The Official Style: The Language Presented to the Public

When asked to describe the official style in regards to written and spoken word, characteristics such as complex, intelligent, wordy, and passive are a few descriptors that particularly come to mind. It is odd, and at times ironic, if the goal of communication is to share ideas with others, that people can style their communication in such a complex manner. Outcomes and objectives of doing so include, but are not limited to, impressing others, sounding professional, misleading, and not accepting responsibility. As a U.S. citizen, information pertaining to your personal safety, well-being, and state of living should be clearly communicated to a general audience, with a voice that people understand and comprehend. Such addresses, specifically ones delivered by a current president after a crisis or major concern, should be communicated in a clear and plain style. With a closer examination one can notice that such public addresses, specifically John F. Kennedy’s announcement to the public concerning the Cuban missile crisis, contains many common features of the official style. As a future educator of the English language, I hope to communicate and share skills with students that are useful and transcend beyond the classroom. One of those skills includes being an educated citizen actively participating and engaging in news and other relevant information. In modern high school classrooms, English and history are many times grouped together to teach specific units. Personally, I feel that in doing so is extremely beneficial so that students receive multiple perspectives and participate in a variety of activities, discussions and assignments to take away from the unit. Examining this specific J.F.K. speech while in conjunction studying the historical contexts of the 1960s, students would note why this particular address to the nation was so important and how and why the official style is incorporated.

            When delivering such critical information, the style of the information should be presented at a level that the average U.S. citizen can understand. In order to convey such a message in a manner that the majority of the population can comprehend, an established average literacy rate of an adult is required. An article found on the Huffington Post titled, “The U.S. Illiteracy Rate Hasn’t Changed In 10 Years” contains a statistic from the U.S. Department of Education and National Institute of Literacy that states, “…32 million adults in the U.S. can’t read. That’s 14 percent of the population. 21 percent of adults in the U.S. read below a 5^th grade level, and 19 percent of high school graduates can’t read” (Huffington Post 2013). With such low reading and literacy capabilities, public announcements should be constructed in a manner that the average adult can understand. That is not the case with this example of Kennedy’s speech discussing the Cuban missile crisis. With using a readability calculator, found at  https://readability-score.com/, the level given for the overall dialogue is at a 13.3 grade level. In order to fathom the takeaway of the address, one is required to have post-high school diploma educational experience. With so many U.S. citizens not having adequate literacy skills, information such as content expressed within a public presidential address is too complex and difficult to comprehend for many people. Unfortunately, with information not being understood, it then continues to go un-noticed, leaving many citizens frustrated and confused. If such important information was provided in a plain style, there would be less frustration. Within John F. Kennedy’s public announcement to the Nation, many examples and qualities of the official style are expressed.

            The first, and possibly the most obvious, notable aspect of the official style inside John F. Kennedy’s language is the use slow sentence openings paired with ‘filler’ words. At many occurrences, the wording is overdone and ‘fluffed-up.’ Within the first paragraph of his address to the nation he proclaims, “[w]ithin the past week, unmistakable evidence has established the fact that a series of missile sites is now in preparation on that imprisoned island” (Kennedy). He then follows up by discussing, “[t]he purpose of these bases can be none other than to provide a nuclear strike capability against the Western Hemisphere” (Kennedy). There is a multitude of ways he could have stated such simple, non-complex utterances in a plain style. Kennedy chooses to include a filler such as ‘unmistakable evidence has established the fact that…’. Using such diction sounds more official and credible, but it is masking the true message blanketed beneath the actual and factual information. In his follow up sentence, he again uses unnecessary words to his dialogue when he describes, ‘[t]he purpose of these bases can be none other than to provide a…’. Kennedy uses the strategy of incorporating slow sentence openings and overall wordy-ness to create an official and credible tone in his dialogue.

            Another note-worthy official stylistic aspect within Kennedy’s speech is overly long and complex sentences. On many occurrences, he constructs sentence that are multiple lines long and contain thirty to eighty words. The most outrageous example of this strategy can be seen when he rambles,

“[b]ut this secret, swift, and extraordinary buildup of Communist missiles--in an area well known to have a special and historical relationship to the United States and the nations of the Western Hemisphere, in violation of Soviet assurances, and in defiance of American and hemispheric policy--this sudden, clandestine decision to station strategic weapons for the first time outside of Soviet soil--is a deliberately provocative and unjustified change in the status quo which cannot be accepted by this country, if our courage and our commitments are ever to be trusted again by either friend or foe” (Kennedy).

