Jenga: Simple Rules for a Simple Game

Jenga: a highly popular and simplistic game night essential. It is likely that you’ve played whether you own it or not, and you could probably play right now without being told the rules. You probably don’t remember the first time you played, and you probably don’t remember ever reading the rules of Jenga. Maybe you never did. There are, however, official rules to Jenga. They are a great example of Plain Style in use.

            The activity systems in action in influencing the production of the rules of Jenga include the Hasbro Company and a vast range of players. The thing about Jenga is that it is a universal game truly “fun for all ages.” The box states that the game is for “ages 8 to adult.” This means that their rules need to be readable by players as young as 8 year-olds, but they still must appeal to an older audience. This creates an initial conflict in activity systems. It is difficult to imagine other situations where an author would be writing to such a diverse range of ages. This speaks to the versatility of the game, but would likely be a nightmare for the rule writer. If the rules are written down to eight-year-old intellect and this becomes obvious, older players may be deterred feeling that they are not meant to be playing this game. The secret to the success of Jenga is its simplicity. No one wants to read directions. We are a society focused on instant gratification. When we decide to play a game we want to play immediately. Hasbro however is interested in making sure that we are playing the game that it is intended and so written rules become a necessity. Even inside the company there may be conflict. The makers of the game may prefer a more specific and concrete set of rules, whereas marketing might say there is not room for that in their design of the box. Thus, there is a conflict among activity systems. A plain style that does not condescend is the effective compromise that Hasbro makes to reach the entirety of their audience of player of all ages. This same style delivers the necessary rules as efficiently as possible to avoid stealing too much time from the aforementioned instant gratification lifestyle.

The compromise reached by Hasbro is an effective Plain Style with minimal embellishment to hold the attention of readers of all ages without being overly robotic and monotonous.

            Jenga rules begin with an object (after listing the contents): “Remove one block at a time from the tower, and stack it on top. The last player to stack a block without making the tower fall wins the game!” Simple enough. This bulleted statement uses coordination, but not to complicate the sentence, only to combine sentences to avoid an overly choppy objective. In this objective we also see the repetition of the word block. If the authors of this rule set were more concerned with creating a creative or official style they may have tried to vary the ways they referenced the wooden Jenga blocks, calling them “bricks” or “pieces” or “prisms.” Well, maybe not prisms.

            After the object, the Jenga rules contain directions for set up. The first of these directions reads, “Empty wooden blocks onto a flat surface.” This statement is nothing but plain. It is a set of directions . In terms of “who is kicking who” it is implied that you are the kicker and you are emptying blocks. It may be unnecessary to include this direction as it seems obvious, and this raises questions about writing instructions like these. When is it okay to exclude what you perceive to be obvious?  The writers might have considered leaving this out to respect the intelligence of older players, but is it perhaps beneficial to the 8 year-old portion of their audience?

            The first rule in the next section titled “Gameplay” is as follows, “The player who built the tower goes first. Play passes to the left.” This is an even better example of a clear, active, who kicked who sentence. The player is doing the action of going first.

            The rules continue on like this maintaining simplicity and straightforwardness. The only way that the rules seem to veer away from a strict Plain Style is in the addition of additional information. One gameplay rule states, “As play proceeds and the weight of the tower shifts, some blocks become looser than others and are easier to remove. You can touch other bricks to find a loose one – but if you move a block out of place you must fix it…” Anything before “You can touch other bricks…” is extraneous regarding how to play. Hasbro may have considered leaving this out if there only intention was to present exclusively streamlined Plain Style information. Similarly, there is an entire additional section of the instructions titled “Game Variation – Solo Play.” Here, no new information is presented and the rules do not change except for the fact that only one person takes turns. Also under this section is included a bullet point which asks, “How tall is too tall? Find out when the tower falls!” Again this is unnecessary in terms of communicating the rules of Jenga, but after all it is a game.

            Hasbro does an excellent job finding a happy medium for broadcasting the rules of Jenga, their household favorite to a wide range of audiences while keeping their rules brief and palatable. This compromise involves a mastery of plain style but not a strict utilization thereof. Some extraneous information is added for embellishment. This avoids the monotony of too much text in textbook Plain Style and may be necessary to keep a reader from extreme boredom as caused by plain style even in a brief text. These deviations can be accounted by the massive variety of readers particularly ages.

            So then is there ever a place for an entirely plain style? The variations from a straight plain style in this essay seem to give the rules personality. Writing entirely in plain style would be entirely sterile. The only thing that comes to mind might be a set of precautions, but even then, is a personality-less plain style the best way to get people to listen? I would bet more people could tell you how to play Jenga than what the precautions are on an oven that they use more often than they play board games. I believe there would be some value to talking to people responsible for writing such texts. Much of this discussion is based on inferences about their motives in writing.

