in writing a research article which level of language formality must be observed

Purdue Online Writing Lab Purdue OWL® College of Liberal Arts

Levels of Formality

Welcome to the Purdue OWL

This page is brought to you by the OWL at Purdue University. When printing this page, you must include the entire legal notice.

Copyright ©1995-2018 by The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, reproduced, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed without permission. Use of this site constitutes acceptance of our terms and conditions of fair use.

The level of formality you write with should be determined by the expectations of your audience and your purpose. For example, if you are writing a cover letter for a job application or a college academic essay, you would write in a formal style. If you are writing a letter to a friend, writing something personal, or even writing something for a humorous or special interest magazine when informal writing is expected, you would use a more informal style. Formality exists on a scale—in the example below, a letter of application to a known colleague can result in a semi-formal style.

Here is an example:

Formal (Written to an unknown audience): I am applying for the receptionist position advertised in the local paper. I am an excellent candidate for the job because of my significant secretarial experience, good language skills, and sense of organization.

Semi-formal (Written to a well-known individual): I am applying for the receptionist position that is currently open in the company. As you are aware, I have worked as a temporary employee with your company in this position before. As such, I not only have experience and knowledge of this position, but also already understand the company's needs and requirements for this job.

Informal (Incorrect): Hi! I read in the paper that ya'll were looking for a receptionist. I think that I am good for that job because I've done stuff like it in the past, am good with words, and am incredibly well organized.

FAQs about Language and Linguistics in Writing

by  Laura Aull and Shawna Shapiro

Critical Reflection

The two authors of this piece come from distinct institutional contexts: Laura Aull works at a large, public, research university, and Shawna Shapiro at a small, private, liberal arts institution. We each think a lot about language and writing as we do our work—Laura while training new writing instructors in a large writing program and Shawna amid multi-institutional outreach, for example. We both share training in writing as well as linguistics—Laura especially in corpus and applied linguistics, and Shawna especially in sociolinguistics and TESOL. We both believe in (and write about) supporting linguistic knowledge as part of students' rhetorical agency, and in our work, we regularly hear questions and concerns from writing educators about language and linguistics. The most common queries we hear from colleagues at our institutions and elsewhere, including through the CLA Collective ( http://clacollective.org/ ), relate to three frequently-asked questions, which we explore here by drawing on linguistics and writing research.

Many writing instructors, administrators, students, and scholars share important questions about how rhetoric and linguistics are similar and different, what linguistics offers to writing studies, and how to support writing development and linguistic equality. We've consolidated the most common queries we receive into the following three FAQs.

• What does linguistics add to rhetorical approaches to writing?
• What linguistics insights might be most useful for writing teachers and researchers?
• How can linguistics help us to work more effectively and equitably with student writers?

It is understandable that these questions come up so regularly. A number of writing studies scholars have pointed out that especially since the 1970s, language study has had a tenuous or unclear position in US writing studies research and teaching, which tends to focus on writers, writing contexts, and language ideologies, more than on language itself (Connors, 1997; MacDonald, 2007; Aull, 2015). Below, we answer these three FAQs in an effort to provide foundational knowledge about linguistics and language that build on conversations in our field. We have structured our responses to each question as a set of concise points, followed by an “upshot” summary at the end of that section.

************

1.  What does linguistics add to rhetorical approaches to writing?

Training in rhetoric and writing pedagogy focuses on important macro-level writing concepts and sociocultural and sociopolitical concerns. Macro-level concepts, for instance, include audience, purpose, and genres as social actions, or, in some composition textbooks, rhetorical modes such as narration and description. Sociocultural concerns include language-related themes in curricular content, such as language ideologies (e.g., monolingualism, native-speakerism), language policies (e.g., English-only legislation in the U.S.), or reflections on first-hand language experiences (e.g., in literacy narrative assignments).

Although social and political aspects of language are also prevalent concerns for linguists, linguistics also offers tools for systematic examination of language itself, including micro-level patterns (word and phrase, or lexicogrammatical patterns, such as noun phrases) and meso-level patterns (sentence and paragraph patterns, such as subject/verb coordination or rhetorical moves) as they inform or challenge language ideologies. When instruction in writing studies does address paragraph or sentence-level concerns, it often focuses on insights from analyzing one text at a time rather than on insights from patterns analyzed across many texts. This leads to rich insights about situated language use and rhetorical concepts in a few texts, but it doesn't necessarily guarantee that writing instructors or students have writing knowledge regarding systematic language norms and patterns (Matsuda et al., 2013; Eckstein & Ferris, 2018; Aull, 2020; Gere et al., 2021; Rossen-Knill & Hancock, 2021).

Here are some pedagogical trends related to a greater emphasis on macro-level concepts and sociocultural concerns:

• Teachers are often told to "focus on writers, rather than writing itself," as in the recent NCTE position statement on writing instruction in school .
• Teachers are often encouraged to "focus on meaning, not form."
• Teachers might feel unsure how or whether to focus on students' language use in writing assessment (Lee, 2016; Matsuda, 2012).
• Teachers (and/or students) might conduct or read a rhetorical genre study focused on style and audience in one or a few texts, rather than lexicogrammatical patterns and moves across dozens of examples.
• Teachers might discuss characteristics of language use in a particular genre or type of writing (e.g., "avoid passive voice in academic writing"), but these ideas might not reflect actual practices (Junqueira & Payant, 2015; Lea & Street, 2006; Olinger, 2021).

Why these trends? A key historical reason is the US disciplinary and institutional divide between rhetoric/composition and linguistics/applied linguistics (Matsuda, 1999; Aull, 2015; Gere et al., 2021). The former has traditionally emphasized humanistic research methods and graduate training and been linked to English departments, while the latter has drawn from more social scientific theories and research methods. Today, these disciplinary separations tend to hold within the US, though there are important overlaps in commitments and student populations (e.g., support for students from diverse linguistic backgrounds) and there are several important exceptions—for example second language writing (e.g., Hyland, 2019; Wang, 2022) and discourse studies of student writing in and out of coursework and across disciplines (e.g., Cunningham, 2014; Nero & Stevens, 2018; Lancaster & Olinger, 2014). They include humanistic rhetorical insights as well as scientifically based information about what languages are, how they function, and how they are learned.

The Upshot of FAQ 1: Rhetorical traditions draw important attention to macro-level concepts, sociocultural details, and sociopolitical beliefs about language, with meaning in context as a priority. Linguistics traditions draw important attention to patterned language use as it follows descriptive rules and crosses contexts, with form and meaning systematically intertwined. Given their respective emphases, we have observed that linguistic traditions can complement rhetorical traditions in writing, and we address how they do so in the second FAQ.

2.  What linguistics insights might be most useful for writing teachers and researchers?

We have especially found that attention to language and linguistics helps us cultivate two areas of writing knowledge: (A) awareness of the difference between usage preferences, on the one hand, and what is grammatically possible and meaningful in English, on the other; and (B) evidence-based understanding of linguistic equality across all language use.

(A) Usage preferences versus what is grammatically possible and meaningful

First, linguistics insights help highlight the difference between usage preferences or norms (language choices often associated with "correctness") and what is grammatically possible and meaningful in English (all forms that are available within the constraints of English as a rule-governed system). While usage preferences are socially-constructed, what is grammatically possible is linguistically-constructed within the structure of English. This is true of all varieties of English, regardless of whether they are privileged in school assessment; all shared varieties follow rule-governed norms (Smitherman, 1986; Young & Barrett, 2018).

In short, form and meaning always work hand-in-hand. Even if students’ linguistic or rhetorical choices diverge from what is typical or conventional in school assessments (i.e., according to usage preferences or norms articulated by teachers, handbooks, style guides, etc.), there is some form (i.e., some governing structure) being employed, because all shared language use is rule-governed. Language without form or structure (or any language knowledge) would be incomprehensible, and unlikely, because we learn language from the structures of language used by people around us. Form includes rule-governed options for words and sentences (i.e., morphology and syntax) as well as options for the structure of a paragraph or genre of writing (or speech).

When teachers and scholars express a concern about whether to attend to “form,” or they critique a focus on “form,” they are usually concerned about a prescriptivist view of form–i.e., the idea that there is one universal set of rules for “correct” language use regardless of context, or the idea that there is one inherently “correct” dialect of English. Linguists tend to take a descriptivist view—i.e., they look for patterns in language use (spoken, written, signed, etc.) that have social meaning within communities and contexts. Put another way, while prescriptivists are interested in what language users should do according to socially-constructed usage preferences and norms, descriptivists attend to what people actually do with what is grammatically possible in a language within particular contexts and communities (see, for instance, how the Linguistic Society of America addresses the issue of 'correctness' in language ).

(B) Evidence-based understanding of linguistic equality

A second and overlapping point is that linguistics insights can help us promote evidence-based understanding of linguistic equality across all shared language use. An evidence-based understanding underscores that all shared language use is rule-governed and responsive to community needs. The social value of different kinds of language use is socially-constructed, not inherent in the linguistic forms themselves.

• Linguistic equality means that all shared language use follows patterns that can be analyzed and learned through practice and exposure. There is no such thing as a language, register, or dialect that is more rule-governed than another, and there is no language, register, or dialect in which "anything goes" or no rules apply. Linguistic equality underlies Students’ Right to Their Own Language (SRTOL) and the # BlackLanguageSyllabus work spearheaded by scholars such as April Baker-Bell (2020) and Carmen Kynard (2007), whose work informed the 2020 demand for Black Linguistic Justice (NCTE/CCCC).
• Socially-constructed value is determined by contexts and communities and who has social power within them; and every language, register, and dialect is useful in some rhetorical contexts and not in others. Even though no dialect or register is inherently superior, there are people and contexts that value the norms of particular language varieties more. This means there is a much bigger world of language—and a lot more language knowledge—than what is represented in conventional school and test approaches to "correct" English, which are based on particular socially-constructed usage preferences and norms.

