Grammatical markers of formality: precision, distance, and audience

The passive lets you make the object of an action the subject and topic of the message. It is useful when the object or procedure is the topic and the performer is unknown, obvious, or unimportant. Keep the performer with by when necessary. Passives also occur in conversation; active voice is perfectly normal in reports.

If the reader needs to know who is responsible for a decision, an agentless passive can hide necessary information. This is a content or transparency issue, not an automatic grammatical error. Do not invent a performer merely to obtain an active sentence.

Nominalisation names an action or property with a noun: decide → decision, approve → approval. It lets an event become the topic of the next thought, names a process concisely, or connects arguments. This presentation is common in formal writing.

Compression can come at the cost of losing the performer, time, or modality. The rejection of the proposal does not itself say who rejected it or when. If those facts matter, retain them in the sentence. A chain of abstract nouns is not a sign of C2 proficiency; an ordinary verb is sometimes more precise.

Contractions such as we’re and hasn’t often create a more conversational tone; full forms can maintain distance or make negation more prominent. However, a professional email need not avoid all contractions. Some editorial policies allow them and others restrict them: read the specific requirements.

Phrasal verbs often have more formal single-word counterparts, but not all are colloquial and not all replacements are exact. Fill in a form is natural in an instruction. Replace an expression according to meaning and the audience's needs, not simply because it has two words.

Subordinate clauses help distinguish condition, cause, time, and concession. However, because, after, if, and although express different relationships. A long sentence with subordination is not automatically more formal or precise than two short ones.

When changing register, check not only the facts but also their logical relationship. After expresses sequence but does not itself prove causation. Do not silently replace may with will or must. Do not turn permission to begin an action into a claim that it was performed.

It is estimated that… and The project is said to… background the author's personal voice. They can support a reporting tone, but the reader must still understand whether the content is an estimate, someone else's report, or an established fact.

If the estimate's source matters, name it: According to the maintenance team… or The maintenance team estimates… . Active attribution is often clearer. Making wording formal does not justify replacing is believed with is known or is proven.

Instructions for a broad audience should help people act. You/we, short sentences, and active voice may be the best choices even on an official website. For example, GOV.UK editorial guidance supports clear active wording and permits some contractions while restricting others. This is one institution's style, not a law for all English.

A grammatical expression can be hard to read or conflict with a specified editorial policy. Name the problem accurately. Deliberately combining tones is also possible, for example in a speech containing a quotation; here we only note that boundary rather than study every strategic register shift.

Before paraphrasing, record who does what, when, how much or how many, what is negated, what is only possible, and how events are related. Then select a tone for the audience. Finally, compare the claims in both versions, not merely the words.

Open-ended responses here are checked against visible criteria and a model. The model is not the only correct answer, and self-checking does not certify general C2 proficiency. The main outcome is being able to change the form for a reason while remaining accurate.