View full rules here: http://www.hasbro.com/common/instruct/jenga.pdf

Spencer A

The Plain Twenties

Lists are a popular attraction in modern-day media. Websites, magazines, Facebook - they all have lists, because when a complex or difficult topic can be simplified into a list of top ten it suddenly becomes manageable. The current generation is not willing to commit a lot of time to reading an article. A list provides the option of simply skimming the bullet points and not reading the details. Huckabee, the author of “20 Things Every Twentysomething Should Know How To Do,” is aware of this. He is a managing editor of a magazine specifically geared towards people in their twenties, so he is certainly familiar with the techniques that work and those that do not.

The magazine Huckabee writes for, RELEVANT, also has a large presence on their website. Huckabee’s list of twenty things was featured on the magazine’s website near the beginning of October, 2013. At the time of writing this critique, several thousand people had viewed the article.

There are many actors involved within the activity system of this online article: Huckabee (the author), the readers of the article (older people trying to understand younger people, younger people trying to understand older people), the intended readers of RELEVANT (presumably twentysomethings), people who have not done much in their twenties, and the people who have done a lot of things in their twenties. Many people could be affected by Huckabee’s article, but judging by the title and the short introductory paragraph the intended audience are twentysomethings who haven’t done much with their lives.

Huckabee’s purpose is evident early on in the article. He begins by encouraging people that it is alright if they haven’t published a book or gotten married by the time they are thirty. So he doesn’t come across as harsh. But then he ends the paragraph (right before the list begins) by saying, “That said, there are a few things every twentysomething should know how to do.” So his purpose is to give an encouraging kick in the pants to many twentysomethings who apparently don’t know how to do much. It is a simple objective, but one that could easily be difficult to convey had not the plain style been used.

To accomplish his goals, Huckabee uses several tools that are typical of the plain style. He keeps the sentences short and less complex, with about 13 words per sentence, and 1.4 syllables per word. The Flesch-Kincaid Reading Ease is 74.4, and the average grade level is 7.3. Overall, this piece is quite easy to read. Minimal jargon, little redundancy, and use of the second person help Huckabee keep the article simple and easy to read. But Huckabee doesn’t stop there. To further clarify, simplify, and minimize distraction Huckabee repeatedly uses the rhetorical devices of exemplum and metabasis throughout his article. It is the hope of Huckabee that by using these devices the reader will be the least distracted, thus receiving the most possible from the article.

One of the rhetorical strategies Huckabee employs is that of metabasis. Metabasis is simply stating what has been said and/or what will follow. It is often used to provide a summary of previously discussed topics. In the case of this article, however, metabasis is used to inform the reader what will come next.

Before the list begins, Huckabee writes that, “there are a few things every twentysomething should know how to do.” This statement tells the reader what the list is going to be: a list of things every twentysomething should know how to do. Throughout the list metabasis is further used. Each item in the list is titled, and then described. The first item, for example, is “1. Make a Great Breakfast.” This sentence is an example of metabasis, because it is telling the reader that the paragraph underneath this subheading will be describing how or why to make a great breakfast.

Huckbee uses metabasis in this list-style for a few different purposes. First, it keeps the writing clean, organized, and manageable. If there are too many words it is easy for millennials to lose interest or get lost in the fog. It helps to clarify and minimize distraction so that the reader will retain as much information from the article as possible. It also provides a means for someone to “read” the article without actually reading it. They can skim through the list, choosing to read the detailed explanation of any listed items they find particularly interesting, but not being forced to read every word to understand the main point of the article. The ability to do this makes the article all that more appealing. In Huckabee's mind the article is required to be appealing, along with accessible, if it is going to be memorable.

Perhaps one of the simplest and most common rhetorical devices is providing a specific example, known as exemplum. Examples help to bring concepts down to earth and make the points of the author tangible. It helps the reader relate, and makes the author's point more clear.

Huckabee's writing is full of examples, since every one of the 20 listed items are examples. Each subheading is an example of a thing every twentysomething should know (Parallel Park, Limit Your Online Life, Tip Generously), but there are further examples within the paragraphs under the headings. One listed item that may not be extremely clear is “17. Be Alone.” The reader may read the subheading and wonder what exactly the author means by being alone. Fortunately, Huckabee provides examples in the explanatory paragraph when he writes, “Be able to sit quietly – reading, writing, praying or listening to the silence – and use that time to truly evaluate how your spirit is.” By using examples Huckabee helps the reader relate to what he is trying to convey, and it is his hope that this will ensure the reader retains some of the message of the article.

