1 UNDERSTANDING PLAIN LANGUAGE AND OPPORTUNITIES TO USE IT

Over the past several decades, advocates around the world have urged people writing for audiences of consumers and citizens to use plain language. According to UK plain-language advocate Martin Cutts (2009), plain language is the “writ- ing and setting out of essential information in a way that gives a cooperative, motivated person a good chance of understanding it at first reading, and in the same sense that the writer meant it to be understood” (xi). Steinberg (1991a) writes that plain language “reflects the interests and needs of the reader and the consumer rather than the legal, bureaucratic, or technological interests of the writer or the organization the writer represents” (7). Advocates for plain language around the world have identified principles of word choice, verb selection, sen- tence construction, visual design, organization, and usability testing that make complex technical documents easier for nonexpert consumers and citizens to use (Cutts 2009; Steinberg 1991b). When constituents can use their documents more quickly and effectively, companies and government agencies save money; for example, Kimble (2012) provides 50 examples of plain-language projects that saved readers time and money and that reached audiences effectively. While people tend to use the terms “plain language,” “plain English,” and “plain writ- ing” interchangeably (Greer 2012), “plain language” is the most inclusive of these terms. Plain-language practitioners around the world apply key concepts from the movement usefully in many languages and cultures.

Although plain language has grown in prevalence around the world, research- ers have done little work to understand the degree to which plain language is a means for technical communicators to do ethical work. Because theorists believe that the broad field of technical communication is rhetorical and humanistic—for example, see Miller (1979) and Ornatowski (1992), among many others—it is important to continually assess and examine how technical communicators

Willerton, Russell. Plain Language and Ethical Action : A Dialogic Approach to Technical Content in the 21st Century, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=2057975. Created from uhdowntown on 2020-09-09 09:20:13.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. T

ay lo

r & F

ra nc

is G

ro up

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

2 Plain Language and Ethical Action

face and respond to ethical situations. Two examples show how some disagree over whether plain language is ethical. The first is from Brockmann’s (1989b) introduction to Technical Communication and Ethics, a collection of articles and essays published by the Society for Technical Communication. Brockmann explains why the collection does not address plain language: “Plain language, although a readability concern, is not necessarily an ethical concern. Identifica- tion of plain language with ethical language mistakes the outward signs of eth- ics, plain language, for true ethical actions” (v). Writing more than two decades after Brockmann, Graves and Graves (2011) state in their textbook on technical communication that “at its heart, plain language involves an ethical relationship between the reader and writer. As a writer, you must want to communicate with your audience clearly” (71). In this book, I explore the extent to which a middle ground exists between these two examples while reaffirming the humanistic con- cerns of technical communication.

Over the past several decades, plain-language advocates around the world have worked for clearer government forms, laws that citizens can readily under- stand, and letters that clearly explain how to obtain government benefits. The US now has its first federal law requiring plain-language activities in government agencies, the Plain Writing Act of 2010. Perhaps this is an opportune time to determine whether a new perspective on plain language and ethics exists between the perspectives that Brockmann and Graves and Graves articulate. To that end, this book focuses on two main questions:

• Is plain language an ethical concern? • What processes and procedures can help plain-language writers do ethical

work that helps their audiences?

An Overview of the Worldwide Movement toward Plain Language

Several authors and editors provide insight into the development of the plain-language movement around the world. Concern for plain language has often focused on documents produced by government agencies, but it now extends to law, health and medicine, and many aspects of business. A review of the plain-language movement’s history helps identify the social forces behind the movement and demonstrates that concerns about confusing, bureaucratic language are long-standing.

Early Developments in Plain-English Style

References to plain-English style date back to the fourteenth century. See table 1.1 for a brief list of developments in plain-English style between the fourteenth and seventeenth centuries.

Willerton, Russell. Plain Language and Ethical Action : A Dialogic Approach to Technical Content in the 21st Century, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=2057975. Created from uhdowntown on 2020-09-09 09:20:13.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. T

ay lo

r & F

ra nc

is G

ro up

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Understanding Plain Language 3

Influences on the Plain-Language Movement in the Early- and Mid-Twentieth Century

As table 1.2 shows, activities in the US and the UK influenced developments in plain language in the early- and mid-twentieth century.

New Momentum in the 1970s

According to Redish (1985), before 1970 bureaucrats faced no mandates to write in ways that consumers could understand. In the 1970s, presidential executive orders and changes in federal and state laws helped give legitimacy to the plain-language movement. Fervent consumer activism and an increase in government paper- work brought new attention to the problems of unclear bureaucratic language. Table 1.3 lists several developments from this decade in the US and the UK.

