this was the first essay I wrote this year, its awful and I'm terrible at this subject but please someone give me advice
-----
Formal language commonly aims to establish expertise and authority in the user. However, this is generally effectively solely in the public and professional sectors. These situational contexts are more attuned to building impersonal associations between individuals of varying status and position, through the use of jargon, elevated lexemes, nominalisations, passive sentence and predominantly imperative and declarative sentence types. In more casual circumstances, the need for maintaining a hierarchy is made redundant, as a relationship between the communicators has already been founded. Thus expertise and authority can still be exhibited in intimate relationships using non-Standard English and informal language mechanisms.
Formal language is undoubtedly highly effective in allowing those in fields of media, research and teaching to present ideas and knowledge in a concise, unambiguous manner. The information distributed is associated with accuracy, reliability and credibility, when given in conjunction with a formal register. Discourse of this type often heavily features elevated lexemes and semantic devices such as jargon and euphemism, and is completely devoid of slangs and colloquial terminology. This promotes the audience’s confidence in the proficiency of the user by indicating awareness and understanding of the technical language used in their profession. In May of 2016, an article was published, taking note of the several ways in which ‘groin injuries’ are euphemised in the media. Sports presenters and medical staff most commonly use indirect descriptions, including “below the belt”, “low blow” or “private area”, while controversially inappropriate terms such as “d**k” or “junk” are adamantly averted. The purpose of the former alternatives is to add seriousness to potential injury and also to establish professionalism, which cements their expertise. Various formal linguistic features are employed in professional contexts, with the intention of portraying expertise successfully.
In politics, formal language is constantly prevalent, though it serves to obfuscate and manipulate in addition to preserving status and adeptness. George Orwell commented that “political [language] is designed to make lies sounds truthful... and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind”. On the one hand, the political sector involves making decisions that don’t fully serve the community at large, while on the other, political leaders must appear to be acting in favour of the public in order to win their support. Australian writer Don Watson stated that “to take power is to win speech” and that is precisely how politicians use formal language to their advantage. They make extensive use of euphemisms and elevated lexemes to obfuscate the true intentions behind their actions, where budget cuts are presented in such a way that implies a benefit to the society when the reality is a detriment to the public. Politicians thrive on the employment of doublespeak. They “speak in buzz words and clichés because there can be no argument with words that have no meaning at their core”. Overused phrases and polysyllabic nominalisations assist governments in appearing knowledgeable, while they numb the public’s ability to comprehend their speech in order to persuade them. In 2003, Franz Luntz advised political representatives of America to switch the term ‘global warming’ to ‘climate change’ to create an impression of it being a controllable issue. In this way, the ubiquitous ‘weasel words’ in politics, described by Don Watson as “sly words that do not mean what they appear to, or have an unseen purpose” have immense influential capacity. Political language is a highly accurate portrayal of the means by which formal language can be used to establish false expertise and manipulate the public.
Authority and instruction are increasingly significant functions of formal language, hence why it is so frequently used in corporate situations and politics. Public language is where this concept comes to the fore, described as “the language of leaders more than the led, the managers rather than the managed... the language of power and influence” in Don Watson’s ‘Death Sentence’. Authoritative figures in the public domain use nominalisations, passive and agentless passive sentences, declarative and imperative sentence types and end focus, which together serve to force a positive perception on an otherwise negative situation, once again to manipulate and mislead the audience. Agricultural Minister Barnaby Joyce has recently been involved in relocating several corporations, causing several workers to lose their jobs. Joyce announced that the “Australian Pests and Veterinary Medicines Authority will be moving from Canberra to Armidale.” The agentless passive, end focus and the use of the modal verb ‘will’ in this sentence contribute to the certainty and finality of this move, without taking any responsibility and creates an effect of what George Orwell described as “anaesthetic writing”’ writing that mitigates the effect of the words. This results in a very impersonal relationship between the individual in authority and the general public, increasing the social distance considerably. This effect can also be observed in signs proclaiming warnings, instructions or potential sanctions. In declaring that “A person under 18 who obtains or consumes liquor on these premises, and the person who supplies liquor to the person under 18, are each guilty of an offence”, the authority employs nominalisations in “offence” and end focus, again to mitigate the severity, or even conscious reality, of the prohibition. These syntactic and lexical devices are extremely effective in the public sector, where no association exists between the influential figure and the community, but formal language does not lend itself to appropriately establishing authority or expertise in intimate relationships.
In contexts outside the professional and public domain, formal language is not as effective in establishing one’s influence and proficiency. This ensues due to the already-established relationship between the interlocutors, where those involved are perceived as of an equal status, and the shifts from increasing social distance to exclusively sharing information or giving instruction. In private relationships, for instance with parents, authority can be enforced through direction and discipline using imperative sentence types, in addition to simple lexemes and intimate references, which maintain the relationship while simultaneously expressing dominance. This helps to preserve negative face, in a way that formal language cannot do as well. In close relationships where teaching takes place, such as tutors, family and friends, a predetermined hierarchy exists; both student and teacher understand their position and expertise can easily be communicated with informal language. This includes the use of active voice, puns, phonological features such as elision and contractions and may exclude jargon for easier comprehension by the student. These features allow for adeptness to be established while not detracting from a social bond, and may arguably be more effective in communication of a hierarchical nature than formal language.
While formal language generally does lend itself appropriately to maintaining authority and showcasing expertise, in the words of Don Watson, “the language is hostile in communication”. In summation, outside of a professional context, or in private circumstances, informal language may be better suited to maintaining a relationship while simultaneously being influential.
-----
thanks heaps fam <3