Huckabee tries to reach a relatively difficult demographic in his piece, “20 Things Every Twentysomething Should Know How to Do.” College-age young adults who are media-conscious and may or may not be in the “real-world” yet. It is clear that Huckabee believes that most of his potential readers do not know how to do most of the listed items, otherwise he would not have written the article. Judging from the context and the activity system of which RELEVANT magazine and Huckabee are a part, it appears that the purpose of the article is to rouse unexciting or disinterested millennials into doing more with their lives. The article then is a response to the negative criticism that is often directed towards current-day twentysomethings. Often depicted as lazy, spoiled, and unproductive Huckabee writes a call-to-arms. Essentially he is saying, “Listen folks, people say that this generation is lazy and we don't know how to do anything. Let's prove them wrong. Here are 20 things you need to know how to do to start the campaign.”

This message is important for many reasons, and has a personal significance to Huckabee since he is a twentysomething. Therefore it is very important that his article is easy to take in, clear, and memorable. Huckabee uses the rhetorical devices of exemplum and metabasis to create an easy-to-read and easy-to-remember article. Most would consider him successful since the article has been shared on Facebook almost 121,000 times.

-M.C. Reynolds

Troubled

The 1990 book Gender Trouble: Feminism and the Subversion of Identity by Judith Butler creates an influential notion of gender performativity. It is considered a canonical text of postmodern feminism and queer theory. A professor suggested the reading as part of a research project on postmodern theory. Throughout my analysis, the Official Style plays a role, more generally, through the use of jargon which relates to postmodern theory. I will provide sentences containing this, as well as analyze the syntactic ordering along with the semantic meaning of what this jargon entails. In similarly written texts concerning postmodernism you will find this jargon as well. This is due to the fact that the postmodernist’s activity systems aim to achieve authority not over the reader, but over the meaningful methods of performance introduced in their writing. In effect, the jargon functions as an establishment of knowledge about the methods of performance evident in the subject discussed. I will go into more depth with this later on.

This text is directed toward a higher education audience exploring gender and identity in a postmodern setting. What is meant by postmodern, according to dictionary.com, is the appeal to fantasy and allusions to traditional historic styles, as opposed to the demand for utility of standard modern theory. Further, the text generates a sense of imagination for the reader that provokes the interpretation of a natural concept of the female and gender in general. Traditional feminism is questioned and ultimately led to the broader idea that gender is a social performance rather than an expression of a reality prior. Butler’s rhetorical style used in order to develop her ideas seems to me to be of creative credibility. What I mean by this is that she chooses her words carefully and creatively in order to structure her language in such a way that makes her ideas seem more credible and convincing than they might actually be. From this, Butler simulates a confidence which I would consider to be, in this context, ‘performing confidence’. I do not mean for this term to be negative in connotation. I mean for it to be critical of how we use the word ‘confidence’. I also do not mean for this term to be applied to Butler herself, but rather be applied to the writing itself. Similarly then, the text is performing professionalism in the sense that the methods introduced create their own kind of unique profession to be engaged in.

I consider this confidence produced by Butler’s writing to be ‘performed’ because of the lack of rhetorical clarity. For instance, there exists a difficult wordiness that can be excessive and unnecessary at times, almost as if she can’t quite choose which word she wishes to use. It is demonstrated in this sentence: “Her argument makes clear that maternal drives constitute those primary processes that language invariably represses or sublimates” (Butler 56%). The fact that she uses the word “or” can mean many things, including the assumption that the reader, a person interested in, or introduced to postmodern studies, can choose whatever word they see fit. As if they can use the word “represses” or “sublimates”. I think this causes the sentence to allude to either the theory of repression or the theory of sublimation. It generates the option of two different theories to be considered in her text. Does she mean for a person to abide to the theory of keeping under control or to the theory of diverting completely? At this point, the choice could completely be up to the reader.

Another thing that sticks out to me is the difficulty of her word choice. The excerpt I chose to critique is written at a grade level of more than 16, almost a graduate school level. This difficulty also applies to the creative credibility I discussed earlier. Again, Butler chooses her words carefully and creatively, yet she may have over-accessorized her careful choosing. In Chapter 3 of her book, she poses a good, yet difficultly worded question, “What grounds, then, does Kristeva have for imputing a maternal teleology to the female body prior to its emergence into culture?” (Butler 56%). What Butler is posing here is the question of whether or not Kristeva has successfully hinted at the self-realization of the female body in a prior reality. A reality which existed before society had a chance to have an effect on oneself. A lot of reading beforehand and after the sentence is needed to understand this concept. The rhetorical strategy in effect by her as a postmodernist writer then, is allusion. Further, maybe even study outside of the book itself is needed, especially to understand what teleology in fact is. I think that she has chosen her words to be professional in order to further engage the reader through introduced methods, such as the method of performance.

