Having read the material in Sentence-Level Stylistics, share the following:

1. What was unsurprising? In other words, what did you know or suspect already that you already practice and find easy to practice?
2. What was kind of surprising? In other words, what were you not expecting that might be a gamechanger for you in your business messages? (Hint: Look for stylistic tactics that may have been promoted in high school or in other genres but I'm saying, "Don't do this here!")
3. Which of these stylistic tactics might you want to try out soon and why? What's the context and why do you think this particular stylistic tactic could help you achieve your strategy? Make sure you use language that your receivers can understand. This may be contrary to some previous reward structures, where you may have found that big, inaccessible words seemed to contribute to higher grades.

Aptly, there's a word for using big words: sesquipedalian. It means "a tendency to use long words." Individuals in North American business culture tend to use long words in two instances: (1) when they're looking for a way to impress their receivers and (2) when they're looking for a way to limit the participation of receivers in the conversation. The first is about showing off; the second, shutting out. (A quick defense about showing off: There's nothing wrong with being impressive, but look for ways to impress with your ideas, not your vocabulary.)

At the start of the term, I often ask students to write a pretend email asking for a place in the course. The first time I did this, I spliced together the first sentence of three submissions and got the following:

Dr. Ruppert:

I would very much appreciate the opportunity to enjoy the condescension of your society by being permitted to partake in the curriculum that you purvey.

This roughly means "I would like to enroll in your class," but it's not very accessible. The words may be impressive, but the idea gets lost in the vocabulary used. Look for more commonly used words when communicating at work. For example, instead of "affluence," use "wealth." Instead of "amicable," use "friendly." Instead of "utilize," use "use." For each pairing, the second word is likely to be more readily understood, and that makes it more effective because understood words increase the probability that you'll get the desired response.

Accessible, grown-up vocabulary is also superior to two other sets of vocabulary often found in professional communication: outdated expressions and slang.

Outdated expressions are phrases that used to be common in business communication but now sound rather stilted because the language has moved on. Phrases like "as per your request," "attached hereunto," "under separate cover," and "kindly advise" are more modernly expressed as "at your request," "attached," "separately," and "please let me know."

Slang consists of words or phrases that vary from region to region and from in-group to in-group. Slang is generally not appropriate in professional communication where receivers may not be members of the in-group. Gen Z slang that wouldn't work with more senior generations (Millennials, Gen X, or Boomers) include: "to clap back" (as in "to respond to an insult with an equal or greater insult"), "deadass" (as in "I'm serious" or "Are you serious?"), "extra" (as in "too much"),"legit" (as in "of high quality"),"lowkey" or "highkey" (as in "not obvious" or "very obvious," respectively, typically used as adverbial de-intensifier or intensifier modifying an adjective), "no cap" (as in "for real"), "retweet" (as a means to express agreement), "to slay" (as in "to do really well"), "to spill the tea" (as in "to gossip"), or "tweakin'" (as in "freaking out"). Other examples can be found online atEducation FirstandInsider(and thanks to two undergraduate students on my staff for finding these!).

Use of slang in most professional communication may very well affect your perceived credibility. More practically, these words and phrases are likely to be misunderstood. For example, "to cap" for Gen Z means "to lie." Gen X also used "to cap," but it meant "to respond to an insult with an equal or greater insult," which to Gen Z is "to clap back." Even within Gen Z, some slang is in flux, with some Gen Zers now using "lowkey" ironically, such that "I'm lowkey hungry" now means "I'm very hungry," with the adverbial de-intensifier turning into an adverbial intensifier.

There's a practical argument to using accessible language, and there's a moral argument, as well. The practical argument is that you want your message to be understood by your receiver(s) to increase the chance of achieving the desired response and outcome. The moral argument is that you want your receiver(s) to be full participants in the communicative process. Some people deliberately use vocabulary as a means to shut people out of the conversation. It's a very showy mark of privilege. Don't be that person.

AVOID CLICHES & HYPERBOLE

Clichs are expressions that have become exhausted through overuse. These are fixed expressions that were once clever but have lost their punch over time. Examples include: "last but not least," "please don't hesitate to contact me," "if you have any other questions," "I would be happy to." Even phrases like "Have a nice day!" and "Thank you for your time!" have been used so much that they have little food value. It's not about the sentiment. The sentiment may be genuine. It's about the phrase used to express it. "Have a good morning!" or "Enjoy your weekend!" convey roughly the same sentiment, but these phrases come across as more genuine because they're not so formulaic. The same is true of "I appreciate your help on this!" (instead of "Thank you for your time.")