Responses in the US to a Particular Type of Unclear Language

In the early 1970s, the National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) took a stand against a particular type of unclear language. Advertisers, politicians, and others in the media during that era intentionally used unclear language, called “doublespeak” in reference to George Orwell’s novel 1984, to mislead public

TABLE 1.1 Early developments in plain-English style.

Century Development in plain-English style

Fourteenth Century

The Host in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales exhorts the learned Clerke of Oxenford to speak plainly so the pilgrims may understand him (McArthur 1991, 14).

Sixteenth Century

Writers of technical books in English in the sixteenth century used plain style for their audiences. But because writers used plain-English style outside of traditional literary genres, this style choice did not receive much attention (Tebeaux 1997).

Seventeenth Century

The first person to refer to “plain English” as opposed to florid, ornate English may be Robert Cawdrey, who compiled the first known English dictionary in 1604. His Table Alphabeticall uses English words to define difficult words borrowed from languages like Latin, Greek, and Hebrew. Cawdrey’s stated audience for the dictionary was women. Without formal education, women had “no easy way of appreciating the layer of Latinity that had formed, as it were, along the top of traditional English” (McArthur 1991, 13).

Francis Bacon prominently advocated for plain style in science, as did the Royal Society. Women writers such as Margaret Cavendish and Jane Sharp used plain style to reach their audiences (Tillery 2005).

Willerton, Russell. Plain Language and Ethical Action : A Dialogic Approach to Technical Content in the 21st Century, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=2057975. Created from uhdowntown on 2020-09-09 09:20:13.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. T

ay lo

r & F

ra nc

is G

ro up

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

TABLE 1.2 Influences on the plain-language movement from the 1900s to the 1970s.

Area of activity Influence on the plain-language movement

US Government Maury Maverick, once chairman of the Smaller War Plants Corporation, wrote a memo in 1944 to everyone in the corporation requesting that lengthy memoranda and “gobbledygook” language be replaced by short and clear memoranda. Maverick coined the term “gobbledygook” after recalling the sights and sounds of a bearded turkey strutting and gobble-gobbling about (Greer 2012, 4).

In 1953, Stuart Chase wrote The Power of Words, which includes a chapter bemoaning gobbledygook in bureaucracies, law, and universities. In 1966, John O’Hayre of the Bureau of Land Management released 16 essays on plain-English writing for business and government in Gobbledygook Has Gotta Go (Redish 1985, 128).

UK Government Ernest Gowers advocated for civil servants to communicate clearly. A training pamphlet he wrote in 1943 later grew into the book Plain Words in 1948. Gowers published a companion reference book, The ABC of Plain Words, in 1951. Gowers combined those two books into The Complete Plain Words in 1954, a volume reprinted many times (Kimble 2012, 51–52).

In 1946, British author George Orwell complained about the “slovenliness” of writing about government and politics in modern English. In his classic essay, “Politics and the English Language,” which has appeared in writing anthologies for decades, Orwell (2005) provides six succinct rules to help writers remove vagueness and pomposity.

US Education and Research

Although studies of factors affecting the readability of texts date back as far as the 1890s in the US, research on readability increased notably after researchers surveyed and tested adult literacy. The military started literacy surveys in 1917; other agencies began testing civilians and students soon after (DuBay 2004).

Prominent researchers from this era include Rudolph Flesch, who released his Reading Ease formula in 1948 (Kimble 2012, 49–50), as well as William S. Gray and Bernice Leary, Irving Lorge, Edgar Dale and Jeanne Chall, Robert Gunning, Wilson Taylor, and George Klare (DuBay 2004).

Researchers have developed hundreds of readability formulas over time. Experts have long debated how and whether these formulas should be used, especially because the formulas focus on a text’s surface features—numbers of syllables, words, and sentences. Readability formulas are important in the history of plain language because they have influenced understandings of plainness and clarity and because some laws and regulations require plain-language texts to meet particular readability scores.

Willerton, Russell. Plain Language and Ethical Action : A Dialogic Approach to Technical Content in the 21st Century, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=2057975. Created from uhdowntown on 2020-09-09 09:20:13.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. T

ay lo

r & F

ra nc

is G

ro up

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

TABLE 1.3 Developments in the plain-language movement in the 1970s.

