: 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

Vote Up Vote Down

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.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

You could say the same about all sorts of cultural and social actions. Like consider formal dress: When a man wants to appear more formal, he wears a tie. Why? What purpose does a tie serve? Why is it that putting a tie around your neck is considered formal, but putting a handkerchief around your neck is decidedly informal? We could discuss the history behind such customs, but most people today don't know the history. They just know that it's the custom.

In some circumstances human beings want to be "casual" and in some circumstances we want to be "formal", and there are conventions for each so that others know which manner you are trying to present.

To most people, we recognize the importance of some events by adding formality in clothes, manner, and yes, speech. If you attended the funeral of a friend and the preacher began by saying, "Yup, old Bob's gonna start smelling pretty bad here soon. 'Bet his wife's glad to be rid of the jerk," etc, you would probably be offended. You would see such casual and flippant language as inappropriate to the situation.

On the other hand, if you got together with a group of friends to watch football on TV, and the host of the party was wearing a tuxedo, and before the game he stood up in front of the TV and in solemn tones announced, "Ladies and gentleman, I welcome all of you to my domicile for this, a viewing of Superbowl Number Twenty-Eight, upon the electronic television visible forthwith behind me. ..." etc, then if you did not take it as a big joke on the host's part, you would surely think him very strange to attach such formality to a casual event. It's not appropriate.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

"Formal writing" is like the use of any type of language. It conveys not just information, but signifies information about you (the speaker / writer), your credibility, and your overall purpose.

For example, "We got 65% hits!" versus "A success rate of sixty-five percent was obtained." technically conveys the same information, but the impact on your reader changes drastically.

I once read that when writing, you should focus on three things: content (what are you writing about), audience (who are you writing to), and purpose (why are you writing this). The tone of your writing should be influenced by all three aspects, but primarily the last two.

Edited to add: Why does this increase credibility? Well, it doesn't, necessarily. A speaker talking to programmers may say, "I grok your pain" and gain credibility. Basically, every discourse community has customs, and language is a large part of those customs. You're referencing commonplaces, and the mere fact that you know them gives you credibility. "Formal" language is just a type of commonplace among "those in command". David Bartholomae wrote an article, "Inventing the University" that talks about this.

(0)

Vote Up Vote Down

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)

Vote Up Vote Down

Without being that educated in the matter, I would think it would have to do with removing personality quirks, specific cultural and social styles, references and shorthand from the writing as much as possible so that anyone can pick up the book and understand it.

Dialogue can of course contain all of this, such as slang, but the writing trying to describe something should, in my opinion, try to be more universal, and the more "professional" the situation in which the writing will be used, the more this would be required of the writer.

As an extreme example, you wouldn't see scientific papers with emoticons and shorthand which may or may not be known to all readers.

(0)