Clichs are particularly prevalent in goodwill statements. But goodwill is about building and maintaining positive relationships, so strong communicators will look to avoid the most common phrases and put a little effort into it. It doesn't require much effort, but there ought to be evidence of some.

Hyperbole is over-expressed sentiment. People are rarely "thrilled" or "ecstatic" to do something, even though they may say "I'm thrilled to be here" as a way of conveying their enthusiasm. Similarly, "I'm honored" or "I'm privileged" are examples of over-enthusiasm, orfaux-thusiasm. Too much sentiment may rob a message of its sincerity. "I'm looking forward to starting this project" is likely to come across as more genuine than "I'm excited to get started."

LOOK OUT FOR HEDGING EXPRESSIONS

A hedging expression is typically a marker or tag tacked onto a statement to make it more obviously an opinion. For example, if you presented in class and I was impressed with your presentation, I could say, "You made a convincing case in your presentation." Or if one of my TAs had run a good review session for my students, I could say "You really helped them prepare for the midterm." Those are statements. However, sometimes we take statements and tack "I think," "I feel like" or "In my opinion" (among others) to them. "You made a convincing case in your presentation" becomes "I think you made a convincing case in your presentation." And "You really helped them prepare for the midterm" becomes "I feel like you really helped them prepare for their midterm." The statements are no longer as strong because they're more obviously opinions.

We tend to use hedging expressions when we're somewhat unsure of what we're saying, who we're saying it to, or where we're saying it, either because we don't fully believe it ourselves, because we're nervous about expressing ourselves in the context, or because we've been conditioned to be underconfident or express a lack of confidence. (This last one is a thing and the subject of a lot of research.)

If you want to come across as more confident in your communication, be cautious in your use of hedging expressions.

There are certain contexts when hedging expressions may be useful. If you're a junior individual without much power, sometimes a hedging expression may be tactical, since too much confidence in a particular context may undermine how your statement is received. Perhaps more interestingly, if you're a senior individual in a position of power and you want to encourage those with less power to contribute to a debate, your use of hedging expressions may create a safer space to express views. "I think we should consider closing our Ravenna office" or, even more extreme, "I wonder if we should consider closing our Ravenna branch" will be much more inviting of counter-arguments than "We should close our Ravenna office."

Related to hedging expressions are two further devices that can be tacked onto the start of a statement: expressions of anticipated resistance and expressions of aspirational confidence.

Expressions of anticipated resistance are tags like "I think you'll find (...)" or "Surely you must agree (...)." We tend to use these expressions precisely when the opposite is more probable, but we're trying to convince our receiver that something is true by suggesting what they should "find" or "agree to." In other words, we're trying to force a position on them. These are fighting words and best avoided.

Expressions of aspirational confidence are tags like (unsurprisingly) "I'm confident that (...)" or "I'm sure that (...)." We often put these at the start of claims that we want to be true but we've got no evidence that they are or may even fear that the opposite is the case. When I hear a politician say "We'll get the bill passed by Friday," I tend to believe her. When I hear a politician say "I'm confident that we'll get the bill passed by Friday," I have my doubts. Of course, it's not always the case that expressions of aspirational confidence are false hope, but they so often can be understood as such. What's more, they rarely add food value to the general idea. If you say it with a confident tone, it's likely to be much more credible than if you use the tag.

USE THE "YOU VIEW" WHERE APPROPRIATE

Where appropriate, look for opportunities to speak from or write from the perspective of your receiver(s). The verbal gymnastics here is mainly about pronoun use. Instead of using "I," "me," or "my" (or "we," "us," and "our"), consider using "you" and "your." In grammatical terms, it's about using the second person ("you") instead of the first person ("I" or "we").

For example, a professor speaking with students on the first day could say "In this course, I'm going to teach you about..." But the use of the first person here makes it more about the professor. If the professor wants to make it more about the students, he or she could say "In this course, you're going to learn about..." It has the same meaning, but the emphasis is different. Similarly, a firm wanting to advertise its services to potential customers could write "We offer three service plans." But the focus here is on the firm. To make it more about the potential customers, the firm could write "You can choose from three service plans."

Something we know about the use of "you" is that it gives receivers greater ownership over the content of the message. Since they feel more emphatically addressed in the message, there's a greater probability that they'll internalize it. A useful exercise when revising a message is to compare the number of first-person pronouns to the number of second-person pronouns. That'll give you a sense of the perspective from which the message was crafted.

