How could you even operate without using jargon? People who work with computers need to use computer jargon to communicate with each other, so do lawyers, teachers etc. You’d have a difficult job learning and teaching computer science if you refused to use any technical terminology at all.
And when I greet my partners parents, I use a formal version of Vietnamese because it would be rude to use an informal version. I’m not using it to ‘exclude’ anyone, quite the opposite, it makes them feel respected.
Basically I think that’s quite a sweeping statement you’ve made there and I’m struggling to see how you came to it
What exactly is it about the final example that makes it informal versus formal? Is it the colloquialisms? The contractions? The assumption of friendship? The misspellings? I’m genuinely curious. I suppose I haven’t really considered the nuance of it all and have generally lumped together informality with personality.
Interesting questions. Generally, colloquialisms, contractions, phrasal verbs. But ultimately it’s the fact that we hear it and we instantly recognise it as being informal.
Should be noted that actively informal language is often the most difficult to penetrate. Ask most ESL learners to read The Sun and they’ll be stumped by the frequent, very British colloquialisms. Even Americans can have a hard time getting it.
Because there’s a time and a place for it, you don’t need to use jargon.
For example there’s a lot of jargon in my day to day to job: TM, AML, SAR, DAML, and some technical terms which have very specific meanings.
When I’m doing my job and communicating with people who do my job there’s no problem if I use them because they’ll understand them. But if I’m sharing something with the wider company or the wider world then I’ll absolutely not use them, because they exclude people from the discussion and make it harder to understand.
That’s the whole point of our tone of voice guide, it’s no different to things like The Guardian Style Guide and many other organisations have, although they aren’t always published in the public domain.
Different organisations and banks have different aims and different approaches. Ours is just one and like everything we do (& any other business) it won’t suit everybody. If it doesn’t, then people are free to use a different bank, business etc. The world would be very boring if every company was exactly the same!
Right, I think this is right but it also is quite a shift from “Generally a more formal register (including jargon) is used solely to exclude people - there’s little other rationale for using it.”!
This difference is where I think my only bone of contention with the tone of voice policy lies. It’s fine if Monzo wants to use that tone of voice, as you say it’s Monzo’s decision, but I think to say things like "And what we’re unconsciously doing is perpetuating that idea that ‘we know something you don’t’ or ‘is used solely to exclude people’ is all a bit much.
To be fair many companies are ditching their tone of voice guides because it’s very old hat as a concept these days, I’ve said this repeatedly on here at it just seems to be ignored. Perhaps it works for some but pitching ToV is not really the done thing at all in 2021, it’s just like all fads, taking a while to filter down.
Do you not think that historically that’s been the case? I’d argue that thanks to the likes of the plain English campaign that it’s become less of an issue but that it’s still worth reminding ourselves of the impact that using overly formal and technical terms can have?
No, I don’t think historically formal language and jargon was used solely to exclude people. Medieval philosophers had as much need for jargon as you do today.
I think that was and still is one use of it. But I disagree it was the sole use of it, now or historically.
I think this is where we disagree because I don’t think there’s ever a need for jargon. You can express yourself perfect easily and succinctly without using jargon.
Using jargon is a choice and whilst it might seem to make something quicker to use, generally the effect (& perhaps maybe not the intention) is to exclude people.
I was quoting a specific post, apologies if it didn’t show in my reply but I’m posting on my phone and I always forget that replying to a specific post doesn’t actually quote it unless you select the text.
I was focusing on one part of register with my response which is why I referred to jargon rather than register.
I’d have thought that’s an ideal topic for discussion on this site. An opportunity to be persuaded by others of a different perspective. But also an opportunity to reflect criticism.
Rather bizarre a claim.
That, you can’t.
Very true.
This thread started with . A valid reflection which regrettably a bit of old-fashioned hostility. Never mind, @Lightning720 , a good topic nonetheless.
If I am writing an essay on the ontological argument, I am going to use the word ‘ontological’ quite a lot. I could keep writing about my views on ‘the argument about whether god exists that would hold true in all possible worlds’ or something like that but it would get a bit tiring.
Absolutely - and whilst for some people it might be a reason not to use or trust Monzo, for others it will absolutely be a reason to trust them.
It’s one of the great benefits of a capitalist society - you can choose where to take your business. I’m not precious about people who disagree with our approach here - it’s perfect valid to prefer the way other banks and financial institutions use language and therefore use them.
Sometimes I’ll use a company where I don’t agree with all aspects of their business model, approach to customer service or otherwise but the benefits outweigh the cons.
There are some aspects of Monzo (as a customer) which frustrate me, but the benefits outweigh those significantly.
I think for me though, the way a bank communicates is so fundamental that if I was unhappy with it then I would choose to bank elsewhere. I wouldn’t be so bothered about it that I felt the need to go online and complain about it, I’d just take my business elsewhere.
That doesn’t mean the intention of it’s use is to exclude people, though. The intention of its use could well be (and I think most often is) to speed things up. I think that’s probably why you use jargon with your coworkers. The possibility of excluding people might be one effect of using it, but this is fundamentally quite different.
Essentially, it’s the moral implications I think we are disagreeing with. The idea (both from you, and also in the official Monzo policy) that using formal language is always or almost always bad or ill intentioned.
Anyway, the discussion has been interesting regardless.
If the nuclear physicist needs to explain something in their field of expertise to an everyday member of the public (or a virologist during a press briefing, to use a popular current occurrence) and insists on using domain specific terminology, aren’t they being exclusionary?
But they do need to know the terminology if the physicist insists on using it when trying to communicate with them.
. A valid reflection which regrettably a bit of old-fashioned hostility. Never mind,