Different reference works mean different things when they speak of "formality" in language. Many seem to work on the assumption that if language and style are not informal, then they are formal. Most dictionaries, however, label as formal words that are more likely to be found in written texts than to be used by people speaking, except sometimes when they are making speeches. This book follows the same procedure as these dictionaries. For its purposes, formality means a conscious attempt to raise language above the level of everyday spoken or written discourse.Like terms that are considered informal, formal terms generally have an equivalent in the standard vocabulary. Just as you might use the word bust instead of break if you were being informal, so you might replace break, albeit in a different sense, by a word such as contravene or transgress if you wished to give more formality to your writing. People do not normally say that they "request the pleasure" of something, nor for that matter would they usually write it, but it is usual practice when issuing an invitation for a formal occasion to have cards printed that read,Mr. and Mrs. James B. Alexander
request the pleasure of the company of
at the wedding of their daughter … The formality of the style suits the formality of the occasion. Likewise, during his inaugural address, President John F. Kennedy spoke these famous sentences:And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country. My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man. The way the president phrased his question would sound most peculiar in any other context. We would always, normally, form such a question using the auxiliary verb do: Do not ask what … A simple combination of an imperative form of the verb with not is more familiar to us from poetry, especially the poetry of an earlier age:Go not, happy day, from the shining fields … (Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Maud [1855]). It is also found in the Bible, especially the King James Version:Resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also (Matthew 5:39). The president, conscious of the solemnity of the occasion and perhaps also of the fact that his inauguration was felt by many to mark the start of a new era, wished to make his utterance memorable and raise it above the level of ordinary speech. He did not choose at this point to make use of particularly formal vocabulary, but he did use this very formal and rather old-fashioned construction to achieve the same purpose.In doing so Kennedy was following in a long and honorable tradition. The translators of the King James Version of the Bible, for instance, gave a great deal of thought to the style in which they should render the words of Scripture. Partly because they were basing their work on a translation made some 50 years before (the Bishops' Bible, 1568), but also in order to impart a fitting dignity to the text, they chose a style that was slightly out of date by the standards of their own day, so that "whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also" does not even necessarily represent the ordinary writing style of the first decade of the 17th century.Other Aspects of Formal LanguageFormal language, then, is studied and lofty, and it harks back to an earlier time. It does not have a close connection with the language of everyday speech—which is not to say that it can never be spoken, but it is not likely to be used in extempore speech, only in prepared speeches and then, usually, on important occasions. Formal language can accommodate complicated syntax; indeed, the use of more sophisticated constructions is one of its hallmarks. Whereas you might ordinarily say or write,I tried as hard as I could, but I could not get rid of the stain. you might more formally write,For all my efforts, I was unable to remove the stain. orMy strenuous efforts to remove the stain were entirely unavailing. But formality does not appear to best advantage with homey subject matter.There is, as can be seen from the examples below, a kind of long-breathed quality, too, about formal expression:To prove the justice of this observation, one has only to contemplate the spectacle of a small nation making submissive overtures to a mightier neighbor. The perspicacity of the man whom we are gathered here today to honor was equaled only by the breadth of his vision, the liberality of his views, and his profound reverence for the profession of which he was for so long a preeminent representative. The crimes of which they stood accused were held in general abhorrence, and, were their guilt to be proven, they could expect to pay no less than the ultimate penalty. Formal expression tends to be expansive and to need long sentences in which to unfold itself. Consider the following pair of sentences. Which of them seems more natural to you?That child is an intelligent child. He knows what is what. One could ask that child any question one wanted to, and he would always give the correct answer. That kid's a brainy kid. He knows what's what. You can ask that kid any question you like, and he always comes up with the right answer. There are no prizes for guessing that the first version is a translation into formal language of the second. Although the first version uses a more formal vocabulary, it retains the sentence structure and rhythm of the original, and that structure and rhythm simply do not work in formal mode.The point is worth making once again. Formality and informality are not simply matters of vocabulary; they extend to every aspect of writing.The Place for Formal LanguageThe place for formal language is in formal contexts. As has already been mentioned, the modern trend in most walks of life is away from formality. Only adopt a formal style if you are certain the occasion warrants it and if you are certain that you can sustain the style. Because the formal style is lofty, because it consciously strives to raise itself above the level of ordinary discourse, it can, on the one hand, easily become inflated and empty, and, on the other hand, it can all too easily fall off its perch:The perspicacity of the man whom we are gathered here today to honor was equaled only by the breadth of his vision, the liberality of his views, and his profound reverence for the insurance underwriting profession he was in. The crimes of which they stood accused were held in general abhorrence, because of their seriousness. A writer should strive to preserve consistency in any tone or style, but lapses from formality seem to stand out more prominently than most others.
|
Email
Print
Save
Citation
Record URL