A word of caution, though: Using the "you view" in the some instances can sound fake or (even worse) insensitive. "You'll find my rsum attached" is fine, but "You'll note that I have a degree in business analytics" and "You can see that I graduated with a 3.4 from Seattle University" are awkward uses of the "you view". These sentences sound contrived. Similarly, using "you view" when pointing out receiver blame or with negative associations may inflame a situation or offend your receiver. See the section below on sensitive language for more on this.

A related point about pronouns: "We" is interesting, because it has two senses. It can be exclusive (in the sense of "we, but not you"), and it can be inclusive (in the sense of "we, both you and me"). An exclusive "we" can be alienating or just have a less helpful focus. An inclusive "we," provided it's clear, can often be useful. That's because it has the idea that the sender and receiver are part of the same team and on the same side. This kind of "we" can be tactically deployed for affinity creation. But use it this way ONLY if you're genuine about it. People are smart, and they can often see if you're trying to deceive them with false attempts to be their "friend" or "partner" in a shared endeavor. And sometimes "we" can sound condescending, as in "We don't chew gum in class." With one little word able to be exclusive or inclusive, create affinity or condescend, it's easy to see how language is messy. But that also makes it interesting.

FOCUS ON AUDIENCE BENEFITS

Strategic messages have both a purpose and an audience in mind, and they seek to produce a particular response or outcome. Consider how your receivers may benefit from following through with the intent of the message. What's in it for them? And then craft your message so that your receivers can easily see how following through with the point of the message might give them something, solve a problem, save them some money, or understand where they're coming from. Interpret the benefits for the receiver.

For example, the controller's office could write to employees, "To help us process this reimbursement promptly, we must ask for another copy of the requisition." However, that request focuses on benefits to the controller's office. A reworked emphasis would yield "So that your reimbursement can be processed more quickly, please send another copy of the requisition." Now it's about what's in it for the receiver, not for the sender.

Similarly, an airline might advertise "We are pleased to announce our new flight schedule from Seattle to Brussels, which is twice a day on every weekday." Again, that's all about the sender. To focus on audience benefits (that is, what's in it for the receiver), the same idea can be reworked as "Now you can fly from Seattle to Brussels twice a day every weekday."

Notice how a focus on audience benefits works well with "you view." They do tend to go together. The difference is in the fact that "you view" is about pronoun use (so it's primarily lexical), whereas a focus on audience benefits is about ideas (so it's primarily conceptual). Similar to "you view," however, you'll want to be cautious about not contriving its use. When considering the ideas you want to express in your messages, look at it from the perspective of your receiver and identify genuine benefits, but don't manufacture benefits. If you use ones that aren't real, your receivers are likely to see through the attempt. And then it just looks like cheese.

USE POSITIVE LANGUAGE, NOT NEGATIVE LANGUAGE

You'll know from your use of English that the language allows you to express things in a number of ways. Some of these ways are more positive, and some are more negative.

Imagine you were very eager to meet with me to discuss some findings in a research project. Imagine further that I was very busy that week with other obligations and had very little free time. I could write to you and say "I can't meet with you before Friday." Or I could write to you and say "I can meet with you from Friday." They both mean the same thing, but the first is a negative message (stressing what can't be done), and the second is a positive message (stressing what can be done).

Similarly, imagine you had taken your laptop in for repair, and you had to leave it with the shop. The shop assistant could tell you that "We've got a service backlog so it won't be repaired until next week." This emphasizes what can't be done. Or the shop assistant could tell you that "We've got a service backlog but it'll be repaired by next week." The emphasizes what can be done.

Finally, imagine you were late with an assignment, and your professor had a policy of "docking points" for late work. She could tell you that "You won't get full credit for the work." Or she could tell you "You can still get partial credit for the work." Again, roughly the same idea is being expressed, but the first one is a glass half empty and the second one is a glass half full.

Positive language is about being honest about how much water is in the glass, but also focusing on how full the glass is, rather than how empty it is. To be clear, it IS a kind of spin, but not all spin is the same. Deception is a different matter from what's being explained here. Don't tell people the glass is full when it's not. As with many of the stylistic devices here, your receivers will see through you and your message if you use this device to make something up to deceive them, if you leave something out to deceive them, or if you use it out of place. People are smart. And to return to the soccer metaphor above, what's the point of a flashy bicycle kick if you wind up scoring an own goal?

USE INCLUSIVE LANGUAGE

Don't be sexist. Don't be racist. Don't be ageist. You really shouldn't need a full section to explain it.

Diversity, inclusion, and equity in message-crafting isn't just good civics, it's good business. And recognize that just because some communities may use certain words does not mean that you can use those words if you're not part of the community. Be aware of power dynamics that rest on systemic privilege and systemic bias.

