Volume 4, Issue 1
  • ISSN 2590-0994
  • E-ISSN: 2590-1001



Adherence to standards pertaining to formality remains important for novice academic writers wishing to write within the scientific community. However, due to its elusive nature, it may not be clear what “formal” really means. This study investigates what affects novice writers’ perceptions of formality; specifically, it looks at the individual and combined impact of register (journal articles vs. academic blog posts) and linguistic features with two variants (e.g., split vs. non-split infinitives). The writers ( = 117) were presented with a series of binary choices between register-feature combinations and asked to select the most formal combination. This resulted in a rank-ordered list showing which combinations they perceived as more formal.

The results showed that the novice writers’ perceptions largely aligned with the expected rankings, in that journal articles and the feature variant associated with this register tended to be perceived as more formal than the alternative. These trends were especially strong for two of the features investigated: exclamation points and contractions. In bringing us one step closer to understanding how novice writers think about formality, this study helps shed some light on the commonly used, but less commonly defined, concept of formality.

Available under the CC BY 4.0 license.

Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...



  1. Altenberg, B., & Tapper, M.
    (1998) The use of adverbial connectors in advanced Swedish learners’ written English. InS. Granger (Ed.), Learner English on computer (pp.80–93). Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. American Psychological Association
    American Psychological Association (2020) Publication Manual of the American Psychological Association: The official guide to APA style. (7th ed.). American Psychological Association.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Battistella, E. L.
    (1996) The logic of markedness. Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Biber, D.
    (1988) Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511621024
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511621024 [Google Scholar]
  5. Biber, D., & Conrad, S.
    (2019) Register, genre, and style. (Second edition). Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108686136
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108686136 [Google Scholar]
  6. Biber, D., Gray, B., Staples, S., & Egbert, J.
    (2022) The register-functional approach to grammatical complexity: Theoretical foundation, descriptive research findings, application. Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
    (1999) Longman grammar of spoken and written English. Longman.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Chapman, D.
    (2021, September23–25). ‘Not just a few dozen trouble spots’: tallying the rules in English usage guides [Plenary Talk]. 6th Prescriptivism Conference, Vigo, Spain.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Curzan, A.
    (2014) Fixing English: Prescriptivism and language history. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139107327
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139107327 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dixon, T.
    (2022a) Rules of academic writing: A synchronic and diachronic corpus analysis across the disciplines. [Doctoral dissertation, Northern Arizona University]. ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. (2022b) Proscribed informality features in published research: A corpus analysis. English for Specific Purposes, 651, 63–78. 10.1016/j.esp.2021.09.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2021.09.003 [Google Scholar]
  12. Dixon, T., Egbert, J., Larsson, T., Kaatari, H., & Hanks, E.
    (2023) Toward an empirical understanding of formality: Triangulating corpus data with teacher perceptions. English for Specific Purposes, 711, 161-177. 10.1016/j.esp.2023.04.006
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2023.04.006 [Google Scholar]
  13. Egbert, J., Larsson, T., & Biber, D.
    (2020) Doing linguistics with a corpus: Methodological considerations for the everyday user. Cambridge Elements in Corpus Linguistics. Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108888790
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108888790 [Google Scholar]
  14. Glasman-Deal, H.
    (2010) Science research writing for non-native speakers of English. Imperial College Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Heylighen, F., & Dewaele, J.-M.
    (1999) Formality of Language: Definition, measurement and behavioral determinants. Internal Report, Center “Leo Apostel”. Free University of Brussels, Belgium.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Hyland, K., & Jiang, F.
    (2017) Is academic writing becoming more informal?English for Specific Purposes, 451, 40–51. 10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esp.2016.09.001 [Google Scholar]
  17. Irvine, J. T.
    (1979) Formality and informality in communicative events. American Anthropologist, 811, 773–790. 10.1525/aa.1979.81.4.02a00020
    https://doi.org/10.1525/aa.1979.81.4.02a00020 [Google Scholar]
  18. Kjellmer, G.
    (1997) On contraction in modern English. Studia Neophilologica, 69(2), 155–186. 10.1080/00393279708588204
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00393279708588204 [Google Scholar]
  19. Larsson, T., & Kaatari, H.
    (2019) Extraposition in learner and expert writing: Exploring (in)formality and the impact of register. International Journal of Learner Corpus Research, 5 (1), 33–62.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. (2020) Syntactic complexity across registers: Investigating (in)formality in second-language writing. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 451. 10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100850
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2020.100850 [Google Scholar]
  21. Liardét, C. L., Black, S., & Bardetta, V. S.
    (2019) Defining formality: Adapting to the abstract demands of academic discourse. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 381, 146–158. 10.1016/j.jeap.2019.02.007
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeap.2019.02.007 [Google Scholar]
  22. The Oxford English Dictionary
    The Oxford English Dictionary, “formal, adj. and n.” OED Online, Oxford University Press, September 2021, www.oed.com/view/Entry/73430. Accessed17 October 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Perales-Escudero, M. D.
    (2011) To split or to not split: The split infinitive past and present. Journal of English Linguistics, 39(4), 313–334. 10.1177/0075424210380726
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0075424210380726 [Google Scholar]
  24. Pollitt, A.
    (2012) The method of Adaptive Comparative Judgement. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 19(3), 281–300.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Supakorn, P.
    (2013) The English split infinitive: A comparative study of learner corpora. International Journal of Research Studies in Language Learning, 2(4), 21–32.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Swales, J. M., & Feak, C. B.
    (2004) Academic writing for graduate students: Essential tasks and skills (2nd ed.). The University of Michigan Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Williams, J. M., & J. Bizup
    (2017) Style: Lessons in clarity and grace (12th Edition). Pearson.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Winter, W.
    (1989) Markedness and naturalness. InO. Miseska (Ed.), Markedness in synchrony and diachrony (pp.103–109). De Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error