Linguistics insights and methods help us explore different language varieties in term of both linguistic patterns and socially constructed values. For example, Geneva Smitherman (1986), Staci Perryman-Clark (2013), and April Baker-Bell (2020) have investigated patterns and variation in the historical influences, purposes, genres, and linguistic patterns of African American or Black English. They observe context-specific variation, including both informal and formal registers (e.g. Dyson & Smitherman, 2009; Mufwene et al., 2021; Young, 2010), and they illustrate how we can describe (versus prescribe) linguistic patterns and social values associated with language varieties we explore. In other words, these studies explore language in terms of what/when rather than right/wrong.

We can similarly explore the what/when (versus right/wrong) norms and patterns in formal, standardized written English (SWE), the variety we are asked most about by writing instructors. Like Black English, SWE follows linguistic norms and is socially constructed to have value in some contexts and not others (Smitherman, 2017; Lippi-Green, 2012; Barrett et al., 2022). And like all language varieties, SWE varies by context, encompassing both formal and informal registers and both spoken and written genres .

Below, for example, are some features of SWE that have been identified in empirical studies by linguists:

• Historical influences: SWE has been rewarded in school learning and tests since English replaced classical language curricula during the 19th century. It includes standardized spelling conventions dating back to 15th and 16th century spelling reform in England, and standardized usage preferences dating back to 18th century usage guides in England and the US. Before these usage guides, more variation was expected and normalized in English (Lynch, 2009; Tieken-Boon van Ostade, 2010).
• Purposes: SWE commonly favors impersonal and informational language goals, which prioritize research processes and abstract concepts, versus personal and interpersonal language goals, which prioritize people, sensory experiences, and explicit connection between people (Biber & Gray, 2010; Thaiss & Zawacki, 2006).
• Genres: SWE favors genres such as college papers and academic research articles, versus genres such as text messages, emails, and social media posts (Tannen, 2013; Nesi & Gardner, 2012).
• Linguistic patterns: SWE favors more nouns than verbs (versus a balance of verbs and nouns), more independent and relative dependent clauses (versus more adverbial dependent clauses), more dense noun and prepositional phrases (versus common nouns), more rigid spelling and punctuation norms, and more hedges (such as perhaps, might suggest, or possibly) than boosters and generalization (really, totally, everyone). It tends to include first person pronouns focused on unfolding information (e.g., I will argue; we conducted three trials), rather than focused on connection or experience (e.g., I will never forget; we will be there). Example patterns like these relate to what many instructors mean when they say "concise" and "formal" (Aull, 2020).

Analysis of disciplinary writing has also found specific patterns within academic fields; for example, humanities writing tends to use first person pronouns to foreground one's own interpretive reasoning (e.g., I argue that; in my view), while natural sciences might use first person to emphasize the replicability of research activities (e.g., our results show that) (Hyland, 2005) (see all research based on the British corpus of Academic Written English ).

Exploring historical influences, purposes, and patterns is a way to describe (versus prescribe) language, approaching it as socially-constructed and linguistically-patterned. In the case of SWE, doing so can help us avoid vague messages, such as that academic writing is "concise" or "sophisticated,” when we really mean "phrasally dense" or "more hedged." Likewise, knowledge of social norms and linguistic patterns can help us avoid labels like "correct," "elegant," and "lucid" that are not only hierarchical but often mystifying for students, potentially making them fall back on school language rules (such as "don't use first person") rather than language knowledge (such as "informational or interpersonal first person"). No language variety is inherently more "correct" or "lucid." Instead, all shared language varieties are rule-governed and responsive to community needs—and can be a matter of informed choices, or rhetorical agency, which we return to in FAQ 3.

The Upshot of FAQ 2: No one kind of shared language use is linguistically better, or more systematic, than another. Knowledge of language patterns allows us to descriptively investigate language norms toward awareness and informed choices, rather than perceiving or labeling language norms according to hierarchical or unclear terminology. Language knowledge helps us say as well as show that all registers and dialects are linguistically equal, and helps foster informed choices about what we use and value.

3. How can linguistics help us to work more effectively and equitably with student writers?

Recognizing that form and meaning are inherently interconnected and that all language varieties are linguistically equal but have differing social value within communities, we can draw on linguistics to help us support thinking about language less in terms of following abstract, universalist rules (e.g., “Never use ‘I’; “Avoid passive voice”) and more about making rhetorical choices. In other words, our writing curricula and instruction should aim to build students’ rhetorical agency—i.e., their ability to make informed decisions as language users (Lorimer Leonard, 2014; Shapiro, 2022; see also Charity Hudley’s “ Students’ Right to Their Own Writing ”). With this agency, students can use evidence-based language knowledge to decide for themselves when and how they wish to conform to particular writing conventions and where there might be possibilities for divergence from those conventions. Some of the strategies we can use to build this agentive capacity include:

(A) Giving students opportunities, strategies, and tools for identifying and experimenting with a range of written linguistic norms (Aull, 2023). This is one way to help students make informed decisions about conforming, resisting, and playing with patterns associated with dialect, genre, style, and modality, from grammatical patterns in SWE and other varieties of English, to moves in media for academic and public audiences, to help expose students to the range of linguistic choices available to them. As we explore the differences across genres, we can also discuss standardization within historical and political contexts: What is it? How does it occur? Who benefits and doesn’t, from the privileging of standardized language at school and in larger society? Thus, we take an approach to standardized language that is both progressive and pragmatic (Curzan, 2014; Delpit, 2006; Shapiro, 2022).

(B) Teaching (explicitly!) the skills of linguistic analysis to make space for exploring language through rhetorical reading and critical response. For example, students doing narrative writing can examine writing samples that use past tense versus present tense verbs, noting how the former helps to create a linear sequence while the latter can engage readers differently. Whichever choice students make in their own writing, we encourage them to be consistent, to avoid confusing the reader. Students can conduct in-depth analyses of linguistic data as a focus for original research, using data from surveys/interviews, databases like  MICASE or MICUSP or COCA , and from their own lives—including online! Our goal is to help students see the range of possible variation within the discourses they are writing in, rather than to teach a single/universal set of “rules” for “good writing.”

(C) Investigating texts (written or otherwise) as cultural artifacts. Learning about linguistic norms and conventions can increase students’ understanding of academic cultures and communities. We know from decades of qualitative research that literacy education is a form of socialization—i.e., a means by which students come to see themselves (and come to be seen) as members of a community, whether it be an academic discipline or another community connected to students’ backgrounds, interests, or goals. Being able to analyze texts as cultural artifacts helps students to recognize community values, norms, and tensions (Bawarshi & Reiff, 2010; Duff, 2010; Lillis & Scott, 2007). For example, the use of passive voice in the Methods section of a scientific article reinforces a value of objectivity, by—literally—making the “object” the grammatical “subject” of the sentence. Of course, this value at times comes into tension with other values, such as the importance of recognizing who is providing the labor—which often gets obscured by passive voice. Conversations like these build on the rich tradition of WAC scholarship focused on making disciplinary genres and values more transparent (Thaiss & Zawacki, 2006; Wilder, 2012).

(D) Reflecting on our own language use —including our experiences with language and power—and modeling that reflective process for students. We can talk with students about the choices we make in our own writing, including the persona/tone we convey in our syllabi, during class discussion, and our feedback to students. Where appropriate, we may want to discuss the rhetorical choices in our scholarly work as well. We can convey a critical awareness of language and power by considering actions such as the following.

• Including a language acknowledgement statement in syllabus or during class (see also Mihut, 2019).
• Inviting the use of multiple languages and language varieties in course readings/media, writing assignments, and research.
• Bringing language explicitly into DEI, anti-racism, and other social justice work (See, e.g., the newly revised NCTE/CCCC position statement on Language, Power, and Action).

(E) Centering our feedback and assessment practices on rhetorical agency. Prioritizing rhetorical agency means that we emphasize concepts such as choice (versus intangible criteria such as “voice”—see Shapiro, 2022), clarity (vs. “correctness”) and effectiveness in our feedback practices. Strategies that are aligned with these emphases include:

• Providing feedback on different aspects of their writing as students progress through various stages of the writing process. Feedback on tone/word choice, style, and conventions is much more helpful after students have already had the opportunity to work on content and structure. We can therefore sequence our feedback to give them what is most useful at given points in an iterative writing process.
• Focusing on quality over quantity of feedback. We can guide our feedback according to answers to questions like the following. What are students' goals on a particular project? What linguistic choices might be helping or hindering achieving those goals? What comments will most help my students to grow as writers/language users, in terms of what language is doing and how it works (versus a single version of "correct" language)? And how can I get feedback to students in as timely a manner as possible?
• Taking reflection, growth, and labor (e.g., Carillo, 2021; Inoue, 2019) into account in assignment or course grades—while also offering language-focused feedback! We can ask students what kind of feedback they wish to receive, in light of their writerly goals, so that students get feedback they want on linguistic and rhetorical choices but are not penalized for being linguistically minoritized and/or having had less instruction in academic writing in the past. Attending to student writing goals, process, and language-level choices can help us work toward a fuller representation of writing in assessment (Poe et al., 2018; Aull, 2022).

