Formal versus Informal,which is better?

Humans have developed two different styles of language whereby one is used for social events and the other for formal meetings. So why have we done this?

First of all, we need to identify what 'formal' and 'informal' means:

Formal – 'Done in accordance with rules of convention or etiquette; suitable for or constituting an official or important situation or occasion.' (Oxford Dictionary)

To break this down to a simpler translation, formal is wrapped by using all rules of the English Language including grammar and, if writing, punctuation.

Informal – 'having a relaxed, friendly, or unofficial style, manner, or nature: "an informal atmosphere"; "an informal agreement.' (Oxford Dictionary)

To simplify this meaning, informal is using the English Language without applying one or more rules.

So when should we use informal language?

In social situations, peers or colleagues mostly won't judge how you speak or write. Content is more important rather than the expression and pronunciation. In fact, some interactions may break Maxims and other general rules – such as the politeness theory – for humour, to bond with listeners. So informal language provides stronger relationships between friends and co-workers, but what about for bosses?

If you were in a job interview, and you spoke to the interviewer in a relaxed manner, slouching off on language rules, the interviewer would almost certainly misjudge you because they would not expect an informal appearance. But why? Perhaps it is that the listener has to know you personally before you can speak freely. Maybe you have to break them slowly into how you speak, such as breaking few rules at a time, gently easing them in to your style of manner. It could be that it just isn't appropriate to the situation.

But when is formal used?

I have personally found that formal language is used by people who have a working relationship, such as between employer and employee. Or teacher to student. This is because both parties have to show their professionalism to each other, perhaps to advertise their knowledge not just in the subject, but also in their language skills.

In condensed writings, such as science journals, language is severely restricted as the concentration of verbs and articles is increased. No adjectives are used, nor adverbs. Because of the lack of description, the writing becomes plain, and impersonal. Whilst this is perfect for scientific and fact-based articles, this shows nothing about the author other than knowledge on the subject. If I were to write up a conversation, and skip all fatic talk, all adjacency pairs and all adjectives and adverbs; if I applied the correct rules of language and it still made sense: I'd end up with a boring transfer of information in a complete and impersonal transaction.

But let's just skip up a second. What if we swapped this over and used informal language in a scientific journal? If maxims were broken, the paper would cause confusion. It could be too long or short, not enough facts or even untrue! So it is safe to say that formal language is required in the field where facts are needed to be expressed swiftly without confusion.

So if we actually need formal language in some situations, do we really need informal?

If at social gatherings, or on social network sites, people used formal language, without showing personality, then friends would find it almost impossible to socially bond. Without any personal style to the language, it would become lame and too similar to others making it far more difficult to bond.

Though there are times when a formal approach is used on networking sites, as I have written this blog formally because I do not know who will read it.

The use of adjectives and adverbs can alter whether a sentence is formal or not, as can breaking a maxim or any rule in speech or writing. This creates flexibility between distinguishing formal and informal, and allows there to be a happy medium, making a whole range that extends from formal to informal.

This extract from Joos' 'Five Clocks' explains how language is used, and the formal column shows that only when language is 'precoded', as in social situations, is it informal. The other situations all used formal structures, though exceptions could be made.

He goes on to explain that sensitive material that is more sentimental and casual takes an informal approach because more thought goes into content rather than structure. In consultative language, every care is taken to make sure the sentence is perfect in pronunciation, accuracy and precision. In frozen and formal, the speech is monitored for length to make sure the correct amount of information is passed, as well as accuracy of punctuation  in written presentations.

(http://ww2.odu.edu/al/jpbroder/jpb_on_joos_1976.pdf)

This shows that formal takes on most situations, however precoded or social situations take up most of the use of speech, therefore balancing out the distribution of both formal and informal.

So therefore, whilst both formal and informal have their uses, they have their times and their applications, they are both needed to support speech and writing to suit various situations. The huge range between means that there is always an appropriate way of communicating with language, and so from this, it would be impossible to say that one is better than the other.

 

By Andy Tomline