This sentence contains a whopping ninety-seven words! By stringing along too many ideas with prepositions to make it shapeless and use of appositives, Kennedy is able to string his audience along for all ninety-seven words. With such an elongated and multi-part sentence, many average listeners were likely jumbled and forgot the punch-line of the sentence. It is worth mentioning that this once specific utterance weighs in at a ludicrous grade level of 35.7. I am sure this is largely due to the overall length of the sentence, but it still requires an individual with beyond graduate level experience to comprehend. I cannot comment on as to why Kennedy, or anyone, would choose to ramble on for ninety-seven words. However, I am confident that that particular excerpt contained too many official style aspects for the average U.S. reader to understand.

            A final example of the official style within John F. Kennedy’s Cuban missile crisis address is the use of passive voice. With using this strategy, the action of the sentence is disguised, and one cannot decipher what action belongs to who or what. Also, by using the passive voice, the speaker is able to flow their extended sentences along with prepositional phrases. He concludes his opening section by stating, “[t]he purpose of these bases can be none other than to provide a nuclear strike capability against the Western Hemisphere” (Kennedy). Not only does this particular sentence contain filler words such as ‘none other than to provide…’ but it also displays the passive voice. The reader/listener does not know who or what is providing a nuclear strike. When using vague terminology in the passive voice, people receiving the message spend more time decoding the passive voice, and the overall take-away of the sentence is lost. Kennedy continues to use this mask of the passive voice when he adds, “But now further action is required--and it is under way; and these actions may only be the beginning” (Kennedy). By stating ‘further action is required’, the listener/reader has no idea as to what actions are required and who is performing said actions. Are they responsible for doing anything or is anything expected of them? By using the passive voice, they are left clueless.

            Within the aforementioned examples and excerpts, as well as John F. Kennedy’s public announcement to the Nation as a whole, many examples and qualities of the official style are expressed. Such use of the official style in a nation-wide address concerning the nation is unnecessary. Not only do U.S. citizens deserve factual information that is not full of jargon and elements of the official style, they deserve information presented to a general audience in a comprehendible plain style.  

     Breanna Lindemuth 

Official Style Useful in the Business World

When discussing the official style verses plain style I find that often times the official style is the one that receives the most criticism. It uses euphemisms, a passive voice, complex sentences, and slow sentence openings when it could be said with half the words in simpler form. Often times we are looking at elevated levels of the official style when making these observations and sometimes we cannot understand why anyone would use such confusing language when plain language is much clearer. However I would argue that a certain amount of the official style is necessary to survive in this world—particularly the business world. By creating a balance between plain and official styles, business people are able to construct messages with the right tone and diction they are trying to achieve. 

One of the main reasons people use the official style is to appear professional, a requirement in the business setting. After analyzing several online sources of e-mails, letters to customers, memos, and letters from the CEO it became evident that a certain amount of the official style is necessary not only for the importance of professionalism, but also to accurately communicate what’s intended, establish credibility, avoid legal issues, and simply to be polite. 

Take for example this thank you email: 

“Thank you very much for all your assistance with planning our annual conference. Your expertise in handling the logistics, the meeting arrangements, the multimedia presentations, coordinating travel, and in organizing the event were greatly appreciated.

I really appreciate your help and I am sure we will be contacting you for your assistance with next year's conference.

In the interim, if I can provide you with a recommendation or if there is anything else I can do to assist, please don't hesitate to ask.”

The writer of this email is putting a special emphasis on her appreciation toward the receiver of the email. In plain language, the email would read: 

“Thank you for your help with our conference. You’re skills were helpful and appreciated. We will be contacting you next year for your help again. In the mean time, if you need a recommendation feel free to call me.” 

The second version, however, is robotic and doesn’t sound nearly as appreciative as the actual email. In this case, the official style is necessary in creating the appreciative tone. Also, using more official language makes it sound professional instead of colloquial.  

