Why are there different registers?

[Nooj]

I'm wondering why the concept of a higher or lower register, or even diglossia, exists. What (socio-)linguistic reason is behind the different forms of the language that must be used in formal or informal situations? When I look at French, I'm not sure why we're not allowed to drop ne as a negation marker in writing, although it's common to do so in speaking. Who would it hurt?

Are there languages or cultures that lack registers altogether so that everyone speaks exactly the same to each other, regardless of age, position or context?

[linguoboy]

I'm wondering why the concept of a higher or lower register, or even diglossia, exists. Is there some inherent (socio-)linguistic reason why there needs to be a form of the language that must be used in formal or informal situations? It just seems to be an unnecessary complication.

How does one go about determining how much complication is "necessary" in a given situation? If a language has multiple registers, than presumably there is a substantial proportion of speakers who feel a need for them. Does having more than one way to cook chicken seem like an "unnecessary complication" to you? What about having more than one genre of popular music or more than breed of dog?

Moreover, there's a lot more dimensions to register than just "high" and "low". The formal register I used to use to compose prayers is quite different from the formal register I use in writing my performance reviews. And the informal register I use to chat with my geek friends is very different from the informal register I use with my adolescent nephews. Language performs a wide range of functions. Why should it be any surprise that there are specialised variants of it associated with various of these?

[Nooj]

How does one go about determining how much complication is "necessary" in a given situation? If a language has multiple registers, than presumably there is a substantial proportion of speakers who feel a need for them. Does having more than one way to cook chicken seem like an "unnecessary complication" to you? What about having more than one genre of popular music or more than breed of dog?

I changed my post because I wasn't happy with the way I said that. The example I was thinking of was things like Greek diglossia in the early 20th century or French as a written language vs French as a spoken language. These things do seem unnecessary to me, in the sense that I don't see a intra-linguistic reason for them. Whereas with Korean, if I don't speak to a stranger in the register appropriate to that person, that definitely feels 'wrong' deep in my guts, maybe even ungrammatical. Or at least, it's deeply socially engrained in me. This seems to strike me as a different situation from say, written Korean vs spoken Korean. In written Korean, there are constructions I wouldn't use in speech and some spoken constructions are not found. Is there a prescriptive reason behind this descriptive practice?

Moreover, there's a lot more dimensions to register than just "high" and "low". The formal register I used to use to compose prayers is quite different from the formal register I use in writing my performance reviews. And the informal register I use to chat with my geek friends is very different from the informal register I use with my adolescent nephews. Language performs a wide range of functions. Why should it be any surprise that there are specialised variants of it associated with various of these?

Why are there specialised variants though? Why do we feel the need to talk differently to different people?

[linguoboy]

The example I was thinking of was things like Greek diglossia in the early 20th century or French as a written language vs French as a spoken language. These things do seem unnecessary to me, in the sense that I don't see a intra-linguistic reason for them. Whereas with Korean, if I don't speak to a stranger in the register appropriate to that person, that definitely feels 'wrong' deep in my guts, maybe even ungrammatical. Or at least, it's deeply socially engrained in me. This seems to strike me as a different situation from say, written Korean vs spoken Korean. In written Korean, there are constructions I wouldn't use in speech and some spoken constructions are not found. Is there a prescriptive reason behind this descriptive practice?

If you were more familiar with these languages, you would feel the difference between the registers in them as well. The use of a more or less formal register in Western languages can signal respect just as surely as speech levels can in Korean. It feels wrong to me to use an inappropriate register with someone and I have been scandalised before to hear people use less formal registers in formal situations.

Moreover, there's a lot more dimensions to register than just "high" and "low". The formal register I used to use to compose prayers is quite different from the formal register I use in writing my performance reviews. And the informal register I use to chat with my geek friends is very different from the informal register I use with my adolescent nephews. Language performs a wide range of functions. Why should it be any surprise that there are specialised variants of it associated with various of these?

Why are there specialised variants though? Why do we feel the need to talk differently to different people?

Because people are different? And they relate differently to different people?

Have you never heard the adage "the medium is the message"? How you phrase something is as important as what you say--it's part of what you're saying in fact. Changing the wording of a question will substantially change the answers you get. Speak to someone formally and they will behave more formally. That's how we're wired.

I feel like I'm once more running up against the basic geek fallacy that language is purely for "communication" is a straightforwardly literal sense. This is the misconception that launched a thousand IALs, the urge to treat grammar like an engineering challenge and think that if you can come up with a "more logical" approach to it, people will naturally see the benefits of adopting it. But it fundamentally ignores all the sociolinguistic dimensions of language, its to convey mood, attitude, social distance, and a host of other things.