To continue with my idea of the performance of confidence that is displayed in Butler’s writing, I will point out that throughout the entire book sentences such as the ones I have quoted are continually written in the ways which I have described. This makes me question the validity of her ideas. The ambiguity obfuscates the meaning of her sentences. The wordiness and using “or” allows for the reader to choose different meanings of the text. Overall, I think the person interested in, or learning about postmodernism is forced to continually clarify her meanings with simpler words that may not be sufficient. The meanings due to this could even be lost. This is troubling. At the same time however, I think that Butler meant to be professional. I also think that Butler meant to exercise her authority not over the reader, but over the idea of traditional feminist claims. And so, the performance of confidence shines through the writing when exercising her authority. Whatever the trouble may be, the style of this writing most likely suits those passionate about understanding what a new theory consists of, whether it consists of anything that needs interpreting at all.

In conclusion, I have discovered that jargon might need to be incorporated in the writing of a newly developed theory. Its need would lay in the attempt to provide some kind of knowledge base about the theory. This leaves us with the question, does this form of writing provide a real knowledge base, a tangible, physical, substantive knowledge about what is truly being discussed, or is it a work in progress toward real knowledge?

By Mariah

The Vicious Cycle of the Official Style

            Capitalist countries are always concerned about how to make their way to the top of the “food chain.” There is a continuous and vicious cycle of individuals trying to show off talents and their acquired wealth. One way to discover the intelligence level according to our culture, is to examine their writing. The western countries in particular place a high value on being able to write piece that only those with the proper knowledge in that area are able to comprehend. I have examined an excerpt from Neighbourhood risk factors for Common Mental Disorders among young people aged 10–20 years: A structured review of quantitative research co-authored by seven separate people.

The article is aimed at those interested in learning more about contributing factors to common mental disorders in teens. Just by reading through the title, I knew I was going to embark on a journey deep into fascinating and thorough research. The language already being used is weeding out those not educated enough to be able to ‘understand’ the research that has been thus far discovered. Without prior knowledge of conducting research, readers would already be confused  in the introductory paragraph when the author says they are focusing on quantitative research, but take into account qualitative research as well. The author uses language such as “A structured review of quantitative research” and have already excluded those who do not understand these types of research paradigms. The question becomes, is this a bad thing? Is it right for people who have not been exposed to this type of language to not be able to connect with the findings of researchers and be left out of the conversation?

People who may be seeking out the outcomes of the research could be those who are predisposed to high-risk environments that are tested. This could help predetermine if their children, or they themselves will develop a mental disorder due to their surrounding environment. These people may be concerned about the risks they are exposed to and curious about the detrimental effects it could have on their family. The language of the article could quite easily confuse anyone who is not practiced in understanding the official style of academic writing.

            Academic writing is a hierarchy forever lengthening the gap between those who are highly educated and those who are not. Word choice and sentence structure is subjective to each author. Many academic articles contain multiple authors creating the need for compromise among each individual author. Sentences such as:

These question whether more should be done to protect them from risks they may face in their local communities during the life stage when they become increasingly independent of their parents and begin to experience their neighbourhoods through independent, unsupervised activities as well as through more ‘structured’ activities managed by adults.

This excerpt uses repetition to add emphasis with the word independent. It also uses slow sentence openings to prolong what the sentence is implying.

Also, this one sentence has 51 words. Whether this is due to the authors wanting to sound more intelligent or compromise among the authors, 51 is an absurd amount of words for something that could have been dealt with more concise manner. The main point of this sentence is to question whether or not adolescents should be watched more carefully when they begin to venture out and play without parental supervision. They are gaining their independence from their parents and discovering themselves. The authors are only questioning whether or not kids today are getting too much freedom to early.

            The authors also mention having more ‘structured’ activities managed by adults. This sounds as if the young adults at question are partaking in activities that are inappropriate. Since the study in question is concerning young adults with common mental disorders, it may in fact not be the activities that are creating these issues, but the actual mental disorders themselves. By wording the sentences like this, it helps to create a more concrete argument that without more ‘structured’ activities common mental disorders are likely to develop.  Without more supervised activities, the adolescents are at risk. It uses language to give the impression that these risky activities are leading to an increase in mental disorders. Although, the authors do later recognize the other variables contributing and do not claim a direct correlation, they do state:

More extensive and sophisticated use of longitudinal study designs is necessary to help to disentangle the complex and reciprocal causal pathways involved in the links between ‘neighbourhood’ risk factors and adolescent CMDs, which develop over the lifecourse, starting before adolescence.

The authors again use proper language to say their results are not conclusive and more evidence is needed to make a concrete claim. This section contains the counterargument to their hypotheses, which is possibly why the author chooses to use even more complex language than before. There are “be” verbs and sentential adverbs. The author uses more redundancy along with another slow sentence opener. This article is a perfect example of the official style because it has continuous examples.