Government entity Development in the plain-language movement

US Government In 1972, President Richard Nixon decreed that the Federal Register should use layman’s terms and clear language (Dorney 1988).

In 1977, the Commission on Paperwork issued a report strongly recommending that the government rewrite documents into language and formats that consumers could understand (Redish 1985, 129).

Congress also passed several laws that required warranties, leases, and banking transfers to be clear and readable. These included the Magnuson-Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Act of 1973, the Consumer Leasing Act of 1976, and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act of 1978 (Greer 2012, 5).

President Jimmy Carter issued executive orders requiring plain language in 1978 and 1979. Executive Order 12044 set up a regulatory reform program that required major regulations to be written in plain English so that constituents could comply with them. Executive Order 12174 required agencies to use only necessary forms, to make the forms as short and simple as possible, and to budget the time required to process paperwork annually. President Carter also signed the Paperwork Reduction Act, which took effect after he left office (Redish 1985, 129).

President Ronald Reagan rescinded Carter’s orders requiring plain language. Reagan did, however, support regulatory reform and the Paperwork Reduction Act (Redish 1985, 129–30). Reagan’s secretary of commerce, Malcolm Baldridge, argued for using plain language in business and industry (Bowen, Duffy, and Steinberg 1991).

State of New York In 1975, Citibank shocked the financial community by dramatically simplifying a loan document. The original loan note had about 3,000 words, but the revised note had 600 (Redish 1985, 130).

In 1977, New York became the first state to enact a law requiring plain language. Named the Sullivan Law for its sponsor, Assemblyman Peter Sullivan, it requires businesses (including individual landlords) to write contracts with consumers using words with common, everyday meanings (Felsenfeld 1991).

At least ten other states later followed New York’s lead. Critics predicted a wave of lawsuits over the new contracts, but few filed lawsuits (Kimble 2012, 54–56).

(Continued)

Willerton, Russell. Plain Language and Ethical Action : A Dialogic Approach to Technical Content in the 21st Century, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=2057975. Created from uhdowntown on 2020-09-09 09:20:13.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. T

ay lo

r & F

ra nc

is G

ro up

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

6 Plain Language and Ethical Action

audiences. While many bureaucratic documents embody sloppy thinking, con- voluted vocabulary, and poor efforts at communication, writers carefully craft doublespeak to mislead audiences and distort reality (Lutz 1988, 41). Table 1.4 provides a brief list of responses to doublespeak in the US.

Important Research on Plain Language and Document Design

Schriver (1997) discusses important collaborations between experts from indus- try and academia that led to research and practical knowledge about how read- ers understand plain-language documents. These studies brought attention to documents that, while ubiquitous, researchers had rarely analyzed systemati- cally. Table 1.5 lists some milestones in research on plain language and document design.

Government entity Development in the plain-language movement

UK Government The 1974 Consumer Credit Act became the first British law to require plain English. It requires credit-reference agencies to give consumers, upon request, the contents of their files in plain English they can readily understand (Cutts 2009, xvii).

In a 1979 protest in Parliament Square, campaigners for plain English publicly shredded unclear government forms. The event helped persuade the incoming Margaret Thatcher administration to issue new policy about government forms. Agencies had to count their forms, remove unnecessary forms, revise the rest for clarity, and report their progress to the prime minister annually. Many local governments also followed suit (Cutts 2009, xv–xvi).

TABLE 1.3 (Continued)

TABLE 1.4 Responses to doublespeak in the US.

NCTE formed the Committee on Public Doublespeak to educate students and teachers about the dangers of doublespeak and to expose those who manipulated language. The committee published the Public Doublespeak Newsletter, which eventually became the Quarterly Doublespeak Review (National Council of Teachers of English 2009).

Amid such lying and deliberate obfuscation, Perica (1972) argued that the Society for Technical Communication (STC) needed a strong code of ethics.

In the aftermath of another 1970s scandal, the Watergate hotel break-in and cover-up that cost Richard Nixon the US presidency, STC drafted a code of ethics and offered it to the membership (Malone 2011).

Willerton, Russell. Plain Language and Ethical Action : A Dialogic Approach to Technical Content in the 21st Century, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=2057975. Created from uhdowntown on 2020-09-09 09:20:13.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. T

ay lo

r & F

ra nc

is G

ro up

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Understanding Plain Language 7

Plain-Language Movement in the US in the 1990s

In the 1990s, the plain-language movement gathered significant momentum in the US. Table 1.7 summarizes major events.