The Upshot of FAQ 3: Descriptive attention to language allows students to recognize how form and meaning inform one another, including in SWE, so that they can make informed choices with awareness of patterns and variation. Attention to language itself supports students' rhetorical agency, our reflections on our own language socialization and use, and feedback practices that are effective and empowering for writers from a variety of language backgrounds.

Concluding Remarks

We hope the insights and strategies presented here, informed by insights from linguistics and writing studies, might empower instructors to attend to language with curiosity and criticality, recognizing the social and political tensions around linguistic patterns and norms while also building students’ (and our own) rhetorical agency vis-a-vis adopting, negotiating, and challenging those patterns and norms.

For readers who would like to learn more about working with language in the writing classroom and curriculum, stay tuned for a forthcoming Annotated Bibliography we are working on.

Aull, L. (2015). First-year university writing: A corpus-based study with implications for pedagogy . Palgrave Macmillan.

Aull, L. L. (2020). How students write: A linguistic analysis . Modern Language Association.

Aull, L. L. (2022). Student interpretation and use arguments: Evidence-based, student-led grading. Journal of Response to Writing, 8 (2), 7.

Aull L. L. (2023). You can't write that…8 myths about correct English . Cambridge University Press.

Baker-Bell, A. (2020). Linguistic justice: Black language, literacy, identity, and pedagogy . Routledge.

Barrett, R., Cramer, J., & McGowan, K. B. (2022). English with an accent: Language, ideology, and discrimination in the United States . Routledge.

Bawarshi, A. S., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre: An introduction to history, theory, research, and pedagogy . Parlor Press; The WAC Clearinghouse. https://wac.colostate.edu/books/referenceguides/bawarshi-reiff/

Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2010). Challenging stereotypes about academic writing: Complexity, elaboration, explicitness. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 9 (1), 2-20.

Carillo, E. C. (2021).  The hidden inequities in labor-based contract grading . University Press of Colorado.

Connors, R. (1997). Composition-rhetoric: Backgrounds, theory, and pedagogy . University of Pittsburgh Press.

Cunningham, J. M. (2014). Features of digital African American language in a social network site. Written Communication, 31 (4), 404-433.

Curzan, A. (2014). Fixing English: Prescriptivism and language history . Cambridge University Press.

Delpit, L. (2006).  Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom . The New Press.

Duff, P. A. (2010). Language socialization into academic discourse communities.  Annual review of applied linguistics, 30 , 169-192.

Dyson, A. H., & Smitherman, G. (2009). The right (write) start: African American language and the discourse of sounding right. Teachers College Record, 111 (4), 973-998.

Eckstein, G., & Ferris, D. (2018). Comparing L1 and L2 texts and writers in first‐year composition. TESOL Quarterly, 52 (1), 137-162.

Gere, A. R., Curzan, A., Hammond, J. W., Hughes, S., Li, R., Moos, A., ... & Zanders, C. J. (2021). Communal justicing: Writing assessment, disciplinary infrastructure, and the case for critical language awareness. College Composition and Communication, 72 (3), 384-412.

Hyland, K. (2005). Stance and engagement: A model of interaction in academic discourse. Discourse Studies, 7 (2), 173-192.

Hyland, K. (2019). Second language writing . Cambridge University Press.

Inoue, A. B. (2019). Labor-based grading contracts: Building equity and inclusion in the compassionate writing classroom. The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado. https://wac.colostate.edu/books/perspectives/labor

Junqueira, L., & Payant, C. (2015). “I just want to do it right, but it's so hard”: A novice teacher's written feedback beliefs and practices. Journal of Second Language Writing, 27, 19-36.

Kynard, C. (2007). “I want to be African": In search of a Black Radical tradition/African-American-vernacularized paradigm for "Students' Right to Their Own Language," critical literacy, and "class politics.” College English, 69 (4), 360- 390.

Lancaster, Z., & Olinger, A. R. (2014). Teaching grammar-in-context in college writing instruction: An update on the research literature. WPA-CompPile Research Bibliographies, 24 , 1-22.

Lea, M. R., & Street, B. V. (2006). The "academic literacies" model: Theory and applications. Theory into Practice, 45 (4), 368-377.

Lee, J. W. (2016). Beyond translingual writing. College English, 79 (2), 174-195.

Lillis, T., & Scott, M. (2007). Defining academic literacies research: Issues of epistemology, ideology and strategy.  Journal of Applied Linguistics, 4 (1), 5-32.

Lippi-Green, R. (2012). English with an accent: Language, ideology and discrimination in the United States . United Kingdom: Taylor & Francis.

Lorimer Leonard, R. (2014). Multilingual writing as rhetorical attunement. College English, 76 (3), 227-247.

Lynch, J. (2009). T he lexicographer's dilemma: The evolution of 'proper' English, from Shakespeare to South Park . Bloomsbury Publishing USA.

MacDonald, S. P. (2007). The erasure of language. College Composition and Communication , 585-625.

Matsuda, P. K. (1999). Composition studies and ESL writing: A disciplinary division of labor. College Composition and Communication, 50 (4), 699-721.

Matsuda, P. K. (2012). Let's face it: Language issues and the writing program administrator. Writing Program Administration, 36 (1), 141-164.

Matsuda, P. K., Saenkhum, T., & Accardi, S. (2013). Writing teachers’ perceptions of the presence and needs of second language writers: An institutional case study. Journal of Second Language Writing, 22 (1), 68-86.

Mihut, L. (2019). Linguistic pluralism: A statement and a call to advocacy. Reflections: A Journal of Community-Engaged Writing and Rhetoric, 18 (2), 66-86.

Mufwene, S. S., Rickford, J. R., Bailey, G., & Baugh, J. (Eds.). (2021). African-American English: Structure, history, and use . Routledge.

Nero, S., & Stevens, L. (2018). Analyzing students’ writing in a Jamaican Creole- speaking context: An ecological and systemic functional approach. Linguistics and Education, 43 , 13-24.

Nesi, H., & Gardner, S. (2012). Genres across the disciplines: Student writing in higher education . Cambridge University Press.

Olinger, A. R. (2021). Self-contradiction in faculty's talk about writing: Making and unmaking autonomous models of literacy. Literacy in Composition Studies, 8 (2), 1-38. https://ir.library.louisville.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1533&context=facult y

Perryman-Clark, S. M. (2013). African American language, rhetoric, and students' writing: New directions for SRTOL. College Composition and Communication, 64 (3), 469-495.

Poe, M., Inoue, A. B., & Elliot, N. (2018). The end of isolation. In M. Poe, A. B. Inoue, & N. Elliot (Eds.), Writing assessment, social justice, and the advancement of opportunity (pp. 3-38). The WAC Clearinghouse; University Press of Colorado. https://doi.org/10.37514/PER-B.2018.0155.1.3

Rossen-Knill, D. F., & Hancock, C. (2021). Linguistic Knowledge, Effective Communication, and Agency: Moving Forward in Writing Pedagogy With A Progressive Agenda. Journal of Teaching Writing, 36 (1), 1-10.

Shapiro, S. (2022). Cultivating critical language awareness in the writing classroom . Routledge.

Smitherman, G. (1986). Talkin and testifyin: The language of Black America (Vol. 51). Wayne State University Press.

Smitherman, G. (2017). Raciolinguistics, “mis-education,” and language arts teaching in the 21st century. Language Arts Journal of Michigan, 32 (2), 3.

Tannen, D. (2013). The medium is the metamessage. Discourse, 2 , 99-117.

Thaiss, C. J., & Zawacki, T. M. (2006). Engaged writers and dynamic disciplines: Research on the academic writing life . Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Tieken-Boon van Ostade, I. (2010). The bishop's grammar: Robert Lowth and the rise of prescriptivism . OUP Oxford.

Wang, Z. (2022). From disciplinary diaspora to transdisciplinarity: A home for Second Language Writing professionals in composition. College English, 84 (5), 467-490.

Wilder, L. (2012). Rhetorical strategies and genre conventions in literary studies: Teaching and writing in the disciplines . SIU Press.

Young, V. A. (2010). Should writers use they own English? Iowa Journal of Cultural Studies, 12 (1), 110-117.

Young, V. A., & Barrett, R. (2018). Other people's English: Code-meshing, code- switching, and African American literacy . Parlor Press LLC.

17.2 Using Appropriate Language

Learning objectives.

• Be aware that some words are commonly confused with each other.
• Recognize and use appropriate words, taking care to avoid jargon or slang.
• Write in a straightforward manner and with the appropriate level of formality.

As a writer, you do not want inappropriate word choice to get in the way of your message. For this reason, you need to strive to use language that is accurate and appropriate for the writing situation. Learn for yourself which words you tend to confuse with each other. Omit jargon Vocabulary of a special group or profession. (technical words and phrases common to a specific profession or discipline) and slang Playful, informal vocabulary, often recently invented and specific to a certain group. (invented words and phrases specific to a certain group of people), unless your audience and purpose call for such language. Avoid using outdated words and phrases, such as “dial the number.” Be straightforward in your writing rather than using euphemisms Substitution with a gentler way of expressing something. (a gentler, but sometimes inaccurate, way of saying something). Be clear about the level of formality needed for each different piece of writing and adhere to that level.

Focusing on Easily Confused Words

Words in homophone sets are often mistaken for each other. (See Chapter 19 "Mechanics" , Section 19.1.3 "Homophones" for more about homophones.) Table 17.1 "Commonly Confused Words" presents some examples of commonly confused words other than homophones. You will notice that some of the words in the table have similar sounds that lead to their confusion. Other words in the table are confused due to similar meanings. Keep your personal list handy as you discover pairings of words that give you trouble.