            The language used in this text is sophisticated and intended for an audience that practice in this particular field. Academic writing used jargon such as ‘to disentangle the complex and reciprocal causal pathways involved’ to sound more credible. The sacrifice this makes is excluding the general population from reviewing this information with an understanding of what they authors are trying to say. The issue becomes is it ethical establish credibility while simultaneously relinquishing the average person the opportunity to expand their own knowledge. Is this the way that academic writing should be? Should we praise those who can make such complex sentences that a majority of the audience who reads it can barely understand it? This is the type of behavior that is expected in academic writing and wanted from professors and teachers alike. Our culture seems to want to lengthen the gap between those more highly educated than others.

            Is there a way to overcome the vicious cycle of academic writing? Is it something to be concerned with? If those who are writing the pieces don’t have the power to change their writing style, who does? The authors must write in the official style so they have the chance of being published and respected by their peers. One of the few ways an author can establish credibility is by using the extensive language of the official style, but is there a way to overcome the official style and create a new kind of style that doesn’t exclude other audiences, is considered credible, and creates a unity of all types of readers?

Kelsey Jackson

The Confusion on Contracts: Bureaucratic Style Critique

Margaret N. Kniffin, the author of  “Conflating and Confusing Contract Interpretation and the Parole Evidence Rule: Is the Emperor Wearing Someone Else’s Clothes?” is a professor of Law at St. John’s University School of Law. Her article, written for the Rutgers Law Review, was intended for an audience who is interested in political science and economics. Moreover, those who are interested in understanding the confusing aspects between “contract interpretations with the parole evidence rule.” She laments about the “injustices that occurs in the courts, as well as, eminent scholars” in drafting and designing these documents. This sounds like a noble cause, and through her prose style creates a piece that has reasonable readability scores. (See Table 1) However, in attacking others for verbose definitions, she inadvertently uses the official style and fails in bringing any greater comprehension to the issue. Kniffin writes a piece, influenced by bureaucratic prose, to appeal to academic standards of scholarly research.

Her first strategy is to provide clarification on the issue of contract law and the parole evidence rule. Confusingly, she introduces her essay with extended metaphors and confusing images. One reoccurring motif seen in her article is that of the Emperor and his new clothes. She uses that story to bolster her definitions of contracts and parole rule. However, she takes a spin on the story and adds a co-protagonist. She describes both an emperor and an empress.

            “Let us assume that the Emperor and an Empress share power equally. Each one     can         represent, therefore, either contract interpretation or the parole evidence rule,   two currently and historically distinct concepts...”

It’s essentially the same childhood story, but with a twist. Both individuals or concepts act in the manner of the original protagonist of the story. This extended metaphor is not needed. It is a stylistic choice that creates unneeded confusion. Would the “average American reader” understand that references? Yes, her intended audience would, but others would not. Essentially, if the reader doesn’t understand the metaphor, the rest of the essay is useless.

            Evidence of official style elements rears its ugly head throughout Kniffin’s essay. In this piece, this strategy is used to establish ethos, and satisfy an unwritten law of academic writing. This law states: the only way to sound intelligent is to write using high-grade word choice. An example from the text is: “Those courts that have conflated or interchanged the two processes have, as a result, in many instances excluded evidence that otherwise would have been admitted or, conversely, admitted evidence that otherwise would have been excluded – thereby producing injustice.” Simply put this quote says: “From time to time, the court has confused contraction interpretation with the parole rule.” Using the official style adds two times as many words, leading to more chance of confusion. In this example, a sentential adverb, unneeded modifiers, and unneeded coordination aid in bringing misunderstanding.  Ironically, her purpose is to bring understand, however, within her prose she uses euphemism and jargon that confuses readers. The expected use of the bureaucratic prose style, in academia, shrouds the simplicity of this meaning in a verbose sentence.

Academia clings and praises the bureaucratic prose style. This can be seen through Kniffin’s excessive use of this style of prose. She uses this style because as a member of this community, she must project this ethos. Academia primarily uses official style to convey credibility, intelligence, and superiority upon its audiences. In acknowledgement, her intended audience is not the mythical “average American reader.” Rather the activity system most active and influential in her audience is one born and christened in the art of the official prose style. Caught in a conflict between individuals who expect her to write one way, and her goal off bringing enlightenment on the issue, she concedes to the former. As an academic scholar writing for a Law Review, certain elegance is expected in word choice, diction, and overall syntax. Through use of this style she alienates other readers. Specific, and learned strategies of the official style are evident in Kniffin’s essay as well. These learned strategies are byproducts of expected academic work. In appealing to this intended audience, she causes a dissonance with other activity systems. Communities of individuals who seek knowledge on the issue, “average American readers” and, arguably those who even hold prerequisite knowledge still leave unsatisfied. At what point does one criticizes her own crusade as being ironically the same thing she despises.