Interest in Plain Language in the Legal Community

Kimble (2012) identifies important publications that promote the use of plain language by lawyers, judges, and law professors. Table 1.6 lists the books and journals prominently promoting plain legal language.

TABLE 1.5 Milestones in research on plain language and document design.

The National Institute of Education funded the Document Design Project (DDP) between 1978 and 1981. The American Institutes for Research (AIR), certain Carnegie Mellon University faculty, and the firm Siegel & Gale joined together in the project. DDP provided training to personnel in many federal agencies.

DDP produced two books that strongly influenced the field of document design: Document Design: A Review of the Relevant Research (Felker 1980) and Guidelines for Document Designers (Felker et al. 1981).

After 1981, research continued at AIR’s Document Design Center and at Carnegie Mellon University’s interdisciplinary Communication Design Center. AIR’s Document Design Center became the Information Design Center in 1993. Although the Communication Design Center (CDC) was by all accounts successful, it closed after 1990 in the wake of changes among Carnegie Mellon administrators.

TABLE 1.6 Publications promoting interest in plain language among the legal community.

Year Book

1963 David Mellinkoff ’s The Language of the Law gave scholarly weight and “undeniable validity” to criticisms of legal writing going back for centuries; it provided “the intellectual foundation for the plain-language movement in law” (Kimble 2012, 47).

1979 Richard Wydick’s Plain English for Lawyers provided concrete advice on removing surplus words, choosing familiar words, and crafting effective sentences. More than 800,000 copies of five editions have sold over 30 years (Kimble 2012, 48).

1984 Michigan Bar Journal first produced its column on plain language. Kimble called it “the longest-running legal-writing column anywhere” (Kimble 2012, 49).

1990 Australian lawyer Michèle Asprey first released Plain Language for Lawyers. Kimble calls it—now in its fourth edition—“the single most comprehensive book on the subject” and says it has influenced lawyers around the world (2012, 54).

2001 Bryan A. Garner first published Legal Writing in Plain English, a text with exercises for legal professionals.

Willerton, Russell. Plain Language and Ethical Action : A Dialogic Approach to Technical Content in the 21st Century, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=2057975. Created from uhdowntown on 2020-09-09 09:20:13.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. T

ay lo

r & F

ra nc

is G

ro up

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

8 Plain Language and Ethical Action

Progress for Plain Language in Other Countries around the World

The US was not the only country supporting a burgeoning plain-language move- ment. Table 1.8 summarizes developments in countries around the world.

Recent Developments in the US

Since 2000, major US government agencies have significantly increased their commitments to using plain language. The Federal Aviation Administration, the National Institutes of Health, and the Department of Agriculture are among those agencies with the strongest plain-language programs (Locke 2004).

More recently, US lawmakers wrote plain language into federal law. The Plain Writing Act of 2010, which President Barack Obama signed into law, requires federal agencies to demonstrate awareness of plain language, offer plain-language training, and write new public documents in plain language. Agencies must also

TABLE 1.7 Developments in the US plain-language movement in the 1990s.

Years Development in the US plain-language movement

Mid-1990s Federal employees in the Washington, DC, area began meeting to discuss plain-language issues. Originally called the Plain English Network, the group is now the Plain Language Action and Information Network (PLAIN). PLAIN hosts regular meetings and offers training on plain-language writing to federal agencies (Plain Language Action and Information Network 2013).

Mid-1990s The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) offered a shorter review period to corporate volunteers willing to file plain-language disclosure documents. In September 1996, Bell Atlantic and NYNEX, which were planning to merge, mailed what was probably the first joint proxy statement written in plain language. During that project, the SEC also drafted its Plain English Handbook, which is publically available. In 1998, the SEC adopted rules requiring companies to write investment prospectuses in plain English (Kimble 2012, 56).

Late 1990s President Clinton revived plain language as a major government initiative. Clinton issued a memorandum that formalized the requirement for federal employees to write in plain language (Locke 2004). Clinton’s memo directed leaders of executive departments and agencies to use plain language in all new documents (other than regulations) that explain how to obtain a benefit or service or how to comply with a requirement they administer or enforce. Vice President Al Gore monitored this initiative.

Vice President Gore presented monthly No Gobbledygook awards to federal employees who turned bureaucratic messages into plain language for citizens. The iconic statement “Plain language is a civil right” came from Gore (Dieterich, Bowman, and Pogell 2006).

