TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: Contractions From:"Susan W. Gallagher" <sgallagher -at- EXPERSOFT -dot- COM> Date:Thu, 7 Mar 1996 14:10:13 -0800
At 10:25 AM 3/7/96 EST, Tara Barber wrote:
>Michal Lastman asked:
>> What are the reasons for and against using contractions in technical
>Well, as with most things, it depends on your writing style and your audience.
>But the bottom line is the same as for most things in technical writing. Use
>it if it adds to comprehension and "flow", and don't if it doesn't.
I agree, totally. Many will caution against contractions if a work is
to be translated. But, if it isn't headed overseas and is informal in
tone, contractions are appropriate.
>In practical terms, however, not all contractions are created equal. We're
>much more likely to use some contractions (can't, won't, shouldn't, it's) then
>others (you'll, you've, should've, etc.) Hummm. Seems like we use more
>negative contractions than positive. Something Freudian, perhaps?
I, OTOH, am more apt to use positive contractions than negative -- most
commonly: you'll, you're, you've, it's... Somewhere in my deepest darkest
distantest ;-) past, I heard a caution about contracting a negative
because the reader might miss the "n't" and take the statement positively.
In general, if the writing is less that *absolutely* formal and if the
contracted expression is not likely to be misunderstood, go for it.
sgallagher -at- expersoft -dot- com