Academia is a huge proponent of the official style, however, intentional confusion is not part of the ideals. Greater specialization in academia breeds specific and obscure words. These specific and obscure words are then used in essays and other academic texts. In certain instances these specific words are needed. However, in other instances it inhibits understanding. In some instances this strategy is imperative, however in the vast majority it is not. Reaffirming journals, which only accept bureaucratic style, feeds this mentality. In the end, the bureaucratic style remains because it symbolizes intelligence and specialization. Kniffin, in her essay is appealing to these roles. False myths affirm that authority figure must articulate in this capacity. She does not understand that the use of this language is not needed. Greater understanding would be achieved by using a simpler strategy. This would truly result in truly bringing understanding to the parole evidence rule and contracts.

Table 1. Readability Statistics for Kniffin Text

Measurement	Unit of Measure
Flesh-Kincaid Reading Ease	29.0
Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level	14.8
Smog Index	13.6
Average Grade Level	14.8
Words per Sentence	22.5

E. Clyford

True Life: Official Style on Research Articles

The official style can be used in many different places. But, seeing as my college life is being consumed with Communication Studies research articles I decided to see how the official style is being used. In my college career I have skimmed through countless numbers of research articles, proposals, literature reviews, abstracts, and method sections. I chose to focus on a literature review written by Chen, Yea-Wen, and Masato Nakazawa who constructed a research project on self-disclosure in an intercultural and interracial friendship from the perspective of the social penetration theory done by Altman and Taylor (1973). Choosing fragments of the literature review to break apart in order to investigate the official style format was not easy. Social penetration theory is interesting and technically very easy to understand but Altman and Taylor did not write it as so. Before actually looking at the text, I was interested to see where this article was published.

       The Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, at first glance seems to be in official style but there needs to be more research done in order to determine that it is legitimate. The editor is Stephen M. Croucher from the University of Jväskylä, Finland and the assistant editors are Tina Harris, University of Georgia, USA, Eric Kramer, University of Oklahoma, USA, and Ramune Braziunaite, Bowling Green State University, USA. Professor Croucher is a member of many communication journals and also the editor of Speaker and Gavel a National Honorary Forensic Society. With the information acquired the Journal of Intercultural Communication Research is a true journal that strives to better understand interrelations between culture and communication. With the background of the journal complete, I began asking myself some questions about the text and its purpose for existing.
            After reading the literature review I was able to pick out some of the official style. To begin, we can see that this passage speaks to people in the communication field and professionals.

     The theoretical framework guiding the present study is Altman and Taylor’s (1973)
     Social penetration theory since it provides the linkage between self-disclosure and
     friendship development. The goals underlying Altman and Taylor’s (1973) development
     of social penetration theory were both to describe the course of growth or
     dissolution of interpersonal relationships and to address the issue of how people
     enact mutual exploration and formation of social bonds. In essence, Altman and
     Taylor (1973) explicated the roles of self-disclosure, intimacy, and communication
     in the development of interpersonal relationships.
     The authors chose to use communication jargon such as social penetration, self-disclosure, and mutual exploration. While these words are not hard to look up in the dictionary there is no need to if you are part of the communication circle. Seeing as the writing is directed for  people who are interested and/or study Intercultural Communication there is a need for jargon and it is used correctly.
     The next question: was it written to establish credibility and expertise or to alienate readers? It was probably written to establish credibility and expertise but not to alienate the readers. And also to build legitimate knowledge. This next section answers those questions.
     However, it has not been examined if the assumed gratification of self-disclosure is applicable to different cultures; thus, it warrants examination of the social penetration process in cross-cultural and intercultural relationships such as friendships.
      We can see that use of jargon again with more complicated sentences than one would see in a newspaper article. Journals require a higher writing capability than most public writing because not many "random" people pick it up. The audience is interested and somewhat knowledgeable therefore they can write to establish credibility and expertise. This article was also done to build knowledge on the topic. I know this because this journal has a call for papers, meaning they want a certain part further explained or discovered in order to better understand that situation or circumstance.
     After answering those questions, it is important to check if the official style context is used. In this writing the authors used the unspeakable and complex sentences to conjure up an official style.
            One part of the official style is looking at the words written. For example, in a media writing class the writer is writing for the ear not the eyes because the writing will be spoken out loud and then heard only once. The official style writes for the eyes fully understanding that it will or may be read over a couple of times before fully comprehending what is on the page.

Social penetration theory deconstructs and organizes personality structure into two general dimensions. The first is an area-based dimension of breath with not only breadth category but also breadth frequency. The second is a central-peripheral dimension of depth that starts at peripheral layers associated with biographical characteristics and moves toward central layers associated with less observable and more idiosyncratic characteristics.

            As a reader, just try saying these three sentences out loud without stuttering nor stopping. It may be possible but if you were speaking it to another person it would not be understandable. That is the exact point that the official style is trying to make and it is embedded in this piece of writing.