The purposes of writing are different from the purposes of speaking. This distinction has been blurred recently by the explosion in online communication, but for most of history putting something in writing was considerably more difficult than saying it aloud. It was an elite skill and it wasn't deployed casually. Under these conditions, it's no wonder that written registers diverged from spoken registers. And a distinct written register (or rather family of registers) still exists in many languages because writing still serves different purposes than speaking.

[Nooj]

If you were more familiar with these languages, you would feel the difference between the registers in them as well. The use of a more or less formal register in Western languages can signal respect just as surely as speech levels can in Korean. It feels wrong to me to use an inappropriate register with someone and I have been scandalised before to hear people use less formal registers in formal situations.

Hm...I'm not sure I feel it so much with English, but I can definitely understand what you're saying for e.g. German with du and sie. Our Greek professor was half-seriously offended when a classmate used du when talking to him without his permission.

[Salmoneus]

How you act with a person encodes (your presentation of) your relationship or desired relationship with that person. Imagine: with one woman, while speaking to her you scowl and frown and you clip your words and you don't meet her eyes; with another, you speak quietly, look her in the eyes and now and then take the opportunity to touch her hand; with another, you grab her around the waist and mumble your words while kissing her neck.

Why do you act differently around them even when the words you say are the same? If a boy gropes his girlfriend while they're talking together alone, even about a perfectly innocent topic, is it an "unnecessary complication" for him to NOT grope every woman (or man) he talks to?

It's the same with register. Some registers - just to begin with - are more intimate than others. Some are more hostile than others; some are more businesslike; some are more relaxed.

On the surface, these differences seem arbitrary, but often you can see the reasons why particular features mark particular relationships. If, for instance, I write or speak very formally and austerely, I am taking a lot of 'effort' with my words - which implies I do not want to make a mistake - which implies I am in a relationship in which I am not comfortable making mistakes. This usually means either that I feel vulnerable in this relationship (eg apologies are often more formal than normal - marriage proposals used to be as well), or more commonly that I do not trust the other person. Conversely, if I appear to be 'sloppy' and controversial in my mode of speech, it implies that I trust the other person not to criticise me for it - i.e. we are relatively friendly with one another (or I trust him to prioritise other things - so we sometimes speak casually to be 'men of action', because we're telling the other person 'this isn't the time to mess about with fancy words'). And looking again at physical behaviours, many of them are equally arbitrary - sure, groping someone is inherently intimate, but smiling? Smiling vs frowning seems like an arbitrary way to encode the status of your relationship.

[Bob Johnson]

Hm...I'm not sure I feel it so much with English

a) Hey you, where da fuck is da museum of modern art?!
b) Like, excuse me? I'm looking for the museum of modern art?
c) Hello my good man, terribly sorry, but could I trouble you for directions to the museum of modern art?

Explain in your own words how you would react to these speakers, and what suppositions you would draw based on their speech patterns.

[Nooj]

I have trouble with the naturalness of your examples.

I don't know of anyone who speaks like c). I'd feel like someone's making fun of me.

The politest question I can make in modern Australian English is something like this: Excuse me/I'm sorry to bother you, but could you please tell me where I can find the the museum of modern art?

Anything else, 'my good man, sir, may I trouble you for', are highly unnatural and would never be said by a native Australian English speaker.

I also find it highly unlikely and equally unnatural for someone to ask a stranger in the manner of a). If I was talking to friends, I'd say 'hey guys, where the hell is the museum anyway?'.

I don't know why you used da instead of the. Are you trying to imitate AAVE?

But as to your point, I don't really think that the register that I use for talking to my friends in English is very different from the register I use to talk to strangers. In particular, I'd make some lexical choices, like removing the swear words in some contexts. But I feel it's entirely natural to use swear words with strangers sometimes: "Man, that ticket officer was a dick wasn't he?". So yeah, register variation in spoken English doesn't seem like a huge deal to me in the way that it is in say, spoken Korean.

[Astraios]

You're trying to dodge the issue.

[Nooj]

How so?

[Bob Johnson]

Why is it so important to you to minimize or ignore the existence of registers in English?

[Nooj]

How you act with a person encodes (your presentation of) your relationship or desired relationship with that person. Imagine: with one woman, while speaking to her you scowl and frown and you clip your words and you don't meet her eyes; with another, you speak quietly, look her in the eyes and now and then take the opportunity to touch her hand; with another, you grab her around the waist and mumble your words while kissing her neck.

First of all, that's exactly the sort of explanation I was looking for. So thanks.