Another reason someone in the business world might want to use official language is credibility. For example, below is a letter from the CEO of Nike to consumers from the Nike website: 

“NIKE is dedicated to serving athletes and helping them reach their full potential. As a growth company we are dedicated to creating value for our shareholders. The world in which athletes and companies compete is changing fast. We believe business has a critical role to play in meeting the challenges of a changing world – addressing climate change, preserving the earth’s constrained resources, enhancing global economic opportunity – not by reducing growth but by redefining it. To do this we believe businesses must embrace sustainability as an innovation opportunity and governments should act to create the right policies and incentives to accelerate change at scale.

By sharing our experience, documenting our progress, noting where we have fallen short and identifying the challenges that lie ahead, we hope NIKE can help positively shape the future.

The challenge to create a sustainable economy is global and requires a global response. We believe it begins with a simple idea: invent better solutions.” 

Here the official style is used to establish credibility with it’s readers. There are a lot of compound sentences, slow sentence starters, and larger words all to make consumers believe that Nike is a trustworthy, reliable, professional company. If you read a statement on sustainability that said, “Nike thinks sustainability is important,” it doesn’t say a whole lot. That’s essentially what the message is, but I would perceive that company as being uniformed or lazy. Most things require more elaborate explanations and I argue that with most cases in business, it does. 

The following example demonstrates how businesses use the official style to avoid legal issues. It is a prototype of an employee handbook section that discusses how the company is an equal opportunity employer: 

“This company is an equal opportunity employer and does not unlawfully discriminate against employees or applicants for employment on the basis of an individual’s race, color, religion, creed, sex, national origin, age, disability, marital status, veteran status or any other status protected by applicable law. This policy applies to all terms, conditions and privileges of employment, including recruitment, hiring, placement, compensation, promotion, discipline and termination.

Whenever possible, the company makes reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals with disabilities to the extent required by law. Employees who would like to request a reasonable accommodation should contact [enter authorized person’s name].” 

There’s a lot of extra words that plain language wouldn’t require. The use of the words “unlawfully against employees or applicants for employment,” “any other status protected by applicable law,” “whenever possible the company makes reasonable accommodations for qualified individuals with disabilities to the extent required by law,” and listing all terms the policy applies to is a way for the company to prevent lawsuits due to technical terms. In other words, they are covering their butts for any potential legal issues that may arise. 

The official style can also be used for politeness. This may seem silly, but the wrong tone and diction can seriously change people’s attitudes toward a person, particularly a person of authority. It has been scientifically proven that when employees respect their manager or supervisor and feel they are being treated with respect, their job performance and satisfaction are higher. Therefore it is important to be respectful even when there are difficult topics to discuss. The following is a letter to employees about a conflict in the office: 

“It has come to our attention that there has been a pile of unwashed dishes that accumulates in the sink by the end of each week. It has gotten so bad that washing one’s hands in the kitchen sink becomes an uncomfortable undertaking. Therefore, we are introducing a new policy that mandates that employees wash their dishes as soon as they are done with them, keeping the sink clear for other uses.

“If you do not have the time to wash your lunch container or coffee mug, leave it by your desk until you are ready to wash it. Even two or three dirty plates will encourage every person thereafter to leave their unwashed, food-stained dishes and silverware in the sink. Conversely, studies have shown that when a sink is empty, people are more likely to wash their dishes immediately.

Thank you for your cooperation!” 

The first sentence of this letter is very passive. “It has come to our attention that…” is one of the key indicators of a passive sentence. It also does not directly address people, but uses “we” and “one” to start. It makes it seem as if the dishes piled themselves up. The writer also chose to say that trying to wash their hands in a sink full of dirty dishes “becomes an uncomfortable undertaking,” a euphemism for “gross.” However, a letter like this, which doesn’t directly address anyone and provides support and reasoning for the new policy using euphemism and passivity, will go over much better than a note above the sink that says, “Quit leaving your dirty dishes in the sink for a week; it’s disgusting.” A message like this one, especially from an authority figure, will probably not go over well amongst colleagues. 