            The last part of the official style that is demonstrated in this research paper is about complex sentences. This can range from large words, to very lengthy sentences, and also the use of certain punctuation marks. Here we can see all three of the different criteria for being a complex sentence.

In essence, the overlapping dimensions of verbal, nonverbal, and environmental behaviors result in eight generic dimensions of the social penetration process: richness-breadth of interaction; uniqueness of interaction; efficiency of exchange; substitutability and equivalency; synchronization and pacing; permeability and openness; voluntariness and spontaneity of exchange; and evaluation.

            Throughout the research article there was official style embedded in every sentence and word trying to keep in check of what is wanted and needed. I chose a research paper with the idea in mind of it containing the official style but I did not know it was to this extent.  The different sentence structures, complex words, jargon, all while thinking about the activity system used makes this research paper official style
-Stephanie Cuevas

The Official Style: A Foundation for a Nation

          The official style has been the basis of professional writing in our country for many years, so long that it has become the norm for most people when deciding how to present their ideas credibly in an organizational atmosphere. For that reason, I decided to choose the U.S. Constitution as my text for my critique of the official style. The Constitution has stood the test of time as an effective official document, and it contains many of Richard Lanham’s Elements of the Official Style, even though it predates his ideas by hundreds of years.

To exemplify the extent of the official style in the Constitution, I decided to choose Amendment XII (http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/constitution_amendments_11-27.html - 12), which was passed by Congress in 1803. Basically, this section of the Constitution deals with electing the President and Vice-President. Things like casting ballots and what to do in the event where no majority is reached or if the President were to die. When stated plainly, these ideas are quite simple. However, when implemented in official style, a large transformation occurs. With a Flesch-Kincaid Reading ease sore of -4, a an average grade level of 28.3, and 81.8 words per sentence, the 12^th Amendment is riddled with verbose language and complex sentences, making it almost unspeakable. Take the idea of casting ballots and selecting a President; all that really needs to be stated is something to the degree of marking an “x” next to your choice for President and Vice-President, counting the ballots, and naming the winner. The official style and our founding fathers state it this way,

The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate; -- the President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted; -- The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.

Keep in mind this is all one sentence, glued together by multiple prepositional phrases and complex diction, using two hundred and four words to communicate what could be said in fewer than fifty words. While sounding highly official and credible, the passage is quite shapeless, and the multiple ideas crammed into one sentence are slowly introduced one after one, imitating a list. The diction in the sentence is not even that jargonistic, however the fact that it is so verbose and bureaucratic makes it a challenging read-over. The uneven rhythm of the sentence also makes it difficult to follow; it seems like there are many suitable places for a period within the sentence, yet the passage just keeps stumbling on and on, either pieced together by prepositional phrases, or clauses that begin with “and”. The abundance of commas in the sentence makes the flow lackadaisical and renders passage almost impossible to read aloud. Just imagine sitting in a hot wooden room with no air conditioning, listening to someone drag on two hundred some word sentences. I’ve got to give credit to our founding fathers; they definitely were some tough individuals to endure that.

            Given the fact that this is a government document, it is not out of place that the official style was implemented to such an extent, and for the purpose of being as thorough and organized as possible, I believe the Constitution works well within the governmental activity system. Even today, amendments are written very similarly to predeceasing government documents such as the Constitution.  Complex and verbose sentences are the basis of government writing, and it is all for the purpose that whoever reads it will view it as organized and credible; ultimately trusting whatever is being stated. The official style plays greatly into the government’s hand when setting the stage from a rhetorical standpoint. Even though the Constitution is not a persuasive document so to speak, the implementation of official style throughout it creates a notion of power. When I read the Constitution, I look at it and think to myself that the government has everything well thought out and in order. The way that it is crafted just makes it seem like everything imaginable that could happen in the government has been accounted for. Now obviously this isn’t true, seeing as our current government, which is supposed to follow the ideals of the Constitution, cannot even function. I firmly believe however that if someone was unaware of our problems with our government and only had our Constitution to base their judgment off of, they would believe that the American Government was a well-oiled fully functioning machine; and I think that is exactly how our founding fathers wanted the image of our government to come off as.

The U.S. Constitution brilliantly communicates the façade of a well-organized, highly structured and intelligent nation, when in all reality there are many issues under the surface. The ability to cover up the inadequacies of our government is key to our nation’s success, and we owe it all to our founding fathers and their choice of using the official style.

M. Walters

Hands Tied: Politicians, the Public, and Energy Drinks

Many swear by them, while others swear that they’re no good. Energy drinks have been controversial since they hit the market. This article focuses on a letter, written by Richard Blumenthal, Richard Durbin, and Edward Markey, to Mark Emmert President of the NCAA, regarding the sale of Energy drinks at collegiate sporting events. The official style is clear in the letter, as the congressmen shields the fact that they are scolding Emmert by euphemizing his explanation of his reason for writing. The letter is also is very bureaucratic, passive, and verbose to further mask what is essentially a reprimand.

