Formal vs. informal style?

["Geoff Hart (by way of \"Eric J. Ray\" <ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com>)" <ght -at- MTL -dot- FERIC -dot- CA>]

Michelle Vina-Baltsas has <<...noticed that my style of writing is
fairly formal compared to many reference guides I'm reading these
days: they seem to be more conversational. One thing I have
specifically noticed is the use of contractions... [style guide:]
"Contractions are often used in speech but should be used in
discriminatingly in reports, formal letters, and most technical
writers.>>

I rather like your typo "indiscriminately" <g>. Not a flame, really,
just an enjoyable miscue. Although this might be seen as a
grammatical issue, and thus not germane to techwr-l, I see it as an
important issue related to the relationship between language and
audience. Given that technical writing tie-in:

The fact of the matter is that "formal" writing has somehow, over the
years, acquired the connotation as "writing that must be dull,
stilted, and nonconversational". That's a large part of the origin of
the style guide's recommendation that you quoted: the perceived need
to make a distinction between speech and writing. Personally, I feel
that "rule" makes a false and misleading distinction, since there are
two real issues that are far more important than "formal vs.
informal".

The first issue involves using the language your audience is familiar
and comfortable with. There are certain types of formal writing in
which a "familiar" or "informal" style marks you as an outsider and
someone to be ignored or distrusted, but unless you can confirm that
you're writing for such an audience, you're better to write in a
simple, informal style that places no distance between you and your
audience. Informal writing that draws attention to itself is every
bit as bad as formal writing that does the same.

The second issue involves skillful vs. sloppy use of the language,
and that's more likely the source of the common aversion to informal
style. "Informal" writing is often sloppy, overly colloquial,
imprecise, and overly long. It's certainly a good idea to avoid that
kind of informal language. But you can certainly write informally and
still produce tight, clear, precise, concise writing; on that basis,
there's nothing wrong with informality.

Getting back to your original point about whether to permit
contractions, my feeling is that an audience of readers with moderate
to high levels of skill won't be bothered in the least by
encountering contractions; audiences with a large component of
non-English readers or readers with poor reading skills may have more
difficulty with contractions, though I have no evidence that this is
the case. (I'm basing this conclusion on a subjective assessment of
my daily work routine, which involves interacting bilingually with a
group of English and French writers who have a broad range of
language skills.) The only contractions that are problematic are ones
whose meaning is unclear from context: "I'd" could mean "I would"
or "I had", for example, though the context usually makes the
meaning clear.

<<I'm seriously thinking about  "lightening" my style, but want to
hear some other opinions before I propose this to my manager.  I
don't want to go as light as the "Dummy" books, but somewhere in
between would be nice.>>

The "Dummy" books sells many thousands of copies for a good
reason: they write in the language that their specific audience is
familiar with and enjoys reading. My advice is to define your
audience and determine what _their_ needs and expectations are. That
knowledge lets you propose just how "light" your style should be.
--Geoff Hart @8^{)}
geoff-h -at- mtl -dot- feric -dot- ca

"Patience comes to those who wait."--Anon.


 From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=