top of page
Search

Never Use Contractions: Apostrophe Now!

  • djasongood
  • 1 day ago
  • 7 min read
Writer sits at his desk holding his computer, its screen showing text using a contraction, and looks at huge Never Wall with writing myths chiseled on its front, while a gigantic black wrecking ball bearing the words "De-Bunk da Bunk" hovers next to the Never Wall and threatens to demolish it and its myths, the bunk that needs de-bunking.

Apostrophe Now!

Grammar Dude
Grammar Dude

De-Bunking the No-Contractions “Rule”

 The Myth That Stiffens Every Sentence

Throughout the English-speaking world, English teachers have peered over their glasses and delivered the decree: “Never use contractions in your writing.” We all believed them. Many writers still do. So they dutifully spelled out “do not,” “it is,” and “we are,” convinced that formality equals professionalism.

The result? Prose that sounds like a federal tax form read aloud by an Elon Musk robot.

The “rule” chiseled its way onto the Never Wall as gobs of style guides forbade the use of contractions by millions of writers.

Modern in-house rules of style perpetuate the myth:

  • Federal agencies outlaw contractions. [Note 1]

  • State governments and organizations follow suit. [Note 2]

  • Academic and scientific organizations add their no-no’s to the Never Wall. [Note 3]

How the Myth Survives

If you want to see exactly how writing myths outlive logic, step inside the U.S. Department of the Interior’s Secretarial Correspondence Handbook. It gives us a perfect specimen—an official document trying both to modernize and to cling to tradition at the same time.

The Handbook issues a blunt, unqualified command:

They laid down the rule. No commentary, no exceptions, no understanding of why a rule like that pollutes our writing.

But now the irony blossoms.

Just a few lines earlier, the same Handbook encourages writers to adopt a warm, conversational tone:

Then, a few pages later, the Handbook doubles down on its Plain English aspirations:

  • “Write In Plain English. Make your writing as formal or informal as the situation requires but do so with language that is consistent with ‘Plain English.’ … Because readers hear writing, the most readable writing sounds like people talking to people in a clear and concise manner.”  DOI Handbook (scroll to p. 7)

Plain English wisdom at its best—readers hear writing; write the way people talk.

Yet the same Handbook has already banned don’t, won’t, can’t, and every other natural contractions real people utter in virtually every sentence they speak.

So which approach does the DOI want?

  • Write the way people talk? … or

  • Write the way people talk … BUT …?

This tension—this contradiction inside the official guidance of a major federal department—shows exactly how the myth survives.

A rule gets typed once, probably decades ago, and then recopied without reflection. It squirms its way into a policy manual, so nobody questions it. The world moves toward clarity and conversational writing, but the handbook remains frozen with myths from the past.

Interior’s handbook tries hard to embrace Plain English. But by outlawing contractions, it stifles one of Plain English’s most important tools.

That’s how myths persist: not because they make sense, but just because they’re printed in the manual.

Experts Demolish the Myth

Serious scholars—editors of peer-reviewed journals, major style authorities, and even scientists—have weighed in. And their message strikes a chord:

  • Contractions belong in academic and scientific writing when used with judgment.

Need proof?

Chicago Manual of Style

The CMOS—the style engine behind thousands of scholarly books, university presses, and technical publications—supports thoughtful use of contractions in serious writing.

It states:

  • “Most types of writing benefit from the use of contractions. If used thoughtfully, contractions in prose sound natural and relaxed and make reading more enjoyable.”  Chicago Manual of Style, 17th ed., § 5.103 CMOS § 5.103

When the most influential style authority in scholarly publishing says “most types of writing” benefit from contractions … case closed. Myth destroyed. Bunk de-bunked.

MLA Style Center

MLA—the other heavyweight in academic writing—explicitly permits contractions:

  • “The MLA allows contractions in its publications … . In professional scholarly writing, sometimes a formal tone is desired, but often a more conversational approach is taken.” MLA Style Center

In other words, contractions don’t foul up your writing with slop—they provide a tool. And you should use that tool when it serves clarity.

Academy of Management Journal

When a top-tier scientific journal editor urges scholars to lighten up, scholars should listen.

In From the Editors of the Academy of Management Journal, David A. Harrison writes:

Did he joke? No. He urged scientists to loosen rigid prose, connect with readers, and write like humans.

The Scientist’s Guide to Writing

Stephen Heard, the author of this source, serves as Professor of Biology at the University of New Brunswick and has become one of the clearest voices advocating for contractions in scientific manuscripts.

In his widely shared post “Go ahead, use contractions,” he tells scientists:

Prof. Heard even surveyed hundreds of scientists—many of them non-native English speakers—and found broad acceptance of contractions as natural and clear.