It's the same with register. Some registers - just to begin with - are more intimate than others. Some are more hostile than others; some are more businesslike; some are more relaxed.

On the surface, these differences seem arbitrary, but often you can see the reasons why particular features mark particular relationships. If, for instance, I write or speak very formally and austerely, I am taking a lot of 'effort' with my words - which implies I do not want to make a mistake - which implies I am in a relationship in which I am not comfortable making mistakes. This usually means either that I feel vulnerable in this relationship (eg apologies are often more formal than normal - marriage proposals used to be as well), or more commonly that I do not trust the other person. Conversely, if I appear to be 'sloppy' and controversial in my mode of speech, it implies that I trust the other person not to criticise me for it - i.e. we are relatively friendly with one another (or I trust him to prioritise other things - so we sometimes speak casually to be 'men of action', because we're telling the other person 'this isn't the time to mess about with fancy words'). And looking again at physical behaviours, many of them are equally arbitrary - sure, groping someone is inherently intimate, but smiling? Smiling vs frowning seems like an arbitrary way to encode the status of your relationship.

Okay...but smiling as a means of conveying happiness seems to be broadly cross-cultural, for whatever reason. Whereas what's formal and careful in one language may not be in another. Negative concord in French is formal, but negative concord in standard English is looked down upon.

You talked about speaking very formally and austerely. But isn't this somewhat arbitrary and subjective? If by divine fiat what is now considered formal speech was switched with informal speech, so that scientific articles were now written in the way we spoke conversationally, wouldn't informal speech now be formal speech? I don't really see why 'I'm gonna' is more indicative of informality than "I'm going to' for example.

[Skomakar'n]

He's not trying to minimise them or pretend they don't exist. Maybe you crawl on the floor for certain people, but it doesn't mean that's everyday behaviour for everyone else in the English-speaking world (especially considering how big a place the English-speaking world is).

I agree that a) is highly implausible to hear from any stranger and c) would just have me laughing too or make me feel ridiculed. Nobody would actually say that. Also, the 'like' in b) was unnecessary. I'd feel that b) without the 'like' and maybe a little more properness on the actual question is how most people would say it. Also, if somebody were frustrated after looking for a while and threw in a curse word even when asking a stranger, I wouldn't blame them.

I don't know how old you are, Bob, but your reality isn't necessary that of the next generation if you're a few generations old by now. I definitely see a trend in the western world of this kind of crap disappearing. Growing up in Sweden, I have never heard formal address by pronoun (even though the 2PP used to be formal at one point in time) in my entire life and I have never used it myself. Students, teachers, employers and employees alike all use the 2PS in Sweden/Swedish. English doesn't even have a distinction.

That's why you say it lies in the words used, and it totally does, but if you're going to state examples, at least be realistic about them. Taking it to the extremes of each end of the spectrum (and you actually never provided any proper neutral wording) isn't really helpful in this kind of discussion. There needs to be concrete examples made. One would probably hear something like "Excuse me. Do you know where the museum (of blabla) is?". That's both casual and polite and doesn't reek of any register to me; the "excuse me" is just there to catch the attention of the stranger, signaling that you want to talk to him (and in Gothenburg, at least, I'd have to say that you could even replace that with a "du", although I don't [or not even that; if you've been standing at the bus stop for a few minutes by a stranger and the bus isn't coming, it wouldn't be odd to just turn your face towards this person and ask "do you know what the time is?" since those few minutes are enough, really, even if you haven't even spoken – it's just not a weird thing]).

[Nooj]

Why is it so important to you to minimize or ignore the existence of registers in English?

I don't. I just don't think politeness register is such a big deal in (my) spoken English.

Written English is a different beast altogether. Heck, the way I'm writing now is definitely different from the way I speak.

[Shm Jay]

I believe Swedish used to be even more formal and address people with the third person singular, or even with their profession. I wonder how the people of Göteborg would react if I went there and started addressing people in that way to ask where the museum was.

[Astraios]

I don't. I just don't think politeness register is such a big deal in (my) spoken English.

But it is, and you're still avoiding the issue. IF (the key word here is "if", denoting a completely hypothetical situation, and whether you think that situation likely or not is irrelevant) a random stranger said a) or c) to you, you would be at the very least surprised, because they're using an inappropriate register. This is the point of what Bob was saying - that registers are a big deal in English, just in a different way than in Korean.