Willerton, Russell. Plain Language and Ethical Action : A Dialogic Approach to Technical Content in the 21st Century, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=2057975. Created from uhdowntown on 2020-09-09 09:20:13.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. T

ay lo

r & F

ra nc

is G

ro up

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

TABLE 1.8 Developments in the plain-language movement around the world.

Country Development in the plain-language movement

Australia In the 1970s, Australia featured the first plain-language car insurance policy. In 1984, the government adopted plain-language policy for its public documents; this policy now extends to the language of the law itself (Cutts 2009, xxi).

In the early 1990s, two influential reports shaped the content and design of Australian legislation (Kimble 2012, 75). From 1990 to 1996, the grant-funded Centre for Plain Legal Language at Sydney University published regular columns and conducted research on the economic benefits of plain-English documents (Kimble 2012, 99).

Canada The Alberta Law Reform Institute has encouraged plain language in the law since 1968 (Kimble 2012, 85).

From 1973 to 1992, the Canadian Legal Information Centre worked to improve the legal information and public legal literacy. A national nonprofit coalition, it created a Plain Language Centre to promote legal documents in plain English and plain French (83–84).

The Plain Language Service at the Canadian Public Health Association (CPHA) offers plain-language revisions of health materials and training on clear communication. Once funded by the federal government, the Plain Language Service is now an innovative, self-financed part of the CPHA (86–87).

European Union A 1993 EU directive requires businesses to write consumer contracts in plain language and to negotiate them in good faith. Many member countries have written this directive into their own national legislation (Kimble 2012, 59).

In 1998, the European Commission, which runs the EU, started the Fight the Fog campaign to promote plain language. This effort relaunched in 2010 as the Clear Writing Campaign. It offers a booklet, How to Write Clearly, in all 23 official languages of the EU (Kimble 2012, 91–92).

The European Commission is developing an interdisciplinary training course in clear communication through the IC Clear consortium. The course will combine training in plain language, information design, and usability (International Consortium for Clear Communication 2011).

New Zealand The Law Commission has produced influential reports on making legislation more accessible and understandable. The Parliamentary Counsel Office has adopted many Law Commission recommendations in New Zealand statutes and regulations (Kimble 2012, 100–104).

(Continued)

Willerton, Russell. Plain Language and Ethical Action : A Dialogic Approach to Technical Content in the 21st Century, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=2057975. Created from uhdowntown on 2020-09-09 09:20:13.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. T

ay lo

r & F

ra nc

is G

ro up

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

10 Plain Language and Ethical Action

post annual reports on their compliance with the Plain Writing Act on their websites (Plain Language Action and Information Network 2013). Critics note that the Plain Writing Act is neither subject to judicial review nor enforceable by administrative or judicial action, nor does it address federal regulations.

Early drafts of the Plain Writing Act contained a provision requiring federal agencies to write regulations in plain language, but supporters dropped that pro- vision after some legislators opposed it. Iowa congressman Bruce Braley, who introduced the Plain Writing Act, has authored the Plain Regulations Act to require federal regulations in plain language (Cheek 2012). Braley introduced the bill in both the 112th and 113th sessions of Congress, but it did not advance out of committee. Because federal regulations affect many citizens, especially small business owners, advocates hope the bill will continue through the legislative process.

Organizations Promoting Plain Language

Around the world, many organizations advocate for plain language in informa- tion provided to citizens and consumers. Some organizations and initiatives

Country Development in the plain-language movement

Nordic Countries

Advocates in Sweden have influenced language in legislation; a group of reviewers within the ministry of justice must vet bills before they can be printed. A government-sponsored group, Klarspråksgruppen, encourages agencies to write in plain language (Cutts 2009, xxii).

Similar projects in Denmark, Finland, Iceland, and Norway encourage government agencies and officers to write public documents in clear language that constituents can understand (Kimble 2012, 92–95).

Sweden’s Stockholm University is probably the first in the world to offer a degree focused on plain language. Graduates from the Swedish Language Consultancy work in public and private sectors (Kimble 2012, 97).

South Africa The South African Constitution (Republic of South Africa 2014) is a crucial government document written in plain language. Many parties developed the principles of the Constitution through dialogue before South Africa’s first democratic elections (Kimble 2012, 60–61).

South Africa’s Consumer Protection Act of 2008 requires business and agencies to give information to consumers—notices, documents, and visual representations—in plain language that an ordinary consumer can understand. Penalties for failing to comply are substantial (Kimble 2012, 62–63).

