As you know, in a C2 exam interaction you are expected to be able to:
- have a good command of idiomatic expressions and colloquialisms with an awareness of connotative levels of meaning.
- convey finer shades of meaning precisely by using, with reasonable accuracy, a wide range of modification devices.
- backtrack and restructure around a difficulty so smoothly the interlocutor is hardly aware of it.
- understand any interlocutor, even on abstract and complex topics of a specialist nature beyond your own field, given an opportunity to adjust to a less familiar accent.
- converse comfortably and appropriately, unhampered by any linguistic limitations in conducting a full social and personal life.
- advise on or talk about sensitive issues without awkwardness, understanding colloquial references and dealing diplomatically with disagreement and criticism.
- hold your own in formal discussions of complex issues, putting an articulate and persuasive argument, at no disadvantage to other speakers.
- advise on/handle complex, delicate or contentious issues, provided you have the necessary specialised knowledge.
- deal with hostile questioning confidently, hold on to your turn to speak and diplomatically rebut counter-arguments.
- keep up your side of the dialogue extremely well, structuring the talk and interacting authoritatively with effortless fluency as interviewer or interviewee, at no disadvantage to other speakers.
These examples taken from political satire Yes, Minister can provide you with some (very) formal language you may use in your interactions.
The whole premise of the show is based on power plays and dynamics: the Minister is supposed to be the most powerful person in the room, as he holds political power; and yet, he finds it really hard to beat Sir Humphrey, the Permanent Secretary of the Department of Administrative Affairs (effectively, the head of the Civil Service). Sir Humphrey is supposed to be working under whoever happens to be the Minister at the time, but his is a tenured post: he is able to keep his position regardless of the party in Government. And in fact his main goal tends to be to talk Ministers into doing whatever he wants them to do. More often than not, then, the actual measures put in place tend to be Sir Humphrey’s ideas rather than the Minister’s original plans. Finally, there is also Bernard, the Minister’s private secretary, a much quieter person.
In the scenes below, the two speakers have opposing interests: the Minister wants to reduce the number of civil servants to cut down on expenses, while Sir Humphrey strenuously objects to that idea. As you will see, the Minister, as the person in a position of superiority, starts using more straightforward language (goes to the point), while Sir Humphrey resorts to politeness formulae and to his mastery of the language to baffle and confuse the Minister.
(Click on the CC icon to activate the subtitles in English)
Click here to open the video in a new tab
Please pay attention to the examples of formal language used in the clip:
- Quite so (used to show agreement or understanding)
- Use of I shall/we shall/I should (instead of the more common ‘I will’/’we will’ simply to express future or ‘I would’ to express condition)
- With respect,
- I will do my utmost to oblige
- Making a suggestion: If you were to take that report… you might find… (instead of ‘If you took…’, or a bold ‘take that report!’)
- by and large/in general terms (=in general)
- not to put too fine a point on it
- Suppose you were/weren’t…
Other interesting expressions:
Even within this extremely formal context, the Minister still uses question tags and fillers (you know) to emphasise his points. This contributes to the conversation being more interactive, not one monologue after another. [Please note that Humphrey does not use them, as he is addressing his superior, but in a conversation between peers, or from a top-down position as here, question tags can help you interact with other speakers. ]
However, the tables are turned when the Minister later decides to play Sir Humphrey at his own game, by answering questions in Humphrey’s own roundabout way.
(Click on the CC icon to activate the subtitles in English)
Click here to open the video in a new tab
*Notice the pun between ‘draft’ and ‘draughts’ (homophones: same pronunciations, different spelling and meaning)
- Could I have …, please?
- Certainly
- In due course
- At the appropriate juncture
- in the fullness of time
- When the moment is ripe
- You’ll forgive me if I say this,
- All things (being) considered,
- May I be bold enough to ask …? (If I may be so bold as to…)
Please also note the use of a passive sentence to minimise the impact of the accusation Humphrey is making: instead of going bald on record and say ‘ you are hiding the content of the report from me’, he opts for indirectness: ‘affairs are being conducted in a way, which …’.
In this clip from Staged (2020), you can find another example of the expression ‘in the fullness of time‘ being used in context. In the clip, American actor Samuel L. Jackson and Scottish actor David Tennant play versions of themselves, trying to solve a professional conflict via video call while under lockdown. As you will notice, the register here is not exactly formal, but quite the opposite.