Table 17.1 Commonly Confused Words

Writing without Jargon or Slang

Jargon and slang both have their places. Using jargon is fine as long as you can safely assume your readers also know the jargon. For example, if you are a lawyer, and you are writing to others in the legal profession, using legal jargon is perfectly fine. On the other hand, if you are writing for people outside the legal profession, using legal jargon would most likely be confusing, and you should avoid it. Of course, lawyers must use legal jargon in papers they prepare for customers. However, those papers are designed to navigate within the legal system.

You are, of course, free to use slang within your personal life, but unless you happen to be writing a sociolinguistic study of slang itself, it really has no place in academic writing. Even if you are writing somewhat casual responses in an online discussion for a class, you should avoid using slang or other forms of abbreviated communication common to IM (instant messaging) and texting.

Choosing to Be Straightforward

Some writers choose to control meaning with flowery or pretentious language, euphemisms, and double-talk Talk that includes extra verbiage in an effort to camouflage the message. . All these choices obscure direct communication and therefore have no place in academic writing. Study the following three examples that clarify each of these misdirection techniques.

Presenting an Appropriate Level of Formality

Look at the following three sentences. They all three carry roughly the same meaning. Which one is the best way to write the sentence?

• The doctor said, “A full eight hours of work is going to be too much for this patient to handle for at least the next two weeks.”
• The doctor said I couldn’t work full days for the next two weeks.
• my md said 8 hrs of wrk R 2M2H for the next 2 wks.

If you said, “It depends,” you are right! Each version is appropriate in certain situations. Every writing situation requires you to make a judgment regarding the level of formality you want to use. Base your decision on a combination of the subject matter, the audience, and your purpose for writing. For example, if you are sending a text message to a friend about going bowling, the formality shown in example three is fine. If, on the other hand, you are sending a text message to that same friend about the death of a mutual friend, you would logically move up the formality of your tone at least to the level of example two.

Key Takeaways

• Some words are confused because they sound alike, look alike, or both. Others are confused based on similar meanings.
• Confine use of jargon to situations where your audience recognizes it.
• Use slang and unofficial words only in your informal, personal writing.
• Write in a straightforward way without using euphemisms or flowery language to disguise what you are saying.
• Make sure you examine the subject matter, audience, and purpose to determine whether a piece of writing should be informal, somewhat casual, or formal.
• Choose five of the commonly confused words from Table 17.1 "Commonly Confused Words" that are sometimes problems for you. Write a definition for each word and use each word in a sentence.
• Start a computer file of words that are a problem for you. For each word, write a definition and a sentence. Add to the file whenever you come across another word that is confusing for you. Use the file for a quick reference when you are writing.
• List five examples of jargon from a field of your choice. Then list two situations in which you could use the jargon and two situations in which you should not use the jargon.
• Work with a small group. Make a list of at least fifty slang words or phrases. For each word or phrase, indicate where, as a college student, you could properly use the slang. Share your final project with the class.
• Work with a partner. Write five sentences that include euphemisms or flowery language. Then trade papers and rewrite your partner’s sentences using straightforward language.
• Make a list of five situations where you should use very formal writing and five situations where more casual or even very informal writing would be acceptable.

Instantly enhance your writing in real-time while you type. With LanguageTool

Get started for free

Understanding The Difference Between Formal and Informal Language in Writing

A good writer knows when to use formal or informal language in their writing. We’ll go over the difference between the two and provide examples.

Quick Summary of Formal and Informal Language

• The main difference between formal and informal language in writing is that formal language is more rigid and less personal, whereas informal language is more easygoing and adaptive.
• Deciding on using formal or informal language depends on what you’re writing and who you’re writing it for:
• Formal language is usually reserved for professional and academic settings, while informal writing is used for more casual settings, like friendly text messages and creative writing.
• There are many differences found in formal and informal writing. One of them is that contractions shouldn’t be used in formal writing, but are acceptable in informal writing .
• Vocabulary is another major difference between formal and informal language.

Formal vs. Informal Language

Effective writing has a lot to do with not only what you write but also how you write it. The type of language you use— formal or informal —must suit your audience and setting.

If you want your message to resonate, then it wouldn’t be a good idea to use colloquialisms in formal settings. Similarly, you shouldn’t use rigid language when you’re writing about something light, playful, or funny.

But what exactly is the difference between formal and informal language in writing? That’s what we’ll be covering in this blog. We’ll also provide helpful examples so you can better recognize the difference.

Plus, we’ll show you a paraphrasing tool that’ll ensure your text is pristine, regardless of what you’re writing.

Let’s begin!

What Is The Difference Between Formal and Informal Language?

Compared to formal language, informal language is considered more casual. Informal language also evolves much more rapidly than formal language. While new words or phrases can be introduced to informal language seemingly overnight (e.g., GOAT referring to the greatest of all time) , these changes can take years in formal language (e.g., you replacing thou, thee, and thy ).

But there are also more notable differences between formal and informal language. We’ll give some examples below.

1. Contractions

It is advised to avoid contractions (shortened versions of words) in formal language, but they’re acceptable in informal language.

Unfortunately, the team could not replicate the results. (Formal)

Unfortunately, the team couldn’t replicate the results. ( Informal)

2. Colloquial Phrases/Slang

Formal language is also marked by an absence of colloquial phrases and slang (words or phrases that are common only in everyday speech), but are typically used in informal language.

Everyone was disappointed . (Formal)

Everyone was bummed . ( Informal)

3. First-Person Pronouns

Generally, first-person pronouns (like I and we ) are avoided when writing with formal language. However, it’s accepted (and expected) in informal language.

The students were asked to fill out the questionnaire. (Formal)

Informal: We asked the students to fill out the questionnaire. ( Informal)

4. Phrasal Verbs

When using formal language in your writing, it is also recommended to replace phrasal verbs (proper verbs that are followed by one or more prepositions and act as a single verb).

It was something the protestors could endure . (Formal)

It was something the protestors could put up with . ( Informal)

5. Grammar Rules

When writing for formal settings, it is recommended to follow all grammar rules, even those that are considered trivial. In informal settings, some grammar rules can be ignored. For example, in informal settings, it’s okay to use who in place of whom . However, always using who in place of whom is not recommended when writing with formal language.

Whom do I have to speak to? (Formal)

Who do I have to speak to? ( Informal)

6. Vocabulary Choice

Formal language tends to use longer, more complex vocabulary. Sometimes it is not recommended to use this type of vocabulary with informal language (depending on what you’re writing) because it can confuse or distract your audience.

They needed assistance while recovering from the outcomes of the hurricane. (Formal)

They needed help while recovering from the effects of the hurricane. ( Informal)

Whether you’re writing in a professional or academic setting or a casual and creative one, LanguageTool can provide stronger vocabulary options—all you have to do is double-click on the word. This multilingual spelling and grammar checker can also detect different types of errors, whether you choose to write in formal or informal language.

Deciding When To Use Formal and Informal Language

Remember that choosing when to use formal or informal language in your writing depends on what you’re writing and who your audience is. However, you should also be mindful of the fact that formal and informal language is a spectrum, and some types of writing can fall in between these categories. Regardless of what type of language you’re using in your writing, keep these differences in mind to guarantee the most effective writing possible.

Unleash the Professional Writer in You With LanguageTool

Go well beyond grammar and spell checking. Impress with clear, precise, and stylistically flawless writing instead.

Works on All Your Favorite Services

• Thunderbird
• Google Docs
• Microsoft Word
• Open Office
• Libre Office

We Value Your Feedback

We’ve made a mistake, forgotten about an important detail, or haven’t managed to get the point across? Let’s help each other to perfect our writing.

• Book Series
• Online Resources
• Collections
• Art & Art History
• Communication Studies
• Consciousness Research
• Interaction Studies
• Linguistics
• Literature & Literary Studies
• Miscellaneous
• Terminology & Lexicography
• Translation & Interpreting Studies
• View Shopping Cart

Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes

• Volume 4, Issue 1
• Navigate this Journal
• Current issue
• Previous issues
• Submit a paper
• Editorial information

• ISSN 2590-0994
• E-ISSN: 2590-1001

oa Examining novice writers’ perceptions of formality

• View Affiliations Hide Affiliations Affiliations: 1 Northern Arizona University 2 Uppsala University 3 University of Gävle 4 Oxford College of Emory University
• Source: Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes , Volume 4, Issue 1 , Jul 2023, p. 29 - 55
• DOI: https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.22010.lar
• Received: 26 Jul 2022
• Accepted: 09 Mar 2023
• Version of Record published : 20 Jul 2023
• Previous Article
• T able o f C ontents
• Next Article

Adherence to standards pertaining to formality remains important for novice academic writers wishing to write within the scientific community. However, due to its elusive nature, it may not be clear what “formal” really means. This study investigates what affects novice writers’ perceptions of formality; specifically, it looks at the individual and combined impact of register (journal articles vs. academic blog posts) and linguistic features with two variants (e.g., split vs. non-split infinitives). The writers ( n  = 117) were presented with a series of binary choices between register-feature combinations and asked to select the most formal combination. This resulted in a rank-ordered list showing which combinations they perceived as more formal.

