Most people think of formal language as the ideal form, with less formal versions being a devolved, flawed, or generally worsened form of the formal language. It certainly sounds reasonable; formal language certainly feels harder to acquire and use consistently, for one. As a result, it’s a stance that many people (including me, prior to studying linguistics) take without even thinking about it: obviously, formal language is the language, and informal language is its cheap approximation.
In case I haven’t telegraphed it enough yet, I’d like to argue that this is incorrect. Informal language is not what you use when it isn’t worth the effort to use formal language, and informal language is not a strictly less governed system than formal language.
Since that might be butting up against ingrained opinion, let me start off with an analogy to levels of formality in another domain: fashion. Obviously, formal clothing like suits and ties and dresses can make people look really good for a gala event. But if you’re hoping to play a game of backyard football, they’re terrible, because they restrict your movement, and you’ll be unwilling to join into a dogpile because you’ll never get the blood and mud out. Similar problems arise if you’re working in a factory, doing dentistry, painting — the list goes on. Even just the fact that it’s summer now renders almost all of my formal clothing off-limits, lest I develop heatstroke.
![[George Clooney all muddy in "Leatherheads"]](https://motivatedgrammar.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/clooney1.jpg?w=490 "clooney-in-leatherheads")
Case in point.
Returning to formal language, we see many of the same points. Formal language can sound nicer than informal in some settings — oratory springs to mind. In other cases, whether or not it sounds nicer, it’s more appropriate. One wouldn’t, for instance, write an academic paper in informal English and expect it to be accepted. (Much as one wouldn’t wear a well-worn T-shirt to a job interview.) And because it tends to be the intelligent or successful who are most often in these “formal language required” settings, it’s unsurprising that formal language is believed to be the better form.
But informal language has its advantages. I’m hesitant to use singular they in formal writing, which at times forces me to concoct suboptimal versions of a sentence and pick one that I don’t like, only because the one that would sound best and most natural doesn’t feel formal enough. This need for formality slows me down and prevents me from saying what I’d really like to. Informal English is more flexible, and allows me to say what I mean more directly. Informal English isn’t a devolution because it lets me express myself better.
Another example is with contractions — and this also shows that informal English has its own rules apart from formal English. In most people’s forms of formal English, contractions are a no-no. But informal English allows both contractions and their uncontracted counterparts, the latter usually being used for emphasis. Consider these song lyrics:
“I didn’t see this coming,
no, I did not.”
I find the emphasis of the second line to be greatly reduced in the formal equivalent “I did not see this coming, no, I did not.” In fact, I occasionally find when I’m writing in formal English that the uncontracted version sounds too strident, but my hands are tied.
Stan Carey also talked about this earlier in the week, specifically in the context of song lyrics. Informal language of course thrives in song lyrics, of course, but that doesn’t stop people grousing about it. But wouldn’t it be far worse to be stuck with formal songwriters, who report that they “can not get any satisfaction” or that you “are nothing but a hound”?
Stan’s post links to a January discussion by Geoff Pullum of what he called “Normal and Formal” language, and how the competent writer is the one who switches between them readily and appropriately, not the one who unfailingly aims for Formal. His use of “Normal” in place of “informal” is important. Informal language is normal. It’s how virtually all of us talk to each other, even the most highly educated or successful.
That’s part of why formal language can feel more difficult than informal. We use informal language constantly, and as a result it comes naturally to us. Formal language is rarer, and like tying a tie, it’s hard when you’re not used to doing it. Not only that, but it can end up feeling pretty unnatural when adhered to too closely. Pullum gives the example of commenter who wanted him to write “whom are you supposed to trust” (instead of who), despite its stiltedness. He didn’t, and he was right.
Summary: Informal language is not a devolved version of formal language. It has rules that formal language doesn’t (e.g., choosing whether to use a contraction), and is in general more natural and readable than formal language. Informal language is, as Geoff Pullum puts it, normal language. This means that while formal language can be good and at times more appropriate than informal, it’s not always right, and it shouldn’t be treated as the ideal form of language.
Motivated Grammar 
22 comments
Comments feed for this article
June 21, 2012 at 1:57 pm
Anne-Marie Beaudoin-Bégin
Tell me, do you happen to read French? I’d be glad to share with you some of my own blog posts in which I say more or less the same things as you say, but about French…!
June 21, 2012 at 2:37 pm
Kemp
I completely agree with your points about formal and informal/normal usage. Formal sounds good in the right context, but awkward otherwise.
Related: you are very permissive with regard to how people want to evolve the language overall, but do you draw the line at textspeak/netspeak entering common everyday usage? Textspeak has its use in SMS and other such services of course, with limited characters and awkward text entry methods, I’m not arguing that. Outside of that context though, it seems to me that they specifically are an example of being lazy rather than using a legitimate alternate form.