In conclusion, a certain amount of official language is necessary to be professional in the business world. It is a way to appear credible, politically correct, and lawful. Official style helps to achieve the right tone and diction, two things that should be carefully considered when interacting among customers and co-workers. While these examples are not all extreme official style, they all contain bits and pieces of it—enough to change the tone of the message that extreme plain style could not achieve on its own. 

Sources: 

jobsearch.com

nike.com

nfib.com

wikihow.com

Courtney Brusoe

Where Do We Draw The Line Between Official Style and Plain Style?

What constitutes Official Style? For some it is merely an issue of grammar and sentence structure. However, I propose that Official Style possesses something else: An unbiased, toneless, weak voice. To say that Official Style is nothing more than grammar and sentence orientated is to suggest that to speak plainly is to “dumb down” ones statement. By labeling Official Style as such we have inadvertently labeled Plain Style as inherently lacking academic properties on a professional level. And while I agree that on a regular basis Plain Style is seen as being simple, brief, and clear, I want to point out that Plain Style can also match up with Official Style on the same reading level. But this invites the debate of what is meant by Official Style and what is Plain Style and more importantly where is the line between them. To show this debate, here is a sentence done in the Official Style.

“It has become apparent through a series of unfortunate and unforeseen incidences that have taken place over the course of several weeks that it is in the best interest of the company, Johnson Bros. LLC., that Mr. Johnson be asked to resign his position as regional manager on the basis that his lack of social qualifications is a detriment to workplace moral.”

That sentence is roughly thirty words long and has a reading grade level of fifteen. It is without a doubt Official Style; it has appositives, relative clauses, prepositional phrases, infinitive phrases and the list goes on. But what if we changed one thing about it; would it still be considered Official Style?

“It has become apparent through a series of unfortunate and unforeseen incidences that have taken place over the course of several weeks that it is in the best interest of the company, Johnson Bros. LLC., that Mr. Johnson be asked to resign his position as regional manager on the basis that he is a disgusting pig that has no sense of personal space.”

The sentence is still thirty words long and has maintained its original reading grade level. The sentence is still over-worded and takes way too long to get to the main point, but is it still Official Style? I would argue that no, it is no longer written in the Official Style, or at least, it is no longer exclusively written in the Official Style. I see it as lingering in the gray zone between the two categories. Reason being is when I think of Official Style I understand that the ideas delivered by the Official Style can be powerful and controversial, however the words themselves rarely, if ever, carry poignancy by themselves. All three genres of writing can deliver the same message, but it is the style in which they use that determines what genre they belong to. When I look at Official Style vs. Plain Style I see it as the relationship between oil and water: it takes very little oil to contaminate a very large portion of water. It doesn’t take much Plain Style wording in an Official Style setting to convince an audience that there was a massive shift in tone.

To exemplify this in a “real world setting” we’ll look at an opinion piece from Al Jazeera regarding the barbaric nature of the Mexican Drug Cartels as opposed to the similarly barbaric nature of ISIL over the course of the last year.

The horrific rampage of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) has captured the world’s attention. Many Western commentators have characterized ISIL’s crimes as unique, no longer practiced anywhere else in the civilized world. They argue that the group’s barbarism is intrinsically Islamic, a product of the aggressive and archaic worldview that dominates the Muslim world. The ignorance of these claims is stunning.

-Musa al-Gharbi, Al Jazeera America, Mexican Drug Cartels Are Worse Than ISIL

The sentences in this paragraph vary from being official or plain but the overall tone is inherently plain. It uses powerful words that grab the audience’s attention but it still maintains a grade level of thirteen. The reason this author chose to use such powerful and persuasive language (other than the fact that the subject causes such emotions to surface) is that this is an opinion piece and therefore cannot hide behind the passive and, frankly, weak language of Official Style. Most news outlets choose to use Official Style because it conceals bias and has an air of professionalism to it, which is what the audience expects and what they deserve. To use Plain Style in journalism is to lower an organizations standards to those of tabloids and celebrity magazines. By placing the word “Opinion” at the top of an article you remove the label of journalism and are now free to be as biased and opinionated as you wish. And Plain Style is the best style for this because the point of an opinion piece is to convince the audience of the author’s point of view. The best way to persuade an audience is by using powerful words that pop on the page and concise sentences that get to the point quickly. But that doesn’t mean that academic writing and complex vernacular have to be sacrificed. This paragraph is from the same article.