The results showed that the novice writers’ perceptions largely aligned with the expected rankings, in that journal articles and the feature variant associated with this register tended to be perceived as more formal than the alternative. These trends were especially strong for two of the features investigated: exclamation points and contractions. In bringing us one step closer to understanding how novice writers think about formality, this study helps shed some light on the commonly used, but less commonly defined, concept of formality.

Article metrics loading...

From This Site

Full text loading...

• Altenberg, B., & Tapper, M. ( 1998 ) The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learners’ written English. In S. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp. 80–93). Longman. [Google Scholar]
• American Psychological Association American Psychological Association ( 2020 )  Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association: The official guide to APA style . (7th ed.). American Psychological Association. [Google Scholar]
• Battistella, E. L. ( 1996 )  The logic of markedness . Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
• Biber, D. ( 1988 )  Variation across speech and writing . Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
• Biber, D., & Conrad, S. ( 2019 )  Register, genre, and style . (Second edition). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108686136 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108686136 [Google Scholar]
• Biber, D., Gray, B., Staples, S., & Egbert, J. ( 2022 )  The register-functional approach to grammatical complexity: Theoretical foundation, descriptive research findings, application . Routledge. [Google Scholar]
• Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. ( 1999 )  Longman grammar of spoken and written English . Longman. [Google Scholar]
• Chapman, D. ( 2021 , September 23–25). ‘Not just a few dozen trouble spots’: tallying the rules in English usage guides [Plenary Talk]. 6th Prescriptivism Conference, Vigo, Spain. [Google Scholar]
• Curzan, A. ( 2014 )  Fixing English: Prescriptivism and language history . Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139107327 https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139107327 [Google Scholar]
• Dixon, T. ( 2022a ) Rules of academic writing: A synchronic and diachronic corpus analysis across the disciplines. [Doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global . [Google Scholar]
• Dixon, T. ( 2022b ) Proscribed informality features in published research: A corpus analysis. English for Specific Purposes , 65 1, 63–78. 10.1016/j.esp.2021.09.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.09.003 [Google Scholar]
• Dixon, T., Egbert, J., Larsson, T., Kaatari, H., & Hanks, E. ( 2023 ) Toward an empirical understanding of formality: Triangulating corpus data with teacher perceptions. English for Specific Purposes , 711, 161-177. 10.1016/j.esp.2023.04.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2023.04.006 [Google Scholar]
• Egbert, J., Larsson, T., & Biber, D. ( 2020 )  Doing linguistics with a corpus: Methodological considerations for the everyday user . Cambridge Elements in Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108888790 https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888790 [Google Scholar]
• Glasman-Deal, H. ( 2010 )  Science research writing for non-native speakers of English . Imperial College Press. [Google Scholar]
• Heylighen, F., & Dewaele, J.-M. ( 1999 )  Formality of Language: Definition, measurement and behavioral determinants . Internal Report, Center “Leo Apostel”. Free University of Brussels, Belgium. [Google Scholar]
• Hyland, K., & Jiang, F. ( 2017 ) Is academic writing becoming more informal? English for Specific Purposes , 451, 40–51. 10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001 [Google Scholar]
• Irvine, J. T. ( 1979 ) Formality and informality in communicative events. American Anthropologist , 81 1, 773–790. 10.1525/aa.1979.81.4.02a00020 https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1979.81.4.02a00020 [Google Scholar]
• Kjellmer, G. ( 1997 ) On contraction in modern English. Studia Neophilologica , 69 (2), 155–186. 10.1080/00393279708588204 https://doi.org/10.1080/00393279708588204 [Google Scholar]
• Larsson, T., & Kaatari, H. ( 2019 ) Extraposition in learner and expert writing: Exploring (in)formality and the impact of register. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research , 5 (1), 33–62. [Google Scholar]
• Larsson, T., & Kaatari, H. ( 2020 ) Syntactic complexity across registers: Investigating (in)formality in second-language writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes , 451. 10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100850 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100850 [Google Scholar]
• Liardét, C. L., Black, S., & Bardetta, V. S. ( 2019 ) Defining formality: Adapting to the abstract demands of academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes , 381, 146–158. 10.1016/j.jeap.2019.02.007 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.02.007 [Google Scholar]
• The Oxford English Dictionary The Oxford English Dictionary, “formal, adj. and n.” OED Online , Oxford University Press, September 2021 , www.oed.com/view/Entry/73430 . Accessed 17 October 2021. [Google Scholar]
• Perales-Escudero, M. D. ( 2011 ) To split or to not split: The split infinitive past and present. Journal of English Linguistics , 39 (4), 313–334. 10.1177/0075424210380726 https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424210380726 [Google Scholar]
• Pollitt, A. ( 2012 ) The method of Adaptive Comparative Judgement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice , 19 (3), 281–300. [Google Scholar]
• Supakorn, P. ( 2013 ) The English split infinitive: A comparative study of learner corpora. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning , 2(4), 21–32. [Google Scholar]
• Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B. ( 2004 )  Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (2nd ed.) . The University of Michigan Press. [Google Scholar]
• Williams, J. M., & J. Bizup ( 2017 )  Style: Lessons in clarity and grace (12th Edition). Pearson. [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

• Article Type: Research Article

Most Read This Month

Rethinking english as a lingua franca in scientific-academic contexts, linguistic injustice in academic publishing in english, peer review, engagement and reviewers’ reports on submissions to academic journals, ‘we cannot abandon the two worlds, we have to be in both’, the tools we choose, gray areas of academic publishing, global perspectives on linguacultural variation in academic publishing, english for research publication purposes.

Writing across the academic languages: introduction

• Published: 12 December 2019
• Volume 33 , pages 1–11, ( 2020 )

Cite this article

• Elaine R. Silliman 1 ,
• Ruth Huntley Bahr 1 &
• Louise C. Wilkinson 2  

2931 Accesses

5 Citations

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Writing-to-learn is essential for achieving a broad array of educational, vocational, and personal purposes because it is a major tool for acquiring new knowledge and levels of self-reflection (Silva & Limongi, 2019 ). Moreover, writing-to-learn is a communication skill whose ongoing refinement extends throughout adolescence, if not the life span (Berman, 2007 , 2008 ). Worldwide, many students do not attain competence in writing-to-learn during their schooling. This finding is attributed to the overall quality of and experiences with writing instruction across the grades (Dockrell, Marshall, & Wyse, 2016 ; Graham, 2019 ; Nelson & Watkins, 2019 ), and the likelihood that writing-to-learn requires the multifaceted cognitive ability to “take sole responsibility for the construction of thematically coherent monologic text” (Christie & Derewianka, 2008 , p. 20). In the United States, the last national assessment of student writing abilities at grades 8 and 12 (U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, 2011 ) indicated that only 24% of students demonstrated proficiency in their ability to construct expository texts that required persuasion and explanation. Approximately 20.5% performed below a basic level of competence. Footnote 1 The failure to attain writing proficiency by the end of secondary schooling has critical ramifications not only for student success in a new global order but also for the ways in which we conceptualize and implement writing practices.

Despite its central role in the implementation of national standards in education, such as the U.S. Common Core State Standards ( www.corestandards.org ), writing-to-learn has received minimal attention in the academic language literature. In contrast, prior academic language studies primarily focused on either reading comprehension or vocabulary. In addition, beyond vocabulary, the academic language production of students with significant language learning difficulties, including oral language, reading, and writing, has not been systematically investigated (Silliman & Wilkinson, 2015 ). To remedy these situations, a special section of this issue is dedicated to articles on writing in the academic language registers, the medium of expression through which academic concepts are translated into the written discourse of the disciplines. As a preface, consider this excerpt from an account of a science experiment, specifically a chemistry lab report, written by a 15-year-old female who is a high school sophomore:

In this lab, I predicted that it [the hydrogen lab] would have similar results to the oxygen lab because the procedures were the same. The importance of this lab is for the students to be familiarized with meta-acid reaction that produces hydrogen gas, water displacement, and several properties of hydrogen gas (Silliman, Wilkinson, & Brea-Spahn, 2018 , p. 122).

This brief passage encapsulates the special section focus, as the manner of writing is consistent with the language of schooling or an academic language register. Registers combine cognitive, linguistic, and social dimensions as these interact continuously with the situational context, which filters “the choice of linguistic features from the language system” (Neumann, 2016 , p. 36). This means that, at the broadest level, registers represent the ways in which linguistic and discourse resources vary in keeping with how a speaker-writer in a particular context interprets the genre to be produced (Bar-Ilan & Berman, 2007 ); hence context and genre are interwoven (Christie & Derewianka, 2008 ).

The two general genre categories, narrative and expository, are not unitary but have multiple variations that can overlap (Wallis, Richards, Boord, Abbott, & Berninger, 2017 ). The genres differ in their communicative goals, content, textual organization, and distribution of linguistic features, and these register distinctions seem to be similar across languages (see Bar-Ilan and Berman, 2007 ; Biber, 2016 for further discussion on debates about the uniqueness of academic language, see Fang & Park in this special section). Narrative discourse, whether fictional or non-fictional, expresses dynamic events typically from a more subjective and emotive point of view. In contrast, expository discourse tends towards the abstract and impersonal in the expression of ideas and related information, favors academic or more literate language registers, and is often associated with disciplinary content, like the chemistry lab report. As the brief sample from the lab report illuminates, the writer seems on her way to using writing-to-learn to construct a chemistry register. Therefore, command of academic language registers is not only critical for processing various types of disciplinary content (Cummins, 2014 ) but also for assuming a productive academic identity (Zwiers & Crawford, 2011 ).

