Michael, your point relates to the thoughts I have been having on this issue.
For me, communication comes first. Always function before form in my world. So
when I analyse and audience I am writing for, I imagine myself talking to them.
I am aware of how I express myself differently in speech according to the
person I am talking to. I change my forms of speech in an almost infinite
variety of ways according to how my words are being received or are likely to
be received by my partner in conversation. I don't always get it right first
time and may find myself trying to move seamlessly between different verbal
approaches till I find one that appears to be received by the other.
This then translates across to my writing with an additional layer. I will use
a different tone and style based on how I would relate to them when talking to
them. But then I will also change the way I write (presuming I want to ensure
communication) based on my understanding of the rules THEY follow. So I will
write medical materials in an entirely different style to legal contracts or
religious treatises. As a visitor to their universe, I do not have the power to
change their rules, and if I want them to read what I have written, I had
better comply.
Then there is grammar. All the time my focus is on how I can get the nominated
reader to "hear" what I am saying. I will try to apply simple rules of grammar
to that process, but will happily break any rules of grammar if, by sticking to
them, I will alienate the reader.
"User sensitivity" is pretty important to communication.
So back to the start of this conversation - you use whatever language your
reader is accustomed to, unless you are in a position to change the culture
your reader is operating within - and how many of us get to be part of that?
Christine
-----Original Message-----
From: austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:austechwriter-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of Michael Lewis
Sent: Sunday, 18 June 2017 9:49 AM
To: austechwriter@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: atw: Re: Another usage question (WAS "A software"?!)
I have made the point many times in the past that a chief cause is the way we
are taught to write.
We learn the spoken language very much in the context of "here and now"; we
hear other people asking "what's for dinner?" and making kind or unkind remarks
about each other. Then we go to school, and we are asked to write when we don't
really have anything to write about. We are exhorted to "get our thoughts down
on paper", rather than to "get our thoughts into someone else's head". In the
end, we learn writing not as a means of communication but as a means of
abstraction.
Then, of course, when we do get our thoughts down on paper, they look rather
ordinary. So we try to find ways of making them look more impressive - and,
because we are often given a word count to achieve, that often involves finding
circumlocutory ways of increasing the word count.
The next step is when we are in some kind of "formal" situation, like being
interviewed or making a speech. We are aware of a need to impress, so we resort
to the same tricks as we developed as beginning writers:
longer words, convoluted sentences.
And it's perpetuated because we are taught to write by people who learnt the
same way.
In my nearly twenty years as writing skills adviser at Macquarie Uni, my focus
was consistently on getting away from "writing as abstraction" to "writing as
communication". Sometimes it actually worked . . .
- Michael Lewis
On 17/06/2017 18:57, Howard Silcock wrote:
Hmm, I seem to have a knack of unwittingly sending posts that engender
these protracted discussions.
I think we have to agree that formality is a force that needs to be
reckoned with. I don't think I can join Warren in asserting that
'formally is nonsense' - though I might like to. My concern was trying
to come to grips with what it really is. I wanted to ask the authors
of that style manual to provide guidance on what types of document
call for a formal style - but the more I thought about it, the more I
realised how unlikely it was that they could or would do so.
So in the end I remain puzzled as to what it is that makes us want to
make language so much more difficult than it needs to be. It's a bit
like wondering why we have to be so deferential to the royal family.
I certainly am sticking to my guns over 'show' versus 'illustrate'.
But the battle against excessive formality seems to involve many small
wins and progress that seems agonisingly slow.
