is fairly formal. An informal style—one that is conversational and full of slang—can have severe limitations in an academic setting. The syntax and vocabulary of written prose aren’t the same as those of speech, and so attempts to import the language of speech into academic writing can result in your communicating less meaning with less precision. Let’s look at one brief example:
Internecine quarrels within the corporation destroyed morale and sent the value of the stock plummeting.
The phrase “internecine quarrels” may strike some readers as a pretentious display of formal language, but consider how difficult it is to communicate this concept economically in more colloquial (talk-like, conversational) terms. “Fights that go on between people related to each other” is awkward; “brother against brother” is sexist and a cliché; and “mutually destructive disputes” is acceptable but long-winded and less precise.
It is arguably a part of our national culture to value the simple and the direct as more genuine and democratic than the sophisticated, which is supposedly more aristocratic and pretentious. This “plain-speaking” style, however, can hinder your ability to develop and communicate your ideas. In the case of internecine, the more formal diction choice actually communicates more, and more effectively, than the less formal equivalents.
When in doubt about how your readers will respond to the formality or informality of your style, you are