The segment from the chemistry lab report also illustrates why the concept of a unified academic language is likely misleading. The disciplines have their own linguistic and discourse repertoires; that is, each has their own way of facilitating how students are expected to write, read, listen, speak, and reason (Biber & Gray, 2016 ; Fang, Scheppegrell, & Moore, 2014 ). Hence, the notion of academic languages is preferred because it encompasses the linguistic-discourse variations inherent to the broad diversity of disciplinary content, from the languages of science to the languages of history and mathematics to the languages of the humanities and literature, among other disciplines. As Biber and Gray ( 2016 ) note, the discourse styles of academic language writing are often misunderstood as the intentional obscuring of meaning just to show “how smart” one is at saying nothing for distant readers who are frequently non-specialists. Rather than engage in deliberate camouflage and depending on the discipline, good academic writing should vary how the multiple levels of language pattern for particular audiences the expression of general academic language versus specialized language registers (or sub-registers).

Multiple levels of language and academic language registers

It may be intuitive that language systems comprise speaking, listening, reading, and writing. Less intuitive is that each of these systems (Abbott, Berninger, & Fayol, 2010 ; Berninger, Abbott, & Richards, 2015 ; Silliman & Berninger, 2011 ; Silliman & Wilkinson, 2015 ): (1) are multileveled (at the sub-word, word/multiword, phrase/syntactic, and discourse/textual levels); (2) are dynamic and interconnected; and (3) interact with the infrastructures of “sensory, motor, social emotional, cognitive, and attention/executive functions in the brain” (James, Jao, & Berninger, 2016 , p. 116). Weaving the multidimensional strands of language into the proficient ability known as writing-to-learn can be challenging because of the variety of factors involved. These influences include home socialization practices; community, school, and peer interactions; cultural beliefs; and motivational factors (Silliman & Wilkinson, 2015 ; Silliman, Wilkinson, & Brea-Spahn, 2018; Wright, Hodges, Zimmer, & McTigue, 2019 ). A related challenge over time for many students is that the academic writing system must coordinate with the listening, speaking, and reading systems, but each system is separate and may not develop at the same rate within individual students (Berninger & Abbott, 2010 ).

As the articles in this section demonstrate, consensus is absent about the origins or developmental trajectories of the academic language registers (Christie & Derewianka, 2008 ), much less the development of particular academic language features (see Fang & Park, this issue). But, it is common knowledge that, when young children are learning how to employ first language oral systems and to coordinate their purposes, they also are learning the social registers of communication. Initially, young children acquire the conversational register associated with first language acquisition and face-to-face communication. The general features of this register are an interpersonal focus realized in turn-taking, high affective involvement, and on-line language production that occurs under real-time limitations with reduced linguistic complexity (Biber & Conrad, 2003 ).

Only later during the preschool years, depending on the nature of preschool experiences, do the general beginnings emerge of a new way of communicating (van Kleeck, 2014 ). Common features of the academic language registers are a decreased interpersonal stance; less affective emphasis; increased objectivity of expression, which may need to be crafted for imaginary audiences; and, often, although not exclusively, an expository focus (Berman, 2014 ; Biber & Conrad, 2003 ). More specifically, at the subword, word/multiword, phrase/syntactic, and discourse/text levels, writing-to-learn the academic language registers notably draws on “uncommonsense knowledge” (Christie & Derewianka, 2008 , p. 218), which expresses abstract concepts, judgments, and opinions that have reduced communicative dependence on the here and now. van Kleeck ( 2014 ) makes the case that academic language learning should begin in preschool. The argument is that, once children enter elementary school, academic language registers are rarely taught directly. The reason is mistakenly attributed to the belief that children know about the general academic language register (for a contrary view, see, Galloway, Qin, Uccelli, and Barr, this issue). Although the development of academic language—oral and written—continues throughout the school years and into young adulthood, students need directed instruction and many opportunities to practice in a variety of academic contexts to attain expertise.

General and specialized academic language registers

All students, including those with specific learning disabilities, are expected to acquire two intertwined aspects of the academic language register in both the oral and written domains. One facet is the general academic language register, which functions as the primary educational “gatekeeper” (Bailey, 2010 , p. 229). Nagy and Townsend ( 2012 ) characterize this register as the facilitator of “communication and thinking about disciplinary content” (p. 92) in both oral and written areas.

This register presents a new kind of complexity to challenge students since interweaving the multiple levels of language into an integrated whole produces stretches of language that are “more or less “complex” (Ravid, Dromi, & Kotler, 2010 , p. 126; authors’ quotation). This general register “consists of the overall linguistic and discourse tools necessary to manage reasoning, reading, and writing across disciplinary content areas” (Silliman & Wilkinson, 2015 , p. 293), such as knowing when, how, and where to alter multiple language levels to diversify intentions and meanings and interconnect topics, e.g., with connectives.

The specialized language sub-registers associated with the various disciplinary domains is the second development, building on the general language register starting with elementary experiences. Each academic language sub-register has varied amalgamations of linguistic and discourse features, from the word to discourse/textual levels, that may expand or decrease depending on the degree, scope, and quality of educational experiences (Zwiers, 2008 ). Nevertheless, three interconnected aspects generally characterize the specialized language of the sub-registers. One is textual connectivity of the theme (David & Berman, 2014 ). A second facet is the generation of more complex linguistic content, which reduces redundancy (Ravid & Berman, 2006 ; Ravid et al., 2010 ). The third feature emerges from the first two: enhanced conciseness and precision of expression (Snow, 2010 ), especially as constructed through the power of writing-to-learn (Berman, 2008 ). However, it is worth noting that the manner in which writing-to-learn specifically affects these outcomes remains unresolved (Silva & Limongi, 2019 ).

To frame the five articles in this section, we draw on examples from the excerpt of the chemistry lab report written by the 15-year-old high school student to show how the general and specialized registers flow from the overlapping, multileveled, and functional nature of the language system.

Subword and word levels—These levels are intertwined in the writer’s complexity building, which points to the rich lexical representations accessible from the writer’s “chemistry lexicon.” For example, from a subword perspective, all words in the excerpt (and in the report in general) are transcribed accurately, which suggests that the phonological, orthographic, and morphological components of spelling are unifying into automatic word forms.

Word/multiword level—As just mentioned, the writer’s lexical repertoire allows her to employ both general (albeit more literate) meanings (e.g., predicted, procedures, produces ), disciplinary specific meanings (e.g., hydrogen, oxygen ), and disciplinary specific derivations, both prefixes (single underline) and suffixes (double underlined) such as, [meta-acid] re act ion , [water] dis place ment .

Phrase/syntactic (grammatical) level—The writer constructs informational density with two types of linguistic devices: elaborated noun phrases (ENPs) and dependent clauses. ENPs are embedded phrases that function to pack more information into a stretch of language (Biber & Gray, 2016 ). They specify details related to noun, prepositional, or adjective phrases, contribute to increased length of expression, vary in the type of modification, and are consistent with scientific writing wherein ENPs generate complexity more often than do dependent clauses (Biber, Gray, & Poopon, 2011 ). At the same time at the syntactic level, the writer produces a co-occurrence of different dependent clauses. Note in the last sentence that a multifaceted ENP is partially embedded in a relative clause (ENPs are italicized with more complex items italicized and bolded; dependent clause types are underlined):

In this lab, I predicted [noun clause] that it [the hydrogen lab] would have similar results to the oxygen lab [adverbial clause] because the procedures were the same . The importance of this lab is for the students to be familiarized with meta - acid reaction [relative clause] that produces hydrogen gas , water displacement , and several properties of hydrogen gas .

Discourse/text level—The writer introduces the theme and successively organizes and assembles it from the general to the specific through topic shifts, elaborations, and conclusions (the type of thematic unit is encased in a bracket).

[Introduction] In this lab, I predicted that it (the hydrogen lab) would have similar results to the oxygen lab because the procedures were the same. [Elaboration] The importance of this lab is for the students to be familiarized with meta-acid reaction that produces hydrogen gas, water displacement, and several properties of hydrogen gas.

The continuous interplay among these multiple levels demonstrates that complexity is not a singular concept. Rather, as Biber and Gray ( 2016 ) outline, there are multiple kinds of complexity. Each differs “in important ways with respect to their structural and syntactic characteristics, their discourse functions, and their distribution across registers” (p. 246). The five articles in this special section capture the notion of diverse complexity of multiple language levels in their investigations of academic language registers. Of the five, three emphasize varying aspects of general academic language registers (Galloway, Qin, Uccelli and Barr; Truckenmiller and Petscher; Stuart, Connelly, and Dockrell) while the remaining two (Fang and Park; Bahr, Lebby, and Wilkinson) foreground specialized academic language registers. All of the studies offer well-considered educational recommendations to remedy the academic language writing gap.

General academic language registers

The cross-sectional study by Galloway, Qin, Uccelli, and Barr, part of a larger longitudinal investigation, examined the academic language features of expository writing, in this case through a reading comprehension measure and computer-assisted written summaries of science source texts on satellites or wind power. Participants consisted of a large urban sample in grades 4–7 ( N  = 922 students) located in the Eastern United States. A majority qualified for free/reduced price meals, indicating that most came from low-income families. Beginning with the premise that writing and reading are reciprocal processes, the study primarily focused on general academic language or what Galloway et al. referred to as cross-disciplinary or high-utility academic language resources as represented by Core Academic Language Skills (CALS) that support both reading and writing. These authors define CALS as a comprehensive construct of multiple-levels of language (however, the study did not address the subword level). Results indicated that, irrespective of socio-demographic variables, what writers know about general academic language predicts the quality of their written science summaries relative to the lexical, syntactic, and discourse categories that served as the focus of analysis. Moreover, those students less adept with CALS were also less aware of the need to avoid first person pronouns when constructing summaries, and, instead, similar to the less-skilled students in the Fang and Park study, drew on a narrative writing strategy, which the authors interpreted as a more familiar writing strategy.

