Reevaluate Formal Academic Language

Formal academic language, proposed by a bald Choate Rosemary Hall English teacher Andrew Bald Arcand, establishes a conventional language requirement for student-produced essays across different disciplines. Eliminating grammatical errors, redundant vocabulary, and unnecessary ideas, formal academic language aims to decrease defects in the language that potentially ruin the readers' reading experience. May formal academic language improve the students' writing, it does more harm than benefit to the readers' reading experience. Formal academic language may restrict the art and increase the absurdity of the language, humiliate the readers, inhibit expressions of ideas, and limit the readers’ empathy.

His elitist Harvard experience does not make him a better NFL QB. Similarly, the elitist formal academic language does not necessarily generate better writing.

Formal academic language restricts the art of English language, particularly the use of rhetorical devices. In my freshman year, when I wrote an essay examining the democratization of Cuba, I used George Orwell's The Animal Farm the illustrate the potential negative outcome of Cuban Westernization: “Thus, if the current government is overthrown by a new “democratic” government, the reality will be like the Napoleon government in George Orwell’s The Animal Farm” (Hao, “Economic Changes Ensure Cuba a Brighter Future”). My teacher, however, frenziedly criticized me for not making it clear why I addressed The Animal Farm, saying that it may confuse the readers. But, c'mon, man! We are all educated individuals, and we all know that I'm using The Animal Farm as an allusion. It flatters the readers when they find themselves understanding something that is not elaborated in detail so the readers will like my writing. The standard of academic writing, which requires everything to be elaborated to the finest detail, will bore the readers' asses off and without clarifying anything the readers may misunderstand.

The formality of formal academic language can be ridiculously absurd and humiliates the readers. In the essay examining different concepts of social psychology in the Oscar-winning movie “Crash,” pieces of racial slur is quoted to examine the concepts of relational aggression and in-group bias: “Anthony uses the phrases ‘Chink’ and ‘dopey fucking Chinaman’ when he describes the Cambodians he encounters” (Hao, “Prejudice, Aggression, and Altruism in Crash”). Based on the standard of formal academic language, this sentence fails to elaborate the meaning and reason of addressing Anthony’s words and needs further revision. An improved way to refine this sentence, per formal academic language, requires an additional sentence explaining the significance of “Chink”—a vulgar vocabulary that debases Chinese people, “dopey”—an ironic use, aiming to achieve the opposite effect, that illustrates the nerdiness and weirdness of stereotypic Asians, and “fucking”—the utmost direct vocabulary that demonstrates the most original form of unspoiled aggression. These three in-depth explanations of “hard, possibly confusing vocabulary,” aiming to eliminate possible confusions, do satisfy the requirement for formal academic language. However, in reality, these three lines do nothing but offending the readers, as readers can understand the meaning of racial slurs without the aid of any further explanations. Explaining these words in depth would either show that the writer perceives the readers as ignorant and inferior or wants to achieve an ironic effect: the excessive formality of the language may conversely decrease the formality of the tone of the passage, as the readers may think that the writer purposefully implements a satirical tone. The original sentence, though disappoints some readers who pursue perfectly formal language, successfully appeals to most reader’s understanding without offending them.

Anthony (Cast by Chris "Ludacris" Bridges) in Crash

Formal academic language changes the connotation of specific words, inhibits the expressions of some ideas, and restricts human empathy in disciplines such as sociology, psychology, and philosophy. These three disciplines examine the patterns of human thought, emotion, and behavior, all of which the readers may find relatable to. So an piece with informal language that captures the vividity of an event or an emotion may appeal to the readers more, compare to a strictly formal piece, which readers may find complex and boring. When a sentence deliberately leaves an idea or an emotion unelaborated, it leaves a space for the readers to fully elaborate it in their minds and adds in their own emotion and interpretation. Elaborating excessively on some universal emotions and experiences prevents the readers from having this space to empathize with the writer, and formal academic language may impede the expression some emotions the writer aims to express by avoiding formal academic language. In the psychology essay that examines teenagers’ reactions to awkward social interaction, the following paragraph examines the relation between teenager’s social development and their reactions to social interaction:

“Craving social acceptance, high school students react relatively dramatically even to the most minimal signal of unfriendliness or aggression. One ‘staree’ reported feeling ‘socially accomplished’ after being able to have a short talk with a ‘starer’ and ‘roasted him again’ after the incident. However, she admitted that ‘it’s honestly a little hurtful when you say hi to someone and he/she doesn’t reply back, especially when that person has made eye contact with you and sees that you are trying to interact, even for a few seconds … [as a result] one’s confidence diminishes.’ Other ‘starees’ used vocabulary as strong as ‘offended’ when addressing awkward social interactions in the past. Most of the ‘starees’ had strong psychological reactions towards awkward incidents despite hiding physical responses and appearing composed.” (Hao, “An In-depth Examination of Choate Students’ Reaction to Unwanted Social Interaction”)

Formal academic language considers several words and phrases in the first sentence redundant and unnecessary in this paragraph: “relatively” “even,” and “the most.” But deleting these words would also eliminate the connotation that high school students do react to small signals of unfriendliness and aggression while other people do not, and these people may perceive these reactions to small signals unnecessary. In addition, the formal academic language would require an explanation of “socially accomplished,” reasoning that the definitions of social accomplishment vary among different people and need further clarification. However, you all would know what "socially accomplished" means, even if I don't elaborate it, because you all have had similar experiences. Even though some of you cannot verbalize the exact meaning of "socially accomplished," it does not mean that you would have trouble understanding it. Expanding the entire verbal explanation of the phrase would, instead of clarifying a potentially confusing phrase, only makes the language redundant and impair the readers’ empathy and comprehension.  

Formal academic language impedes the expression of art and ideas, ridicules the readers, diminishes the formality of the tone, and decrease the empathy between the readers and the writer. Formal academic language fails to improve the students’ writing or appeal to the readers’ interest. In addition, Andrew Bald Arcand may have established his formal academic language not intending to purify his students’ writing. Instead, formal academic language, carrying the name “academic,” illustrates his internal narcissism and intention to demonstrate his superiority above his students. The word “academic,” insinuating the superiority of his intelligence, implies that the readers who fail to comprehend or manipulate the complex diction or logic under formal academic language are inferior to the writers, and more importantly, Arcand himself. Similar to Nick Carraway in the Great Gatsby, who selects certain diction to exclude some readers from understanding the language of his elitist group (Hao, “The ‘Passing’ of Gatsby”), Arcand concocts his formal academic language to break the rapport between readers and the author, to create a sense of authority by minimizing the use of simple language, to exclude readers from understanding his text, and more importantly, to prevent his students from successfully abiding by his standard. Giving those students Ds and Fs, Arcand successfully satisfies his deprived need of pride and narcissism. Thus, to improve his students’ writing and to construct an image of himself as a fair, authentic teacher, Arcand should abolish--at least revise--the standard of formal academic language.