What is the benefit of writing formally?
It seems to me that formal writing has many practices that at best seem arbitrary and at worst seem harmful. Here are some examples:
- It discourages using contractions, even though they make writing more concise.
- It discourages using number digits under 11 in favor of writing letters out, even thought using digits makes writing more concise.
- It discourages using special characters such as ~, @, %, &, even though using them is more concise than writing out the corresponding words.
- It forbids the use of emoticons, even though they make writing more clear by showing the tone of voice and feelings of the writer.
Any explanations on the benefit of these practices would be appreciated.
There seems to be some confusion about what is being discussed here. Half of the answers are using the conventional def …
9y ago
Let's see, in order: > It discourages using contractions, even though they make writing more concise. I'll confess nev …
9y ago
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/q/14591. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
2 answers
There seems to be some confusion about what is being discussed here.
Half of the answers are using the conventional definition of "Formal Writing", which involves the solemn and decorous application of language to convey the writer's authority as well as the meaning of their message. Formal writing, in this context, is an alternative to the casual or colloquial language of standard prose. Standard prose, by comparison, excels in blatantly expressing the writer's emotions, in addition to their message.
Each method of writing serves a specific purpose. Both should be familiar tools in the hands of any seasoned author.
The other half of the answers seem to be addressing, I believe correctly, a new definition for this established term. Here, "Formal Writing" implies any use of the language, which obeys the communally held standards of grammar, punctuation and spelling.
The alternative to this definition ignores those standards in favor of minimalistic phonetic renderings. I fear that the contractions refered to in this question are not the apostrophy-ridden abbreviations of standard colloquial language, but are instead, the attrocious missing-letter mis-spellings championed by Twitter and AIM. "R u w/me?"
In my opinion, this question explores the wisdom of maintaining minimal expectations for the competency of professional writers, in a world where the majority of readers no longer know how to recognise or participate in those minimums. This is a valid question and in an attempt to answer it here, by example, I have endeavored to write in the highest, formal english which my limited vocabulary allows...
Have I conveyed anything beyond the specific words of my message?
Have I established my authority on the subject of the English language and its evolution?
Have I, subtly and politely, expressed my anger towards where our culture and our language are heading?
Twitter-ish, to coin what I believe is a new term, is an attempt to portray the most basic meaning of a message in the minimum number of characters, digits and symbols.
English, by comparison, is the art of communicating that basic message and much, much more.
This post was sourced from https://writers.stackexchange.com/a/14609. It is licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0.
0 comment threads
Let's see, in order:
It discourages using contractions, even though they make writing more concise.
I'll confess never understood this one. I do use contractions in formal writing. They're invisible.
It discourages using number digits under 11 in favor of writing letters out, even thought using digits makes writing more concise.
This is a style issue. In AP style, for example, numbers under 10 are written out, because single digits can so easily be mistyped, but 10 and above are written out (except at the beginning of a sentence). Mostly for consistency.
It discourages using special characters such as ~, @, %, &, even though using them is more concise than writing out the corresponding words.
Generally speaking, symbols take a half-second to translate from visual to verbal. It may look more concise, but you're actually making your text longer to the internal ear of the reader.
- The percentage symbol has a single specific meaning, and should only be used when discussing percentages. ("We found 17% salts.") Just because this symbol exists doesn't mean you'd ever use it in the middle of a paragraph of copy. ("The % of salt in the solution rose.") That really takes my brain another flicker of time to render.
The ampersand should be restricted to proper names ("Johnson & Johnson") where it's become part of the visual unit, for the same reason. ("We added the base & then waited for the reaction.")
The atmark is now used almost exclusively for the Internet, and would severely distract or confuse most readers if it was used outside that context. ("We found that @ those levels, salts were not discernible.")
I'm not even sure what ~ is meant to mean — approximately? — so there's another argument against the symbol: it doesn't matter if it's concise if it's not clear.
It forbids the use of emoticons, even though they make writing more clear by showing the tone of voice and feelings of the writer.
Formal writing shouldn't have excessive emotions anyway, but if you as a writer are incapable of expressing your tone and feelings without little pictograms, then the problem is that you need to work on your vocabulary and your descriptive skills.
0 comment threads
0 comment threads