Truckenmiller and Petscher, reviewing evidence that supported multiple language levels as the foundational basis for both reading and writing, also designed a large-scale, cross-sectional study involving Florida students in grades 4 ( n  = 1316) and 8 ( n  = 1302). The purpose was to ascertain if the linguistic knowledge interrelating reading comprehension, general academic language, and word recognition also contributed to writing proficiency. General academic language knowledge was operationalized as deconstruction of word parts into a base word (word level; e.g., permission - permit ), selection of a connective that best joined two sentences topically (syntactic/text level), and, although not explicitly stated, a word recognition task that addressed the subword level. For this task, students listened to a word and chose the correctly spelled real word or non-word from a list of three words. These measures were used to understand student performance on a writing task, the state writing assessment, which was a narrative composition for grade 4 and a persuasive essay for grade 8. The written products were scored with a holistic scale. Results supported the shared knowledge perspective. General academic language, reading comprehension, and word recognition measures predicted a considerable amount of variance in the written composition pass rates. Students in grades 4 and 8 who demonstrated higher academic language skills were at lower risk for failing outcomes in written composition. Conversely, those with lower general academic language scores were at higher risk.

How children with oral language disorders manage aspects of the general academic register in text construction has rarely been explored. The inclusion of this group affords the opportunity to examine possible correlations between facets of oral language knowledge and written text development. To rectify this lapse, Stuart, Connelly and Dockrell chose to sample three linguistic stepping-stones to general academic writing: verb argument structures (such as transitive and intransitive structures that assist in completing meaning) and verb production (both accessing the phrase/syntactic level) and verb diversity (lexical level). Data were obtained from 90 students engaged in a narrative writing activity. All were approximately 10 years old and enrolled in British elementary classrooms. Students were administered standardized measures of oral sentence formulation and recall, reading fluency of single words, and spelling. They were assembled into three groups of 30 each: an experimental group diagnosed with a Developmental Language Disorder (DLD; n  = 30), a chronological age group (CA; n  = 30), and a language ability group (LA; n  = 30) with the same raw scores as the DLD group on the oral language measure. Three sets of findings were pertinent. First, both the oral sentence formulation and reading fluency for single words, but not the spelling measure as assessed by spelling accuracy, were predictors of the numbers of written verbs and the number of different verbs produced, suggesting a level of bi-directionality or reciprocal relationship between these measures and certain stepping-stones. Second, significant differences did not emerge among the groups for the frequency of verb argument structures, a surprise finding, but, as expected, the frequency and diversity of verb production did differ with the CA group outperforming the DLD and LA groups; however, verb diversity was reduced in children with DLD compared to their CA matched peers. Third, findings indicated a pattern of instructional inadequacies in writing-to-learn. Although the requisite stepping-stones underlying this aspect of general academic language knowledge were underdeveloped for all three groups, the group with DLD more often tended to produce “lexical teddy bears” or the same verbs repeatedly. Stuart et al. voice the concern that a possible consequence for all students, but especially for those with DLD, is being left behind metaphorically on the riverbank, hanging onto their lexical teddy bears, and never reaching the other side to master disciplinary writing.

Specialized academic language registers

Fang and Park selected an informational text variation of expository writing obtained from 93 students in grades 7 and 9 attending Florida schools. The task was to write a science report about alligator habits. Student use of 11 academic language features and writing quality were subsequently analyzed, among other variables. The 11 features did not include the subword level (spelling) but did emphasize the word/multiword, phrase/syntactic, and general text levels, the latter assessed in terms of overall writing quality. Although findings indicated within-grade variations in academic language features, there was no difference between the two grades. Patterns indicated that many students were struggling with the general and specialized academic language registers given that reports tended to be written in everyday conversational style. The authors partially attributed the absence of academic language features to the concern that contemporary instruction in language arts and other content areas fails to attend to the academic language registers with the possible exception of vocabulary. A speculation is that the dearth of attention to academic language also influences overall writing quality.

The Bahr, Lebby, and Wilkinson article addresses spelling, which is often erroneously regarded as a mechanical ability. However, as Bahr et al. underscore, spelling is the linguistic bridge for translating ideas into language. Moreover, English is a morphophonemic orthography because three linguistic codes, phonology (sound) and morphology (meaning) are progressively interrelated through the orthography. Bahr et al. attended to the subword level in the analysis of misspellings of 29 students in grades 5–9 (ages 11–14 years) in Pacific Northwest schools. All students had persistent specific learning disabilities (SLDs) (dysgraphia, dyslexia, or oral and written language learning disability, OWL LD, another term similar to developmental language disorders) as they engaged over six lessons in expository composing in a disciplinary academic register. Following extensive assessments, students were asked to take notes and handwrite or type summaries from source texts about world geography and cultures that they read or heard. This was important because minimal information exists about how transcription mode—handwriting or keyboarding—or how the manner of input of the source text (read or heard) during composing may affect the kinds of linguistic features that are misspelled by the different SLD diagnostic groups. The authors completed an analysis of the linguistic features associated with the 1778 words misspelled in the writing samples (of the 12, 622 words produced). Results indicated that students generated similar degrees of error complexity in their misspellings when writing in this specialized academic register regardless of the nature of their SLD, mode of presentation of source texts, or mode of transcription. Hence, individual variability and the complexity of the writing task, not diagnostic group, influenced spelling skill when composing in this academic register. Similar to findings from the Stuart et al. study, the complex architecture of written academic language expression remains a formidable challenge for a number of students with chronic SLD.

Concluding remarks

In summary, several cross cutting themes emerge from the five papers included in this special section. These are:

Fundamental challenges are inherent to the writing process within academic language registers, both general and specialized. This was noted across a broad range of students, from the typically developing to those with known and persisting weaknesses in language learning.

Relationships among the multiple levels of language knowledge are complex and are interwoven, evolving throughout schooling and even into the young adult years.

Students develop mastery of the general and specialized academic language registers over time and in concert with development of their disciplinary knowledge through the integration of reading with writing.

Beginning in the early elementary grades, teachers should create multiple activities to encourage students’ engagement with multiple language levels and support different ways for students to generate linguistic/discourse complexity in the context of written academic registers.

Teachers must directly teach use of these registers.

Individually, each of the papers published here provides a significant contribution to our understanding of the relationships between academic language registers and literacy. Taken as a whole, the papers represent the state of inquiry in this area of educational research.

Finally, some implications for educational practice flow from the research presented in this special section. The primary implication is that students may benefit when their teachers, at all levels recognize that their role is to teach students how to write in the academic language registers while simultaneously teaching both the content and process of acquiring disciplinary knowledge. This change in instructional practice begins with teachers developing their own mastery of writing within the academic registers and understanding the significance of students mastering the process of writing-to-learn. Teachers need to assist students in learning how to understand and interpret disciplinary texts and discourse, including textbooks, word problems associated with classroom tasks, and standardized tests that require writing within the academic registers. Teachers may find it beneficial to familiarize themselves with the national standards and the language demands of high stakes assessments and centrally mandated textbooks and curricula—all of which require student mastery of the written academic registers.

Secondly, in terms of practice, teachers may find it useful to modify their instructional strategies so that students engage daily in meaningful writing of the academic language registers. This change includes providing learning opportunities that truly challenge students—so that they want to express what they know in writing within the academic registers. Students should work on disciplinary tasks, which may offer multiple opportunities to engage in the range of language forms utilized in the written disciplinary register. Writing-to-learn should offer opportunities to extend and offer greater precision than the oral register. Teachers need to teach academic writing to their students, if students are to attain mastery in this essential school competency.

A third step for teachers is to model the use of the academic language writing registers when they introduce, discuss, and present disciplinary knowledge and problem solving. Teachers’ use of the academic writing registers in their own classrooms with students illustrates the complex and precise ways of expressing disciplinary ideas. Teachers have to both show and teach students how to accomplish building and communicating their disciplinary understandings through academic writing.

Results from the 2017 writing assessment will not be published until sometime in 2020.

Abbott, R. D., Berninger, V. W., & Fayol, M. (2010). Longitudinal relationships of levels of language in writing and between writing and reading in grades 1–7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 281–298.

Article   Google Scholar  

Bailey, A. L. (2010). Implications for assessment and instruction. In M. Shatz & L. C. Wilkinson (Eds.), The education of English language learners: Research to practice (pp. 222–247). New York: Guilford Press.

Google Scholar  

Bar-Ilan, L., & Berman, R. A. (2007). Developing register differentiation: The Latinate-Germanic divide in English. Linguistics, 45, 1–36. https://doi.org/10.1515/LING.2007.001 .

Berman, R. A. (2007). Developing linguistic knowledge and use across adolescence. In E. Hoff & M. Shatz (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of language development (pp. 347–367). Malden, MA: Blackwell.

Chapter   Google Scholar  

Berman, R. A. (2008). The psycholinguistics of developing text construction. Journal of Child Language, 35, 735–771.

Berman, R. A. (2014). Linguistic perspectives on writing development. In B. Arfé, J. Dockrell, & V. Berninger (Eds.), Writing development in children with hearing loss, dyslexia, or oral language problems (pp. 16–32). New York: Oxford University Press.