Some may argue that despite the asymmetries, the cartels are less of a threat than ISIL because ISIL is unified around an ideology, which is antithetical to the prevailing international order, while the cartels are concerned primarily with money. This is not true.

--Musa al-Gharbi, Al Jazeera America, Mexican Drug Cartels Are Worse Than ISIL

That first sentence clocks in at a reading grade level of nineteen, but there are numerous sentences scattered throughout the article that come in at a much lower reading level and exhibit blunt and colorful word choices.

Which brings me to my main point: This article, while containing Official Style sentences and irregular vernacular, is still inherently written in the Plain Style. Even if an article is primarily written in the Official Style I find that a few select powerful and attention getting words can drastically alter the audiences’ views on the piece. I can accept that this article is a combination of the two styles, maybe even all three, but I cannot concede that it is exclusively written in the Official Style.

-Mitchell Spoerl

Intoxication in the Official Style

Everyone from the casual weekend drinker to the everyday alcoholic has their favorite drink and is familiar with the specific language used to order it– a dry vodka martini with a twist of lemon. While there is a certain amount of jargon and complexity to the language used when ordering a drink, on the other side of the bar there is another level of language and jargon used by bartenders and cocktail crafters. Within the realm of bartending and drink making, written works in the official style can be found in various cocktail recipe books and blogs, and writings on various alcohol history and production processes. One source in particular, the Craft of the Cocktail by Dale Degroff, is a compilation of alcohol history, descriptions of flavorings, drink making methods, and recipes. It is a sourcebook for both advanced and beginning bartenders.

            Along with the official style usually comes a system of bureaucracy. While there is no governing body or set hierarchy of bartenders, a subliminal community exists within the culture and profession. There is a clear distinction between the beer-pouring college student behind the bar and the up-scale Las Vegas cocktail chef. The use of official style generally signifies an expertise that is beyond the average person’s comprehension. When you are employed by an establishment who expects you to provide your own menu of fresh drink recipes this involves a level of understanding beyond pouring a beer from a tap.

Working for high-paying clientele is an extremely desirable position that requires you to maintain a larger amount of knowledge (or an appearance of one) over the customer. Through the use of texts like the Craft of the Cocktail bartenders learn and communicate about the intricacies of mixing drinks and liquor appreciation.

The Mai Tai, on the other hand, calls for an aged Jamaican rum when made according to the original Victor Bergeron recipe. Whiskey that is used in cocktails should come from an established producer and be properly aged. And with the exception of fruit brandies and eau-de-vie, all brandies are much improved with barrel age.

This is primarily supposed to be an introductory text for beginning bartenders written by a “master mixologist”, Dale Degroff who received his notoriety while bartending at New York’s Rainbow Room in Rockefeller Plaza.

While this passage is generally straightforward and readable, when put into context it exudes official style. Surprisingly, the selection above scored a 16.5 grade reading level and a 34.4 Flesch-Kincaid reading ease. This is interesting considering bartending is an occupation that requires minimal to no education. However, being able to work within the official style places you ahead of others in such a competitive market. Those who can create an appearance of sophistication and knowledge will be successful in the occupation and move to higher paying and more reputable establishments.

Although it is an introductory text, Degroff assumes you have prior knowledge of the “Victor Bergeron recipe” without any previous mention of it. Other jargon and euphemisms are apparent throughout the text. Although the use of advanced terminology is unnecessary in teaching beginning bartenders, a display of extensive knowledge is central to being a good at the job. The appearance that you know an endless amount of cocktail recipes and are educated in the production and flavorings of spirits is an essential aspect of being a successful bartender.

An easily definable characteristic of official style is the use of passive voice. This passage is entirely impersonal, hiding both the actor and the action.  Passive voice receives its fair share of criticisms. However, in this case it is unimportant who the actor is. It is more important that we draw our attention to the thing being acted upon. For example, the drink which is being made. It is unimportant to us who is making the drink, rather we just want the information about how it is made. In this case passive voice is entirely acceptable and should almost be the preferred direction to take.