June 21, 2012 at 7:22 pm
Lindsey
Nice post. It has always seemed somewhat ridiculous to me that we aren’t “supposed” to use contractions in formal writing. I can understand the need to avoid slang or sloppy sentence structure, but I don’t understand the problem with contractions. Under practically no circumstances would you avoid contractions when speaking, so why should writing be any different? I really don’t think it would be obvious or appalling if the president, for example, said “don’t” or “it’s” in a speech – but once it’s on paper, for some reason it’s unacceptable.
Whenever I am writing in a formal or business setting, I spend way too much time double checking to make sure no contractions slipped in, and for what?
June 21, 2012 at 7:24 pm
Lindsey
@Kemp
Of course, it depends on the context, but personally, I don’t see the issue with “textspeak.” It’s just a form of communication. There’s not really anything wrong with being informal in an email to a friend, where the only real purpose is well, to communicate.
June 22, 2012 at 7:09 am
Kemp
Agreed Lindsey. On the other hand, it has progressed much beyond emails to friends. YouTube commenter, I believe, are the stereotype here. I’ve seen a scary number of commenters using defenses such as “Why should I bother to spell correctly? This isn’t school.” (rephrased to be readable here) Maybe that reflects a deeper problem with the attitude towards education though?
Anyway, my apologies for taking this conversation off-topic. I wasn’t intending to do so quite so much :)
June 21, 2012 at 9:36 pm
stuartnz
Thanks for an encouraging article, and especially for the succinct summary. Getting this message across seems like a truly Sisyphean task, but I was pleased to see you use the clothing analogy, one I used in a similarly-themed piece relating to Indian English, http://bit.ly/PvMFsZ It is very gratifying to get confirmation from a professional that I’ve internalised the message properly, thank you!
June 22, 2012 at 4:17 am
Eugene
I suppose the proscription on contractions in formal writing has to do with situations where they are ambiguous. Something like ‘Bill’s drinking….’ could be a progressive or a genitive. Similarly, ‘d could be a contraction of had or would. I don’t think it’s a big problem for either readers or listeners, but the whole point of formal writing is to create an explicit code that is interpretable by readers who don’t share crucial background information with the writer and don’t have a lot of contextual and paralinguistic cues to help them interpret the message.
In conversation we can observe the speaker’s gestures and intonation; we probably share some amount background knowledge. We can assume a lot in informal contexts, and the listener can ask questions and participate in the construction of the text. Formal writing has to anticipate all of that context and endeavor to provide more complete information.
Good post on the formal/normal distinction – it’s really useful.
June 22, 2012 at 7:14 am
Daniel
I find the songwriting analogy particularly amusing because I was an online discussion (on FidoNet, for what that’s worth) on this issue about twenty years ago and songwriting came up in the discussion. His argument was that “If you think casual English is just as good, why don’t you try writing your next paper in the language of rap wrongs and see if you get an A?”
I responded, “If you think formal English is the be-all, end-all of the English language than why don’t you try recording a rap song spoken in formal English and see how many copies it sells?”
In retrospect, there probably is a certain segment of the population that would find such a rap song very entertaining and would buy it, but I think the point was made nonetheless.
June 22, 2012 at 6:31 pm
Eugene
Translating a rap song into formal standard English and performing it in academic garb would make a great comedy routine.
June 25, 2012 at 6:05 am
Jenny
@Daniel: I think you’re absolutely right in your rap song comment. I remember my dad once made a comment about a song lyric that was grammatically unsound. I remember saying that it wouldn’t sound right if it were “corrected.” I thought about it later because the corrected version would have fit into the rhyme scheme easily, and it would have meant essentially the same thing, but I still could never make it sound right in my head.
Informality is often interpreted as low and careless, but in reality communicates something real, visceral and basic, somehting that can’t be communicated in formal language (which often has the ring of emotional distance), but must be communicated in the people’s language, the common language. Sometimes, especially in something as emotionally charged as music, a lack of formality is a required. There are some people that always want to “correct” and formalize language, but what is ignored in that endeavor is that formal language can be just as inappropriate in informal settings as informal language is in formal settings.
June 25, 2012 at 6:59 am
Marc Leavitt
Formal language in a song is often used well for comedic and/or ironic effect. Tom Lehrer’s “Fight fiercely Harvard, fight, fight, fight!/ Demonstrate to them our skill” comes off rather well.
June 25, 2012 at 2:17 pm
jfrieden
I am an English teacher in California and I have an ongoing “fight” – because ‘debate’ just doesn’t quite fit the parameters of our disputes – with a colleague about what is and is not permissible in a student’s essay, grammar and punctuation-wise. I think of my colleague as a purist when it comes to the formal register. I used to think this way too, but I have, oh I don’t know . . . evolved. I now completely agree with what you said in this post and I even pass this on to my students, my advanced placement students. I don’t want to read boring, prosaic prose. I want the students to develop a style that breathes and lives, yet can play along with formal rules.