Berninger, V. W., & Abbott, R. D. (2010). Listening comprehension, oral expression, reading comprehension, and written expression: Related yet unique language systems in grades 1, 3, 5, and 7. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 635–651.

Berninger, V. W., Richards, T., & Abbott, R. D. (2015). Differential diagnosis of dysgraphia, dyslexia, and OWL LD: Behavioral and neuroimaging evidence. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 28, 1119–1153.

Biber, D. (2016). Using multi-dimensional analysis to explore cross-linguistic universals of register variation. In M. A. Lefer & S. Vogeleer (Eds.), Genre and register related discourse features in contrast (pp. 7–34). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2003). Register variation: A corpus approach. In D. Schiffrin, D. Tannen, & H. E. Hamilton (Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 175–196). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Biber, D., & Gray, B. (2016). Grammatical complexity in academic English: Linguistic change in writing . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Book   Google Scholar  

Biber, D., Gray, B., & Poonpon, K. (2011). Should we use characteristics of conversation to measure grammatical complexity in L2 writing development? TESOL Quarterly, 45, 5–35.

Christie, F., & Derewianka, B. (2008). School discourse . New York: Continuum International Publishing Group.

Cummins, J. (2014). Beyond language: Academic communication and student success. Linguistics and Education, 26, 145–154.

Davidi, O., & Berman, R. A. (2014). Writing abilities of pre-adolescents with and without language/learning impairment in restructuring an informative text. In B. Arfé, J. Dockrell, & V. Berninger (Eds.), Writing development in children with hearing loss, dyslexia, or oral language problems (pp. 143–157). New York: Oxford University Press.

Dockrell, J. E., Marshall, C. R., & Wyse, D. (2016). Teachers’ reported practices for teaching writing in England. Reading and Writing, 29, 409–434. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9605-9 .

Fang, Z., Scheppegrell, M. J., & Moore, J. (2014). The linguistic challenge of learning across academic disciplines. In C. A. Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren, & G. P. Wallach (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy: Development and disorders (2nd ed., pp. 302–322). New York: Guilford Press.

Graham, S. (2019). Changing how writing is taught. Review of Research in Education, 43, 277–303. https://doi.org/10.3102/0091732X18821125 .

James, K. H., Jao, R. J., & Berninger, V. (2016). The development of multi-leveled writing brain systems; Brain lessons for writing instruction. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 116–129). New York: Guilford Press.

Nagy, W., & Townsend, D. (2012). Words as tools: Learning academic vocabulary as language acquisition. Reading Research Quarterly, 47, 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1002/RRQ.011 .

Nelson, K. L., & Watkins, M. (2019). An examination of secondary English teachers’ vocabulary instructional practices and the impact on them from professional development. Reading Improvement, 56, 118–133.

Neumann, S. (2016). Cross-linguistic register studies: Theoretical and methodological considerations. In M. A. Lefer & S. Vogeleer (Eds.), Genre and register related discourse features in contrast (pp. 35–58). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.

Ravid, D., & Berman, R. A. (2006). Information density in the development of spoken and written narratives in English and Hebrew. Discourse Processes, 41, 117–149.

Ravid, D., Dromi, E., & Kotler, P. (2010). Linguistic complexity in school-age text production: Expository versus mathematical discourse. In M. A. Nippold & C. M. Scott (Eds.), Expository discourse in children, adolescents, and adults (pp. 123–154). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

Silliman, E., & Berninger, V. (2011). Cross-disciplinary dialogue about the nature of oral and written language problems in the context of developmental, academic, and phenotypic profiles . Topics in Language Disorders, 31 , 6–23. Free access at http://journals.lww.com/topicsinlanguagedisorders/Fulltext/2011/01000/Cross_Disciplinary_Dialogue_about_the_Nature_of.3.aspx .

Silliman, E. R., & Wilkinson, L. C. (2015). Two challenges of the academic language register for students with language learning disabilities. In R. H. Bahr & E. R. SIlliman (Eds.), Routledge handbook of communication disorders (pp. 291–302). London: Routledge.

Silliman, E. R., Wilkinson, L. C., & Brea-Spahn, M. (2018). Writing the science register and multiple levels of language. In A. L. Bailey, C. A. Maher, & L. C. Wilkinson (Eds.), Language, literacy, and learning in the stem disciplines: How language counts for English learners (pp. 115–139). New York: Routledge.

Silva, A. M., & Limongi, R. (2019). Writing to learn increases long-term memory consolidation: A mental-chronometry and computational modeling study of “epistemic writing”. Journal of Writing Research, 11, 211–243.

Snow, C. E. (2010). Academic language and the challenge of reading for learning about science. Science, 328, 450–452. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1182597 .

U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), writing at grades 8 and 12 (NCES 2012-470), Washington, DC.

van Kleeck, A. (2014). Distinguishing between casual talk and academic talk beginning in the preschool years: An important consideration for speech-language pathologists. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 23, 721–724. https://doi.org/10.1044/2014_AJSLP-14-0032 .

Wallis, P., Richards, T., Boord, P., Abbott, R., & Berninger, V. (2017). Relationships between translation and transcription processes during fMRI connectivity scanning and coded translation and transcription in writing products after scanning in children with and without transcription disabilities. Creative Education, 8, 716–748. https://doi.org/10.4236/ce.2017.85055 .

Wright, K. L., Hodges, T. S., Zimmer, W. K., & McTigue, E. M. (2019). Writing-to-learn in secondary science classes: For whom is it effective? Reading and Writing Quarterly, 35, 289–304. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2018.1541769 .

Zwiers, J. (2008). Building academic language: Essential practices for content classrooms . Newark, DE: International Reading Association.

Zwiers, J., & Crawford, M. (2011). Academic conversations: Classroom talk that fosters critical thinking and content understandings . Portsmouth, NH: Stenhouse Publishers.

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

University of South Florida, Tampa, USA

Elaine R. Silliman & Ruth Huntley Bahr

Syracuse University, Syracuse, USA

Louise C. Wilkinson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Elaine R. Silliman .

Additional information

Publisher's note.

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Silliman, E.R., Bahr, R.H. & Wilkinson, L.C. Writing across the academic languages: introduction. Read Writ 33 , 1–11 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09993-0

Download citation

Published : 12 December 2019

Issue Date : January 2020

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-019-09993-0

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

• Interpreting , Language and Culture

How Did That Register? Five Levels of Formality in Language

We’ve all experienced the occasional verbal slip-up, whether we’re nervous or the words just don’t come out right. In casual speech between friends, a faux pas is usually laughed off and moved on from as quickly as it appeared. However, in business meetings and professional speeches, they’re a little harder to overlook. A major source of faux pas encountered in interpretation work is the tricky element of language known as register. It’s the difference between walking up to a colleague and saying, “What’s up?” instead of “How are you doing?”

Spoken language takes on different levels of formality depending on the social situation and the relationships between those involved. Register is the form that language takes in different circumstances, and “code switching” is the ability to go from one register to another guided by context. Register is an essential social skill that provides flexibility and demonstrates competence in speech and appropriate social norms.

Even for experienced interpreters, register is difficult to master, as it relies not only on the language itself, but also on social customs, culture, and even personal preferences. As a relationship progresses between individuals, the register they use may evolve to be more informal. Unlike words and grammatical structures, register follows its own set of rules, and it’s hard to hit the mark on it exactly. In most cases, close enough is usually sufficient.

There are two basic forms of register: informal and formal. Contexts where one might use the informal register are with friends, family, and meeting people at casual venues, like a bar. The formal register is reserved for professional settings, like classrooms, the workplace, and interviews. Place isn’t the only determinant of register: Factors like how long the people have known each other, their previous relationship, if any, and their purpose in speaking to each other affect how formal or informal the speech will be. Speaking with parents and teachers would require less formal speech than at a company networking event, but more formal speech than a peer group. Linguists have actually determined that there are five different levels of formality in every language (see the examples for English, shown below).

With the first language learned, register eventually becomes intuitive, while formality in a second language requires more thought. Most children start developing a strong understanding of register and code switching at around the age of 5 through exposure to a variety of social situations. However, lower income and education levels are associated with a poor grasp of nuanced speech. Research in the Journal of Children and Poverty shows that children living at or below the poverty level usually only master the casual register. Students in this income bracket were observed using the same register with their peers on the way to school as they do in the classroom with teachers. Such behavior can result in miscommunication, ultimately leading to negative social consequences like disciplinary action.

Interpreters can be more effective by looking at the background of the individuals speaking and receiving their interpretations. Take, for example, a farm worker explaining a work accident to a doctor, speaking in a register inappropriate for exchanges between professionals and clients. To make the transaction go more smoothly, the interpreter could code-switch for the farm worker. If it were two farm workers speaking to each other for the joy of conversation, an interpretation of register wouldn’t be necessary. Register touches on the personal experience of using language, and its use (or misuse) can determine the outcome of a social interaction.

— Photograph by zizzybaloobah

• Category: Interpreting , Language and Culture

Other Resources

• Language and Culture

November is Native American Heritage Month

• Interpreting , Language and Healthcare , Language Testing , Language Training , Translation

Bilingual Pay Differential Benefits

• Interpreting , Language Testing , Translation

How to Build a Language Strategy for Companies Expanding to Canada

Get started today.

Interested in our language services? Complete the form or call us during business hours (9 AM to 6:00 PM ET) at 800.895.8210 .

Preparing for your test?

View our test prep materials or FAQ’s for common questions about taking a test.