The author of this article comments on both the language of scholarly journals and "middle class" language as compared to "working class" language. Fascinating reading for a wordnerd such as I.
Our work in the speech community makes it painfully obvious that in many ways working-class speakers are more effective narrators, reasoners, and debaters than many middle-class speakers who temporize, qualify, and lose their argument in a mass of irrelevant detail. Many academic writers try to rid themselves of that part of middle-class style that is empty pretension, and keep that part that is needed for precision. But the average middle-class speaker that we encounter makes no such effort; he is enmeshed in verbiage, the victim of sociolinguistic factors beyond his control. "I will not attempt to support this argument here with systematic quantitative evidence, although it is possible to develop measures which show how far middle-class speakers can wander from the point. ..."As a "middle class" speaker and writer, the sentence that summed up my frequent thoughts on the matter was: "Many academic writers try to rid themselves of that part of middle-class style that is empty pretension, and keep that part that is needed for precision." (the punctuation error in that sentence is part of the direct quote.) I realize that in my quest for precise language to express thoughts I sometimes fall into the "empty pretension" pothole.
In "working class" language: my failure to git 'er done ain't 'cause I didn't try. I busted a gut tryin'.