2

I get that sorta, kinda, sorta-kinda (this one I quite like though) oughta and sposta imitate speech but it still niggles me to find them "in print", especially when the overall tone is formal.

Occasionally, I have read detailed answers on EL&U in otherwise impeccable, faultless English, containing any one or more of these ‘dialectal’ expressions. I have asked myself what was the aim of the writer, when the rest of the answer is formal and technical in style.

Outside of EL&U are there examples of formal and scholarly texts which contain any of the above expressions? And, ironically, are these forms considered ungrammatical/non-standard when used in informal writing but perfectly acceptable in formal writing when written by an academician?

Tidbit
Google Ngram shows that kinda has been enjoying a massive rise in popularity since 1982, while the other colloquialisms have remained steady.

Mari-Lou A
  • 91,183
  • 7
    Sometimes I kinda think that that's the way they sorta speak in some American classrooms and that the sorta teachers they have kinda have never sorta heard of the preposition 'of'. They oughta know better, but it is interesting that this American spell-checker accepts 'kinda' and 'sorta' but not 'oughta'. Let's try orta, no it doesn't accept that either. – WS2 Apr 08 '14 at 07:55
  • "kinda" is an Americanism, surely? I'd use it when chatting on irc or somewhere like this. If I was writing to be clearly understood I'd use "kind of" – Vorsprung Apr 08 '14 at 08:05
  • 3
    You coulda woulda shoulda removed such terms from formal writing. –  Apr 08 '14 at 10:36
  • 2
    Links to examples on ELU or it didn't happen. Also 'resta' ain't a thing, but the others are. – Mitch Apr 08 '14 at 12:44
  • @Mitch it happens, it happens but I'm not interested in pointing an accusing finger, I'm curious to see such articulate answers sprinkled once or twice with a sorta, kinda and sorta-kinda. Examples on EL&U are easy enough to find. – Mari-Lou A Apr 08 '14 at 17:08
  • 2
    @Mari-LouA OK, no need for actual links, but then I really want to see the actual instances, cut and paste. Otherwise I'm not really sure what you're thinking of. – Mitch Apr 08 '14 at 18:04
  • Still kinda jargon-y, but more intelligible without context; That's really some food for thought. "Bewildered" comes to mind, "baffled", but it's kinda hard* to describe the feeling of craziness of the other person.; and Apologia for is the correct version, but it's also rather obscure and formal. I think you'd be better off using defense of or similar. (Though if you're actually talking about Québecois, perhaps the cognate with apology would appease any French readers you've got, because Québec French is kinda horrid if you're used to French French.* – Mari-Lou A Apr 08 '14 at 18:52
  • @Mitch Version #A is a sorta default kinda version. Version #B might be preferable when the speaker wants to put a contrastive subject in... and The greeting 'How are you?' and its variants ('How are you doing?', 'What's up?', etc) sorta mean something and sorta don't. The best response is somewhat empty, 'good' or 'fine' or 'OK'... There are others :) – Mari-Lou A Apr 08 '14 at 18:54
  • The phrase give a gesture is not idiomatic, however, and not a spectacularly helpful description, since it doesn't include the communicative intent of the gesture. As other comments have made clear, people use gestures for all kinds of purposes, and if this is sposta be* a description, it's not doing the job.* Every example is taken from one individual. I had forgotten about sposta I'll edit my question. – Mari-Lou A Apr 08 '14 at 19:02
  • 4
    Wow this is blowing my mind. These words really should not be used for formal writing. Even the words they are replacing are kind of informal. – milestyle Apr 08 '14 at 19:13
  • @Mari-LouA: OK. Seeing those examples, I think, fine, this site is not particularly formal so there's lots of room for colloquialisms. Also, I have noticed in particular one user who drops things like 'sposta' (eye-dialect) into some of their more formal pronouncements and it is a little jarring. But, like I said, we aren't writing for the newspaper. Maybe Maureen Dowd (NYT columnist)might use that once in a while but she's the only one published who would dare. – Mitch Apr 08 '14 at 22:31
  • 1
    @Mitch Do you see my point? Those expressions used by erudite, educated people, capable of producing flawless English, are for you, acceptable. It's irrelevant the fact that EL&U is not a newspaper, it's a Q&A site about English! The very same experts, enthusiasts and linguists that answer questions concerning grammar, style, and usage purposely use informal expressions within a formal style. I asked whether anyone could find any similar examples outside EL&U because I'm curious, is it a growing trend? Is it frowned upon, is it reserved in the US? – Mari-Lou A Apr 08 '14 at 23:23
  • 2
    @Mari-LouA: Dude, this is the internet, not an English teaching site or formal academic journal. It's not a growing trend, unless of course it is. There is a trend for informalisms but not in newspapers. Maybe in magazines. – Mitch Apr 09 '14 at 00:30
  • 2
    @WS2: the reason some people have never sorta heard of the preposition of is because it's not a preposition but a verb. I would of expected you to know that! – RegDwigнt Apr 09 '14 at 11:03
  • *a words are a mark of very poor English skills (of any variant or dialect). If you are directly reporting someone's speech, you might want to use them, but otherwise you should steer clear of them, unless you have a very specific audience which considers them to be normal vocabulary. Even then, I wouldn't call that "formal" writing. – Phil Perry Jun 25 '14 at 15:43
  • 1
    Only when you've a T-shirt with 'Professor Emeritus' on it. – Edwin Ashworth Apr 18 '15 at 16:29
  • 1
    @WS2 Elocutions at dawn! – tchrist Apr 20 '15 at 11:42
  • @tchrist In Norfolk the old boys, and girls, say He dint ortera dunnit meaning He didn't ought to have done it, or in English He ought not to have done it. – WS2 Apr 20 '15 at 22:18
  • Wow! I have read a lot of resumes, and if any of those phrases appeared in a resume, I would toss it immediately in the reject pile, whatever its other virtues. – ab2 Jun 30 '21 at 00:10

1 Answers1

7

I guess I kinda can add something of value here. I'm AmE, and I do sometimes use those colloquial, non-standard spellings, such as "kinda", "sorta", and others -- intentionally. (There are other non-standard spelt words which sometimes are used for similar intentions: gonna, gotta, hafta, oughta, supposta, usta, wanna. Those examples happen to have the infinitival marker "to" incorporated into the word.) These kind of words usually have the exact same meaning as the more standard spelled expression (but not always).

Anyway, the reasons why I, personally, might use them are:

  • explicit hedging because I know that I'm over-generalizing or slightly misusing a technical term. (And so, for informal discussion, I sometimes use these words instead of more formal hedging expressions around those "misused" technical terms to indicate that I'm using the technical terms loosely.)

  • implicit hedging because, although I think I am saying it right, I am too lazy to verify by looking it up, and so, to play it safe, I put in an informal hedge word, just in case.

  • to give the post an informal feel, especially if I've been droning on like it's been a lecture.

  • to indicate that I'm an AmE speaker, and so, the reader should take that into mind when reading my posts.

So, those are my excuses.

(ASIDE: Recently on another forum, I've used colloquial spellings and non-standard dialects when engaging in a grammar discussion with an arrogant, know-it-all pedant troll who was completely wrong. Oh, I also did a whole bunch of copula droppings (e.g. "You so stupid")--the pedant troll was so naive that he didn't recognize it for what it was.)

Mari-Lou A
  • 91,183
F.E.
  • 6,208
  • But the question was about formal writing, not posts at a SE. Regarding the OP "tidbit," Google scrapes to the bottom of the trough. – A rural reader Jun 29 '21 at 16:49