Sko, while you're right about the fact they're not very plausible, you're still just making the wrong argument. Bob's saying "This shows that different registers exist in English", and you're saying "But it's implausible to hear those". So? Yes, they're implausible, because they're using a wrong register. The examples themselves are perfectly fine, because they're all things that somebody in some context might say. It's not normal for average strangers in the street to talk to each other as if they were close friends (as in a)), nor as if one of them is superior to the other (as in c)). If I was tired out from searching for this museum, and I called my friend who's waiting at the museum for me, I might say "So where the fuck is this art museum anyway?" That's an appropriate register between me and my friend, but not between me and some stranger who I'm just asking for directions.

I don't know how old you are, Bob, but your reality isn't necessary that of the next generation if you're a few generations old by now. I definitely see a trend in the western world of this kind of crap disappearing. Growing up in Sweden, I have never heard formal address by pronoun (even though the 2PP used to be formal at one point in time) in my entire life and I have never used it myself. Students, teachers, employers and employees alike all use the 2PS in Sweden/Swedish. English doesn't even have a distinction.

Using a formal pronoun is only a tiny part of register. If you're trying to work and a colleague you don't know that well is annoying you, you wouldn't say "Piss off, I'm busy" to them, but you might say that to a close friend who knows you don't mean it offensively.

That's both casual and polite and doesn't reek of any register to me

Casual and polite is a register.

[Astraios]

Oops, double post.

[finlay]

(1) "Excuse me. Do you know where the museum (of blabla) is?". That's both casual and polite and doesn't reek of any register to me;

As Astraios says, "casual" and "polite" are registers by definition. What you now want to do is compare the above sentence (which I have retroactively entitled "(1)") to example (2):
(2) "Where's the museum of blabla?"
You may note that (2) is a much blunter sentence than (1). You haven't attempted to draw the listener's attention, you haven't couched the focus of the request under extra phrases such as "do you know ...?". Conversely, you can have sentence (3):
(3) "Excuse me, but could you possibly tell me where I can find the museum of blabla?"
Sentence (3) is politer again than sentence (1). In English, the general rule is more words = politer.

This. Is. What. Register. Is.

Also, I do know at least one guy that speaks like Bob's example c above. And yeah, speaking to him you do feel like you're being made fun of. This is an effect of the register he's using, which is archaic, for one thing.

(That said, I'm still not used to trying to speak Japanese, where register effects are grammaticalized in ways they aren't in English in quite the same way...)

[Skomakar'n]

You both missed the point of my wording "both casual and polite". I meant that it really doesn't conform to any of the two different registers more than the other. It's very neutral and could be used with anyone. It's not rude but it's not polite either. It's just a straight forward question with no tone at all and I don't see how anyone could get offended nor feel pushed down by that kind of wording.

To throw it in there, for some reason I usually always reply "no thanks"/"yes, please" (both "thanks" and "please" are "tack" in Swedish) when people ask if I want something, no matter how close to or distant from me they are (and I can't say I was brought up to this or that the rest of my family does, so I don't know where it comes from).

[finlay]

You both missed the point of my wording "both casual and polite". I meant that it really doesn't conform to any of the two different registers more than the other. It's very neutral and could be used with anyone. It's not rude but it's not polite either. It's just a straight forward question with no tone at all and I don't see how anyone could get offended nor feel pushed down by that kind of wording.

Casual and polite aren't antonyms, so it's no fucking wonder we misunderstood. But let's say it conforms to neither the "casual" register or the "polite" register, and occupies a space inbetween; you've still just defined it in terms of register there by calling it "neutral". Neutral is still a register.

This is exactly like when people say they have "no accent" – what they actually mean is that they have a standard or non-regional accent.

Whether or not you personally speak to everyone the same way is up to you... but by doing so, you are conveying social information about yourself and how you feel about the people you speak to. This is the function of register.

[Skomakar'n]

Fair enough, but if everyone spoke in the same register (neutral) or spoke the same dialect, then it wouldn't make any sense to speak of registers or dialects anyway.

I am perfectly aware that we don't.

[Astraios]

So why did you even say that?

[Skomakar'n]

"If there is a neutral register that offends nobody, why have several other registers alongside?" Just some hypothetical pondering.

[linguoboy]

Fair enough, but if everyone spoke in the same register (neutral) or spoke the same dialect, then it wouldn't make any sense to speak of registers or dialects anyway.

And it doesn't make any sense to speak of moose breeds and raccoon breeds, because we don't breed moose and raccoons. So what's yer point?

"If there is a neutral register that offends nobody, why have several other registers alongside?"

Quite right: why would you ever serve any other meat besides chicken?

[Skomakar'n]

Yes, yes. Everything that analogies can be made between is, in reality, also equal to the other. Indeed.