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 12th 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
No comments:
Post a Comment