My colleague doesn’t. She will slash the page with her bloody red pen for every little contraction she finds. It’s horrifying! I asked her to clarify why she persisted in this arcane practice, and she told me that it’s the kind of writing out in the real world. “Where,” I asked. “I never read anything like that.” Her response after moments of pensive pondering: instruction manuals and textbooks. That’s it!? Apparently she hasn’t read to many manuals lately, they’re peppered with contractions.
I don’t tell my students to let go of formality and use as many contractions as they want, but for clarity’s sake, please use them when appropriate. I still hold some as off limits in academic writing, like “I’d,” which I noticed you used in your post. Fine for a blog, but not an academic essay.
Perhaps the style I teach is semi-formal? I just can’t stand the clap-trap found in dusty grammar books. It’s too stiff, too rigid, too stifling. I want my students to want to write when they’re done with my class, not hate it.
Thanks for the thoughtful posts here.
June 29, 2012 at 1:09 am
Alison
Having studied Japanese and Korean, I can certainly appreciate the idea that there is nothing intrinsically “better” or “worse” about informal or informal language. When I was taught the casual grammar constructions, I was expressly told that choosing my level of formality had nothing to do with one being better or worse Japanese/Korean, but rather that each had its own particular context that it should be used in. Talking to your teacher – formal, or teacher tells you off (this happened to me once). Talking with your friends – casual, or they’ll think you’re being standoffish. Colleagues at work – formal, because it’s a formal situation. Colleagues after work – informal because they’re your friends, but formal if they’re your boss, because your boss still outranks you.
Incidentally, regarding plural “they”: it’s considered perfectly acceptable in Australian English, to the extent that it is expressly supported by the style guidelines.
Click to access 2007they.pdf
July 5, 2012 at 1:29 am
Sarai
I feel that formal language is largely intended to impress a sense of confidence in the writers abilities – intellectual, linguistic or otherwise, while informal language is more suitable for actual day-to-day communication. This obviously depends on the level of English ability of people in general where you live – I received several complaints for using formal language in work emails because, and I quote “We can’t understand you.”
July 6, 2012 at 6:03 am
Lauren
I completely agree with you that informal (normal) language is in no way inferior to formal language. I liked your formal-wear analogy, and have to say that I also find it very strange when someone uses overly formal language in a normal conversation.
July 19, 2012 at 7:43 am
Formal English ins’t The Ideal! « Teacher Fabio
[…] vez vou direto ao assunto: este artigo – Formal English isn’t the Ideal – é um must! É sério. Desta vez, não precisa nem ler o meu post. Pode clicar direto no […]
March 9, 2014 at 12:12 am
AOS 1 unit 3 journal | Andrew's English blog
[…] https://motivatedgrammar.wordpress.com/2012/06/21/formal-language-isnt-the-ideal/ […]
June 2, 2014 at 8:57 am
Does Québécois French risk getting trout pout? (#809) | OffQc | Quebec French Guide
[…] Informal language is not inferior language. (Gabe […]
July 16, 2014 at 11:33 am
Phil Spencer
This difference came up in class today. By the way, there are certain contractions that are 100% acceptable in formal English. “O’clock” (of the clock) comes to mind at once.
July 18, 2014 at 6:40 pm
Bruce Smith
Thank you for your interesting and provocative posting.
In communication, formal genres and informal genres each have unique advantages and disadvantages. For example, formal grammar enables a much higher degree of semantic accuracy and precision than does informal grammar. In contrast, informal grammar is more conducive to social intimacy.
Genres vary from one another in their requirements for formality. Scientific writing, for example, requires a high degree of semantic accuracy and, accordingly, formal style. Scientific communication would be poorly served by informal register.
As we know, formal grammar is typically seen as being descriptive; informal grammar is seen as prescriptive. During the past five decades, the growing influence of prescriptive grammar in English language instruction is one of several factors that has undermined development of science students’ thinking and writing abilities. I teach scientific writing at universities that are devoted to science education. In a typical 315-word page of text, my master’s and PhD students make, on average, about 115 formal writing errors. For these student writers, this error density is associated with impaired analytic ability, synthetic reasoning, and critical thinking—the fundamental cognitive skills basic to scientific understanding and advancement.
January 25, 2016 at 2:02 pm
David
You’re crying because formal language requires you to think about what you’re saying and communicate clearly. Since language is objectively better when it is easier to comprehend, from any one person’s perspective, then formal language IS the better language. You may call yourself “educated” but you are a dumbass.
June 4, 2021 at 10:01 pm
GeoX
It’s so weird to see idiots like David come in at the end of these threads and angrily repeat the tired dogma that the post is arguing against. What do they think they’re accomplishing? And, indeed, what do I think I’m accomplishing by writing this? Who can say!