In other parts of the text the use of complex sentences is a prevalent feature. For example, “The complex flavor of the finer premium gins, for instance, is achieved by passing the high-proof spirit through a final distillation in a pot still, with botanicals that flavor the gin and provide that unique aroma.” Or “The vanilla and caramel flavors that sweeten bourbon are the dividends returned as the spirit passes season after season through the layer of caramelized wood sugar (created by charring the wood), just under the charred oak inside a bourbon barrel.” Both are overtly complex and complicate otherwise simpler ways of stating what was trying to be said. Here lies the aspect which is not necessarily an important facet to bartending texts. Aside from the apparent attempt at sounding more credible there is little excuse within the sphere of bartending to set aside clear and concise language. In a medium that is aimed at educating inexperienced people clarity is key.

Despite the overuse and generally negative opinions about the official style, there are real world applications and reasons for the existence of it. Sometimes it is necessary to create an impression of knowledge and establish your place above others. Other-times clear and concise language is required. It is merely situational, and within the sphere of bartending the existence of the official style serves a necessary purpose in order to create a separation between bartender and patron that is beyond the physical bar-top.

Samuel Fischer

An Official Style Competition? ; Official Style and Photojournalism

         If the average American reads at a seventh grade reading level and in seventh grade you are typically between the ages twelve and thirteen, this would mean that the average American reads about the same level as a twelve or thirteen year old. This isn’t to say, by any means, that there aren’t outliers, or that reading at that level is a bad thing, but if the average, average being the key word, American reads at that level, then why on earth do people feel the need to write in levels even higher than the 21^st grade level of official style like the preamble which follows?

“The National Press Photographers Association, a professional society that promotes the highest standards in visual journalism, acknowledges concern for every person's need both to be fully informed about public events and to be recognized as part of the world in which we live.”

            The National Press Photographers Association was founded in 1946 and is the leading association devoted to advocating for visual journalists. The organization focuses on the working news photographer, videographer and multimedia journalist in hopes to keep journalism alive in this tech-savvy era. NPPA has education initiatives, which seek to fully prepare all members for success in their visual journalistic lifestyles. The creation, practice, training, editing and distribution of visual journalism are all main focuses of what the NPPA works with its members to excel in. The membership fee for joining NPPA varies per person and per situation. A professional membership costs $110.00 annually and is geared for those aspiring or currently freelancing in photography, multimedia, audio, video, design, editing, producing, teaching, writing, reporting, or visual journalism on the Web. A student membership on the other hand only costs $65.00 annually and is students who are attending class full-time in universities and high schools who aspire to join the photojournalistic world.  NPPA is known for its renowned expertise, ethics, and ideals in photojournalism and by becoming a member you will be experiencing this first hand. NPPA helps each member meet, network with, and learn from many experienced photojournalists of today. Members also have access to career-building benefits and publications. With all of this said, NPPA sounds like a great association for any photojournalist with any sort of background or knowledge to be a part of. But I am still unsure as to why, if they want everyday people and students to join the association, they felt the need to write such an official sounding pre-amble which many people may be scared away by.

            As someone who one day dreams of becoming a photojournalist in hopes of, honestly just taking photographs that make viewers feel an emotional connection or response, I have to admit that reading the preamble of The National Press Photographers Association made me wonder what kind of sphere I’m trying to get myself into. I am just beginning to dip my toes into It’s not that it turned me off to the idea of photojournalism, but it did scare me a little into feeling like maybe this photojournalistic world is more hoity-toity than I had thought. I realize that from a legal standpoint maybe the things stated in the preamble need to be written a certain way, or maybe the association is trying to sound elite, but the purpose of a preamble is to introduce and explain the purpose of something. So if the preamble had simply stated something along the lines of “as an association devoted to helping photojournalists reach their full potential, they have created this association to do just that,” maybe more people would know the purpose of the association and become interested in learning how to become a member.

             I do, on the other hand, understand why associations might use official style to convince people into do things or other kinds of trickery. Not to say I agree with it, but I do understand how the use of official style can benefit a company or situation. But I do not think that writing a preamble for a photojournalistic website in the 21^st grade level is necessary. Especially since tons of people never even make it to 21^st grade. So if “EVERY PERSON’S need to be fully informed about public events,” is being acknowledged, then maybe it should be written so every person feels included. With a Flesch-Kincaid Reading ease score of 22.5, an average grade level of 21.0, and 44 words per sentence I can guarantee that not every person who reads that will be able to understand what is being said.