Be open to the idea that language is a living thing and changes over time, as do the social conventions that govern its use in a public space. Some words or phrases may have been acceptable 30, 20, or 10 years ago, and others may have become more acceptable. And linguists may disagree on these. The branch of linguistics that plays in this space is called socio-linguistics. While socio-linguistics can raise many issues for a business communication course, there are two issues have been consistent over the past few years.

One issue is the use of "they" as a singular pronoun. Old school is that "they" can't be singular. But "they" is in flux. One reason for this is that native speakers often use it when referring to an unknown person when they don't know or want to designate a gender (as in "Someone called for you earlier but they didn't leave a name."). This particular use of "they" is so commonplace in English now that it's generally accepted, even in professional communication. I use it this way myself.) Another reason for this is that an increasing number of individuals who identify as non-binary prefer others to use "they" when referring to them in the third person (rather than "he" or "she," as in "Jordan indicated that they'd like to speak next.). This particular use of "they" is becoming more common in parts of North America. As I'll often say in class, language is a negotiated settlement, but identity isn't, and I support the principle that people can be in charge of their own branding. So do many businesses.

Another issue is the use of "guy" in public discourse. Old school is that "guy" is a gendered noun that refers to men, so many today commonly shun what they see as the sexist use of the word "guys" when referring to groups of people of mixed gender. But it's messier than that. This word is also in flux, and it has been for many years. Many socio-linguists agree "guys" can sometimes be sexist and exclusive and at other times not. The distinction rests in how the word is being used (its part of speech). If it's being used as a noun (as in "Three guys were walking down the street."), most native speakers would agree that the noun is gendered and refers to three males. But when it's being used as a direct form of address (as in "Hey, guys!" or "You guys"), the gender is much more fluid, if not altogether lost. Both Webster's Dictionary and the American Heritage Dictionary now recognize "guys" as an ungendered noun.

For further discussion about gender issues in language, try out these three podcasts from Slate's Lexicon Valley from 2012 (I know, rather old, but still relevant):

• When Nouns Grew Genitals
• How English Lost Its Genders
• For He/She's A Jolly Bad Pronoun

(I'm hoping to expand this list of podcasts, including ones that deal with other aspects of inclusivity and ones that disagree with each other. If you know of any, please share for possible inclusion.)

USE SENSITIVE LANGU

Sensitive language is about using language to protect the feelings of others, particularly when pointing out their mistakes or when assigning (explicit or implicit) blame.

There are two devices you can use here: One is "I view" and another is passive voice.

While it's often considered stylistically superior to use "you view" (see guidance above), remember that the power of "you view" is in giving your receiver greater psychological ownership over the content of the message by connecting the second-person pronoun to the content more strongly. But when the message is more negative, this may not be advisable.

Consider the following example: You get a call from your phone provider that there's been a consistent problem with your payment. There are two main ways this could be expressed by the representative from customer service. One way uses the "you view" (see above): "You haven't paid your bill for third month in a row." That'll certainly give you some kind of ownership of the content. But it may also come across as too much ownership and make you angry or defensive.

The customer service representative could express the same idea but more gently by using "I view" (here "we view," which is basically the same, but in the plural, rather than in the singular): "We haven't received your payment for the third month in a row." You may still own the problem (lack of timely payment) but it's less likely to feel like a punch in the gut. Importantly, the "I view" sticks to the fact that the customer services representative can verify. Perhaps you have paid your bill, but there was a problem at the phone company's end. The "I view," as a more sensitive way of exploring fault or blame, and in this case it increases the probability of a more productive discussion since the receiver is less likely to be on the defensive.

Another device for being more sensitive is to use the passive voice. Most English teachers are right to say that the active voice is often stylistically superior in your academic papers. But most communicators recognize that the passive voice can be useful when you want to diminish the explicit agency of the subject. For example, imagine some employees were sitting around a conference table with their manager, and she asked why some details were missing from a proposal the team was discussing. You could say, "We couldn't include those because John hasn't identified the appropriate cost centers." The subordinate clause here ("because John hasn't identified the appropriate cost structures") is active voice and clearly identifies John as a potential slacker. He may even look at you in frustration if he's in the room.

However, if you want to be more sensitive to John and not get him into trouble, you could use the passive voice: "We couldn't include those because the appropriate cost centers haven't been identified yet." Roughly the same idea is still conveyed, but John isn't directly in the hot seat.

Sensitive language is NOT about sugar-coating ideas. It's not about covering things up. It's about finding nicer ways to convey fault or bad news so that conversations and relationships are more likely to remain productive. As such, it's inherently outcomes-focused.