I don’t like them. I do not like them. These two sentences share the same sentiment, and yet they feel different. We assign words meanings. Sad and unhappy should mean the same thing, but you would never say, “I’m so unhappy her dog died.” It changes the dynamic of the sentence. We do the same thing with contractions. Using contractions, if done correctly, can manipulate the intensity and tone of sentences, and yet they are discouraged in formal writing.
I suppose I can see where the argument for not using contractions is coming from: contractions can sound informal, so they should not be used in a formal setting. I get that to an extent. I don’t think it is good to overuse contractions. Still, to me, it doesn’t make sense to eliminate them entirely. When you first learn to write, it makes sense to try to limit contractions, because excessive use can sound informal or uneducated – that definitely can be true. But that doesn’t mean using contractions sparsely should be a crime. They can give writing a voice, plus, there are many “rules” that fade away as you get more experienced as a writer. For example, when you first learn to write, you are told that it’s incorrect to use the word “and” at the beginning of a sentence, but as you write more, you learn that you can, and it can in fact be a useful tool. There are many things like this in writing, structures that seem like rules but are actually more like precautions. I think it would be better to learn how to use contractions well, instead of prohibiting them altogether.
Of course, I understand why Seabury teaches students how to write a formal essay without contractions. We go to a college preparatory school, and many college professors don’t allow contractions in formal writing, so it makes sense to prepare students for this. But even in colleges, demographics are changing. Contractions are gradually becoming more acceptable, and therefore, I feel it important to learn about how to use them in a way that doesn’t sound uneducated.
Before writing this article, I thought it was an actual rule to not use contractions in formal writing, that some person had come and said, “This isn’t (is not?) allowed!” But indeed, there is no hard-set rule against contractions. Though many style guides recommend that contractions be avoided in formal writing, some are more lenient on the topic. Though discouraging excessive use, both MLA (which is what we use in our English classes) and the Chicago Manual of Style don’t prohibit contractions in formal writing, with the eighth edition of MLA saying, “When overused, contractions can be distracting. But there is nothing inherently incorrect about contractions.” So, if there’s no bigger rule against them, why shouldn’t it be more normalized?
Language is evolving rapidly. Contractions are so commonplace in speech, and though some consider them informal, I firmly believe that this can change. Do essays become informal because they use contractions, or are contractions considered informal because they can’t be used in formal writing? I think ideas about contractions being informal can change, and rules about contractions should be more flexible.
“But, it’s always been this way!” You say, angrily reading this article. “Contractions make writing sound more informal!” I hear you. But I think rules are good until they’re not, and in the case of contractions, restricting what is such a big part of modern language isn’t creating better writing overall. Though contractions can make writing sound less formal, they also show a student’s voice, helping writing sound less formulaic. I don’t ask anyone to change their opinions. But language is changing, and I think it makes sense for rules to change too.