            I also think that the use of official style stems from the need to sound smart, or “official”. I think there are certain expectations held for people, even in situations like a photojournalism association’s website, to sound smart. I have a hard time understanding the reasoning behind why someone would use official style to prove to perspective members that the association knows what they are talking about, because in my opinion, if you know your stuff well enough you should be able to explain it simply, say everything you need to say, and honestly, I don’t think anyone would question the associations expertise anyways.

             I strongly believe that the idea that a national association such as this needs to use official style comes from the idea that the “Arts” are less important or prestige than say Sciences. I also think that in the art world there is this notion where in accordance to things such as a websites or other documentations where the artist, or in this case photojournalist, feels the need to speak in more elite terms to sound official and of importance to society. Scientists, for instance, are a “group” that may feel and be seen as more elite than someone who takes photographs. This isn’t to say that scientists are not elite and extremely important, but it is a fact that they know things photographers don’t, and photographers know things many scientists could never begin to comprehend. This may be why a photographic website would use official style.

             The use of official style, in situations like this, is all about competition and proving expertise. An association like NPPA may feel like they need to prove they know what they are talking about in hopes of being seen as a prestige association. While I agree with the fact that official style can give authority or credibility, I don’t think that it is practical in all instances. In situations like The National Press Photographers Association preamble I think that the use of official style may push people away more than pull them in because the use of elevated vocabulary and long sentences may seem too prestigious and scholarly. Many people who view the website looking for support for their photography and are seeking help to make a name for them selves are every day members of the public population who may only be comfortable reading at a seventh grade reading level. I think catering to everyone’s reading and comprehension ability is important when trying to gain members in order to help an association’s cause. Official style is completely impractical when attempting to relate or attract the average individual.

Abbey Grall

Official Style and the Second Amendment

Official style has been normalized to evoke authority, expertise, and precision. This style has been used especially in the United States government within legislative documents such as bills, acts, vetoes, amendments, proposals, and laws. Official style is complex, jargonistic, bureaucratic, and usually impossible for the average adult to read. So why does our government choose this style in documents important to the lives of citizens? Is it necessary to use official style to avoid misinterpretation? In certain spheres of human activity, official style is used to confuse, distort ideas, or wrongfully persuade. In the case of law, official style clarifies for politicians while puzzling the general public. I chose to follow the use of official style in United States law, particularly the right to bear arms, and see how the official style has evolved and what it means for the average American citizen.

The original record of the American right to bear arms according to the Bill of Rights goes as follows:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” 

This one sentence leaves a lot up for interpretation, which many future politicians would take advantage of. To understand what was meant by this statement historical context must be taken into account. There has been a lot of debate between whether the right to “keep and bear arms” belongs only to state governments for maintenance of military force, or if it is the right for each citizen to own and use guns. According to David E. Vandrecoy, the Framers who wrote this amendment had an original intent to give citizens the right to be armed and “to be armed at a level equal to the government”.  Simply put, this amendment was included in the Bill of Rights to prevent the new American government from becoming the tyrannical British government the Framers were escaping from. Official style could have been used when writing the Bill of Rights to specify exactly what was meant, but that would have taken away the poetic nature of the document. The Framers must have intended to simplify this so the citizens would understand and quickly agree; in turn creating the opportunity for future ambiguity in interpretation. 

Every state legislature and national lawmaker has misinterpreted the second amendment. This might sound shocking- and I’m not making a biased political statement. If the second amendment had been interpreted how the Framers had intended, guns would be used solely for militia drills by the states. We would not have college students carrying guns around campus, intoxicated people couldn’t handle a gun in Missouri, and “Stand Your Ground” would not exist. Unlike the original Second Amendment the new laws offer no possibility for further interpretation, because they used official style. One example of this is Wisconsin’s recent Concealed Carry Rule. The Flesh-Kincaid Grade Level for this forty seven page document is grade nineteen, but the average adult in the United States reads at the seventh grade level. The average adult couldn’t even begin to understand this document! The document opens up with the following:

On October 25, 2011, DOJ adopted emergency rules relating to the implementation of DOJ’s statutory responsibilities under 2011 Wis. Act 35 regarding licenses authorizing persons to carry concealed weapons, the certification of firearm safety and training instructors, the recognition by Wisconsin of concealed carry licenses issued by other states, and concealed carry certification cards for qualified former federal law enforcement officers.

