Cover not available
Article published In:
Journal of English for Research Publication Purposes
Vol. 4:1 (2023) ► pp.29–55

Examining novice writers’ perceptions of formality

ORCID logo | Northern Arizona University | Uppsala University
| University of Gävle
ORCID logo | Oxford College of Emory University
| Northern Arizona University
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.
Keywords: formality, novice writers’ perceptions, linguistic features, registers, writing for the scientific community
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Methods
    • 2.1Selection of registers and features
    • 2.2The survey
  • 3.Results and discussion
    • 3.1Register and feature in isolation
    • 3.2Register and feature combined
      • 3.2.1Overview
      • 3.2.2Contractions and exclamation points
      • 3.2.3Split infinitives
  • 4.Concluding discussion
  • Notes
  • References
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) 4.0 license.

For any use beyond this license, please contact the publisher at [email protected].

Published online: 20 July 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/jerpp.22010.lar
References (28)
References
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. (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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., & Conrad, S. (2019). Register, genre, and style. (Second edition). Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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.
Curzan, A. (2014). Fixing English: Prescriptivism and language history. Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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
(2022b). Proscribed informality features in published research: A corpus analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 65 1, 63–78. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Irvine, J. T. (1979). Formality and informality in communicative events. American Anthropologist, 81 1, 773–790. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kjellmer, G. (1997). On contraction in modern English. Studia Neophilologica, 69 (2), 155–186. DOI logoGoogle 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
(2020). Syntactic complexity across registers: Investigating (in)formality in second-language writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 451. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
The Oxford English Dictionary, “formal, adj. and n.” OED Online, Oxford University Press, September 2021, [URL]. Accessed 17 October 2021.
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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Winter, W. (1989). Markedness and naturalness. In O. Miseska (Ed.), Markedness in synchrony and diachrony (pp. 103–109). De Gruyter.Google Scholar