Rudolf Flesch: The Grandfather of Readability

Rudolf Flesch, whose work shaped modern readability research (including the formulas used by government agencies and scientific institutions), called contractions one of English’s most powerful tools for clarity:

If clarity matters—it always matters—contractions belong in the toolkit.

Bryan A. Garner

Bryan Garner, America’s leading authority on usage, drives the point home. In advice quoted by legal-writing scholar Joseph Kimble, Garner explains:

Natural. Not mechanical. Not stiff.

Natural.

That applies not only to law reviews but equally to peer-reviewed scientific work.

So yes, lawyers, judges, scientists, scholars, and everyone else can, and should, use contractions.

When the Chicago Manual of Style, MLA, Academy of Management Journal, top science-writing educators, plain-language and readability experts, and  leading usage authorities all say contractions improve clarity and make writing more enjoyable, the myth collapses.

Academic prose doesn’t lose authority when it sounds like a human wrote it.

It gains authority.

Contractions help.

The bunk lies de-bunked.

What the Best Publications Actually Do

Open any major outlet and you’ll see the rule in action—or rather, the absence of the old rule.

  • The Wall Street Journal’s podcast is entitled “What’s News” (not “What Is News”). WSJ Podcast

  • A Washington Post editorial “The words that hadn’t been said in a State of the Union until Trump said them.” WP Editorial

  • David Brooks in The New York Times “If I were a Democratic politician (this role-playing is kind of fun) I’d add that America can’t get itself back on track if the culture is awash in distrust, cynicism, catastrophizing lies and conspiracy-mongering. No governing majority will ever form if we’re locked in a permanent class war.”  NYT Editorial 

  • Justice Neil Gorsuch used 11 apostrophe-t contractions in Henson v. Santander Consumer USA Inc. Henson Opinion

  • And check out my article analyzing the writing of Neil Gorsuch and showing his use of 34 contractions in a single court opinion. My Article

So did these leading publications and great writers blow it? No. Writers and editors at the highest level know that contractions create rhythm and pull readers forward.

When to Hold Back

Context still matters. In a safety warning (“Do not operate machinery while intoxicated”) or a formal contract, spell it out. In almost everything else—emails, reports, articles, proposals, speeches—contractions add a conversational tone. Follow this simple test: read the sentence aloud. If “do not” sounds stiff and “don’t” sounds natural, trust your ear. Go with “don't.”

Common Contraction Traps

Before we wrap up, let’s clear the minefield that scares many writers away from contractions altogether. A few apostrophe slip-ups have given the whole family a bad name.

  • Its vs. It’s 

    Its (no apostrophe) = possessive pronoun: The dog wagged its tail. It’s (apostrophe) = it is / it has: It's raining. / It’s been a long day.

  • There’s + plural noun

    Wrong: There’s several reasons we should meet. Right: There are several reasons we should meet. or the rarely seen but correct: There’re several reasons …

  • You’re vs. Your  You’re = you are. You’re going to love this report. Your = possessive. Your report is ready.

  • They’re /  Their  /  There 

    They’re = they are. They’re reviewing the draft now. Their = possessive. Their draft is excellent. There = place or expletive. He went there to fix the problem. There is still time.

  • Who’s vs.  Whose 

    Who’s = who is. Who’s bringing the slides?  Who's = who has. Who's done this before? Whose = possessive. The writer whose prose sparkles will win the reader.

A Quiet Invitation

If you’ve ever wondered why some writing feels effortless while yours fights the reader at every turn, contractions provide a powerful lever. Master a handful of these levers—short words, active verbs, strategic contractions—and your readers will applaud.

You’ll find that exact mission behind the online course I teach at WriteCorrectly.com: Write Better Right Now. We spend a full lesson (9.07) dismantling the no-contractions myth, another on sentence length and rhythm (9.02), and still others on the tools Flesch and Garner champion—including a merciless hunt for “there’s + plural” errors. Writers who finish the course tell me their prose finally sounds like they talk—clear, confident, and unmistakably human.

No hype, no hard sell. Just better writing, one readable sentence at a time.

So the next time your finger hovers over “it is,” try “it’s.” Your readers won’t tune out. They’ll lean in.

And if you ever want to go deeper, the door at WriteCorrectly.com remains wide open.

Good writing isn’t about fear. It’s about clarity.

Isn’t?  It’s?

Heck yes.

Without any doubt.

PS: In this entire blog, I used the verb “to be” just four times (in the last four lines). Not surprisingly, the examples have plenty of "be’s” buzzing around the written words. In Section 5 of my online course—Write Better Right Now—I teach the power of writing without the verb “to be.” My entire lecture, nearly 4,000 words, unfolds with zero “be’s.” Check it out. Click “Course” above. 

********************************************************************************************

 
 
bottom of page