That was one sentence! The verbose within this passage alone creates a very official tone because it could easily be simplified to “On October 25, 2011, DOJ put into place the concealed carry rule”, excluding multiple clauses and all of the specifications. This is the introduction to the document, so one would expect it to be clear on what is to come. Even though it specifies what is included under the “emergency rule” it is not clear. It takes a while to get to the point, and in documents that many people will be reading it is essential to state the purpose right away. Of course this passage contains a bureaucratic tone since it is a government document, but couldn’t it be more relatable to the general public? The public are the people who need to understand and abide by these rules. This may sound like a contradiction but used this way law is used to confuse as well as clarify. The official style used in law documents clarifies specifications to lawmakers so they are unable to interpret the law differently or evolve it in the future without adding separate amendments. At the same time, law confuses the general public by adding additional clauses, rules, and repeating sentences that seem unnecessary. Most citizens wouldn’t take the time to read and pick apart a document that is twelve grade levels above their own reading ability, so they either blindly accept the law or blindly oppose it. We trust politicians to be able to understand the documents for us and make the important decisions.

              

Politicians, lawyers, or any person involved in government affairs might argue the official style is necessary when writing any government document. What they are writing will be written in history! They need it to look good and smart to reflect how good and smart of a leader they were. Within our founding government documents such as the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence it seems like they contain some official bureaucratic elements that if written today would be classified in the official style. Politicians of today strive for government documents to be consistent with this historical tone, but times change. When the Framers used official style it was actually how they talked to one another. It was easily understood by the masses because when read out loud it did not require translation. Oral communication has evolved (or regressed) and written communication should have stayed consistent with this evolution. If politicians of today truly wanted to emulate our forefathers they would make government documents more accessible to the public. The idea of democracy is a government made up of the people of a country, and if the people can’t read what their politicians are writing how can they play their part?

               

In Section 227.11(2)(a) of the Concealed Carry document official style is also especially apparent. This section of the document explains what “rule-making authority” is allowed or supposed to do. In section (a) the document states that “each agency may promulgate rules interpreting the provisions of any statute” which is a complex way of saying agencies are allowed to interpret the concealed carry rule. The document goes on to say “a rule is not valid if the rule exceeds the bounds of correct interpretation”. The writers of the document wanted to seem like there is some leeway for interpreting the concealed carry rule, but deeper within they make it near impossible to make any changes. This facade represents what politicians do to government documents: slipping in additions to undermine the surface intention. The document goes on to identify three sections of specifications about “statutory provisions” that further limit the possibility of interpretation. The complexity and length of describing these specifications show how the lawmakers made it near impossible to change or understand this rule any differently then what they originally intended.

             

If the Framers wrote in a more elaborate official style would these interpretations and modern laws have happened? One outcome of official style is eliminating the chance for misinterpretation. The style is also used to confuse the general public who don’t understand specific jargon or read at an average level. I believe the Framers wanted to avoid any confusion to their citizens at the time, but doing so allowed future lawmakers to take advantage of their simplicity. If lawmakers today wrote as lawmakers did back then average citizens could understand laws, but politicians couldn't take advantage like they do today. Maybe the Framers intended to make their documents open for interpretation, because that is what democracy is all about. Our laws should be flexible so they can change along with our evolving society. The United States government and lawmakers alike have lost this important idea when they write their laws and documents today. If the official style shuts the door on opportunity for interpretation, how can our society grow and develop? 

--Amber Middleton

For further information on the Second Amendment and Wisconsin's Concealed Carry Rule visit these websites: 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/second_amendment

http://www.doj.state.wi.us/sites/default/files/dles/ccw/permanent-rules.pdf

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/2ndschol/89vand.pdf