Is it proper to use CONTRACTIONS in letters,resumes,etc.?
P. Chatterjee
I've, I'm, etc.) in official correspondence, personal statements, resumes
and other statements.
Would appreciate any input on this.
Raphael mankin
It's a question of how formal you feel you need to be: a matter of register
not of correctness. That is, assuming that you know the difference between
your/you're, its/it's, whose/who's, their/there/they're.
Now, to digress somewhat.
In general, I have a tendency to call a space a ruddy shovel, so I would tend to
use personal forms ('I', imperatives) in technical reports where tradition
is to use impersonal, or impersonal passive forms. For instance, I would write
[I suggest that you ] do this that or the other.
and not
It is recommended that this that or the other is done.
My objection to the impersonal form is that it is not clear whether it is a
recommendation by the author or a reference to a third party's recommendation.
In the latter case, we need to know who originated the recommendation; and in
both cases we lack a motivation.
--------------
Raphael Mankin Nil taurus excretum
Peter Moylan
> I had a question about whether it is proper to use contractions (that is
> I've, I'm, etc.) in official correspondence, personal statements, resumes
> and other statements.
To some extent it's a question of personal taste.
I wouldn't use contractions in a resume, or indeed in any document which
was designed to impress people. I do use them in some official letters.
--
Peter Moylan ee...@wombat.newcastle.edu.au
Dan Prener
> I had a question about whether it is proper to use contractions (that is
> I've, I'm, etc.) in official correspondence, personal statements, resumes
> and other statements.
While contractions are not improper, they are best reserved for informal
communications.
--
Dan Prener (pre...@watson.ibm.com)
Mark Israel
> I had a question about whether it is proper to use contractions (that
> is I've, I'm, etc.) in official correspondence, personal statements,
> resumes and other statements.
Yes. But in a more formal style, you use fewer contractions than in
a less formal style.
You *can* see how *complete* avoidance of contractions can make your
style unbearably starchy, can you not?
mis...@csi.uottawa.ca Mark Israel
Sunbeams brightly play, where Fancy's fair pavilion once is pight.
Gary Hypes
formal technical communications.
- Gary Hypes -
Francis Muir
Call me a traditionalist, but no, contractions aren't
permissible in formal technical communications.
E.g., e.g. is impermissible?
Phil Log
Emory F. Bunn
Surely there's a distinction between contractions and abbreviations.
"E.g." is an abbreviation, while "aren't" is a contraction. I agree
with Gary that, at least in formal writing, contractions should be
avoided. Many abbreviations, however, are fine. Surely it's OK to
refer to the C.I.A. by its initials, for instance, and "e.g." is
decidedly preferable to "exempli gratia" (although "for example"
might well be better still).
-Ted
Jim Peavler
|> In article <1kag72...@morrow.stanford.edu> fra...@oas.stanford.edu (Francis Muir) writes:
|> >Gary Hypes writes:
|> >
|> > Call me a traditionalist, but no, contractions aren't
|> > permissible in formal technical communications.
|> >
|> >E.g., e.g. is impermissible?
|>
|> Surely there's a distinction between contractions and abbreviations.
|> "E.g." is an abbreviation, while "aren't" is a contraction. I agree
|> with Gary that, at least in formal writing, contractions should be
|> avoided.
Nor, IMO, is formal level writing appropriate for technical communication. Formal
writing or speaking is reserved for only the highest occasions of state or social
significance -- such as funeral orations, memorials, inauguration addresses, or
the occasional formal essay in a classy magazine.
Since the earliest serious discussions of effective communications, the concept
of "decorum" has been considered essential if the writer/speaker hoped to be
effective. Decorum involves adjusting the level of language to be in harmony with
the "subject, locale, time, or character being treated (AHD>". Aristotle
describes the concept at some length (though he doesn't use the term, which is
Latin), and nearly every rhetorician I know of since has dealt with it.
The audience of technical communication is, more often than not, a
person trained in some technical field, not in formal rhetoric. This
person may not be particularly interested in the nuances of linguistic
sophistication. The reader of technical communication is, more often than
not, in a hurry to find out what to do next to resolve some problem
or to get soemthing started up. Anything the technical writer can do to
make this easier is good and proper. Making the prose personal, easy,
informal is not wrong in that enviroonment.
Technical communication must be 1) accurate, 2) complete, 3) clear. I would add
that it must be organized and laid out in such a way that the potential reader
can quickly and easily find exactly that subset of the whole that pertains
directly to the subject being researched right now. Therefore, sometimes in
technical communication "apparatus" such as indices, tables of contents, tables
of figures, typographical highlighting of key terms, etc. can be more important
than formal "correctness".
Anything that can improve the ease of access to the information should be
considered rhetorically appropriate -- contractions, first and second person
pronouns, lists and bulleted lists of incomplete sentences, etc., and any number
of other typographical and rhetorical devices that help the reader get to what
is needed in as quick and comfortable a way as possible. Even if the usage might
have driven your highschool schoolmarm nuts.