I accessed the article via Blumenthal’s government webpage where it is presented with a short introduction under “Press Release.” This press release section of the website is filled with accounts of the actions of Blumenthal’s actions as Senator. Whether this methodical documentation of actions and letters and announcements is required or by choice it certainly sheds light on the intentions behind elements of style which we see in letters like the one in question. Having your business as public as politician do certainly warrants caution regarding the tone of writing and how letters like this one are perceived not only by the recipient of the writing but also any constituents who read the piece. When the senators wrote the letter to Emmert they would have not only been concerned about offending the president of the NCAA but also hurting chance of re-election or prospects for other political opportunities.

The first four words of the letter set the tone for the entire message. “We write to inquire,” it begins, immediately setting a non-threatening tone. These four words not only make the senators’ message seem non-harmful; they also start the letter off in the proper and bureaucratic language you would expect to hear from senators. The letter continues to explain that the senators are inquiring as to what actions Emmert “is taking or contemplating to educate student-athletes and school athletic departments about the potential health risks posed by energy drinks for young people and to limit the presence of energy drinks at NCAA sponsored events.” This is where the senators essentially euphemize the intent of their letter. It is clear that their opinion is that energy drinks have no place being marketed at NCAA sporting events, however it is not clear whether or not this is Emmert’s opinion, and the fact that a nearly identical letter was sent to the Executive Director of National Federation of State High School Associations it can be assumed that this letter was not only sent to inquire as to what actions Emmert planned to take, but in fact to persuade him that there were indeed actions that needed to be taken.

The letter goes on to discuss the downfalls and health risks associated with energy drinks which would serve to persuade the reader, Emmert, to take actions to limit their availability at NCAA events, if of course that is what they are trying to do. The letter states that “according to a recent article in Pediatrics in Review, an official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, many of the claims made by energy drink companies lack sufficient scientific evidence.” This sentence takes a very long time to get to the point, is wordy and it maintains a certain amount of passivity. Although it is not structurally passive it allows the writers to essentially state that there is no evidence for the claims made by energy drink companies without sounding too argumentative. The letter even quotes a euphemistic phrase from the article that it is citing. It reads, “heavy caffeine use can be a significant source of morbidity in athletes,” Here it might be more effective to say death rather than morbidity for the sake of the argument, but then again, tone is very important.

“Other reports have pointed out that the ingredients found in these drinks can cause dehydration, irregular heartbeat, nausea, arrhythmia, and in some cases death,” is another sentence from the letter that although it is not structurally passive it is wordy and roundabout until the sentence feels passive. This sentence is also a very slow starting one. Instead of presenting the studies to support their argument they hide behind it. It is as if the senators are want to present the evidence that supports their argument without owning said argument.

The senators writing the letter also employed sentence combining techniques to make their letter even more official. “This targeted marketing of young people appears to be working, with estimates that 30 to 50 percent of adolescents reporting consumption of energy drinks” is a sentence containing a relative clause. Complex use of appositives is used to create, “Yet, according to a recent article in Pediatrics in Review, an official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics, many of the claims made…” And noun substitute is heavily prevalent in the overly complex statement, “As a national leader in interscholastic sports and activities that help student-athletes, the NCAA can educate students, schools, and athletic departments about the potential health risks posed to young people by consuming energy drinks.”

The letter concludes reminding Emmert that the senators look forward to hearing about the actions he plans on taking and referring to the NCAA as a national leader in interscholastic sports and activities that help student-athletes. This euphemistic and bureaucratic buttering-up of Emmert closes the letter the same way that it opens.

It is entirely logical that the official style be utilized in this situation considering that senators need to present themselves in a way that will allow them to be re-elected. It seems like a shame, however, that the argument loses persuasive effect as a result. It is clear in this letter that the official style is being utilized to obscure the true intent of the letter. Perhaps, if the letter were written with a more direct agenda. “Health issues are being linked to energy drinks. We believe that, in light this, it is inappropriate for Energy drinks to be sold at NCAA sporting events,” is a possible opening which gets straight to the point and would likely be more conducive to a progressive discussion on the matter. The question becomes “What is more important?” Are we so sensitive to the language our politicians are using that we would be offended by a straight-forward intent? Are we sacrificing productivity for politeness? Can’t we have both?

Spencer A 

           

The letter can be accessed here: http://www.blumenthal.senate.gov/newsroom/press/release/blumenthal-durbin-markey-raise-concerns-about-the-marketing-of-energy-drinks-at-high-school-and-collegiate-athletic-events