TABLE 1.8 (Continued)

Willerton, Russell. Plain Language and Ethical Action : A Dialogic Approach to Technical Content in the 21st Century, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=2057975. Created from uhdowntown on 2020-09-09 09:20:13.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. T

ay lo

r & F

ra nc

is G

ro up

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Understanding Plain Language 11

are listed in tables 1.7 and 1.8. In the US, the Center for Plain Language (CPL) advocates for plain-language laws and regulations. (It was actively involved in the effort to pass the Plain Writing Act.) CPL also provides training and educa- tion and gives annual awards. CPL’s ClearMark awards go to the best examples of plain language from government, nonprofits, and private businesses while its WonderMark awards go to poorly written documents. CPL also provides an annual report card to grade federal agencies on the quality of their public commu- nication and their compliance with the Plain Writing Act. Clarity International is an international group advocating for plain language in legal documents. Clarity hosts a biennial conference at sites around the world, and it publishes a journal, Clarity, twice each year. Plain Language Association International (also known as PLAIN but different from the Plain Language Action and Information Net- work in the US) is another international organization promoting plain language in all areas of business and government. Formed in 1993 as the Plain Language Consultants Network, PLAIN hosts conferences around the world every two to three years.

Resistance against Plain Language

While the advocates of plain language are quick to identify its benefits, some believe the approach has shortcomings. Although no organizations or formal coalitions campaign against plain language, critics have documented their con- cerns. Both Mazur (2000) and Kimble (2012) compile and respond to common concerns about plain language such as these:

• Plain language is a concept too broad to be useful. • Plain language involves following rules slavishly. • Plain language is only about shortening texts and dumbing them down. • Plain language means writers cannot use technical vocabulary. • Plain language relies on readability formulas that have questionable validity. • Plain language is not as precise as typical bureaucratic or legal language. • Readers of legal and bureaucratic documents do not like or want plain

language.

Mazur (2000) and Kimble (2012) address each complaint in their respective works. Some complaints, such as “plain language involves following rules slav- ishly,” quickly lose merit after a review of the plain-language literature. Others, such as “plain language is not as precise as typical bureaucratic or legal language,” often come from people who believe changes to the status quo will threaten their sources of income; as a professor of law and legal writing, Kimble has spent a career challenging such entrenched positions.

Some have raised concerns that plain English might present problems to nonnative English speakers. For example, many plain-language guidelines sug- gest selecting simple English words (often with Germanic roots) over more Willerton, Russell. Plain Language and Ethical Action : A Dialogic Approach to Technical Content in the 21st Century,

Taylor & Francis Group, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=2057975. Created from uhdowntown on 2020-09-09 09:20:13.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. T

ay lo

r & F

ra nc

is G

ro up

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

12 Plain Language and Ethical Action

complex Latinate English words. Maylath (1997a) writes that a nonnative English speaker whose primary language is among the Romance languages might under- stand Latinate English words more easily than shorter words with Germanic roots. In a pair of studies, Thrush (2001) found that nonnative English speakers may struggle more to understand plain phrasal verbs than Latinate English verbs and that native French and German speakers prefer English words with Latinate roots. In addition, choosing a plain style might not be effective for communicat- ing with other cultures. Maylath and Thrush (2000) write that some cultures prefer nuanced, layered messages over direct messages. They also state that some cultures might regard a writing style that is too short, direct, and simple as a sign of incompetence and lack of sophistication (239–40). Similarly, Riley and Mack- iewicz (2003) write that nonnative English speakers might violate expectations for politeness by using plain language in some rhetorical situations.

And yet, Maylath (1997b) points out that clarity, a hallmark of effective plain-language documents, can be a virtue for documents intended for transla- tion: “The easiest texts to translate avoid ambiguity and confusion” and show effective organization (344). A survey of technical translators found that they struggle to collaborate successfully with technical writers who request transla- tions of documents that are not plain, well structured, and written from the user’s perspective (Gnecchi et al. 2011, 177).

Just as practitioners define plain language in many ways, they apply its prin- ciples differently in response to specific rhetorical situations. Each situation presents its own challenges. Writers cannot guarantee that an audience will understand any text—whether written in plain language or not; myriad factors affect readers’ understanding (Cutts 2009, xii). While plain language principles do not provide a panacea for every challenging communication problem, they nevertheless provide ways to help conscientious communicators actively pursue the goal of reaching many intended readers effectively (Kimble 2012, 31–35).

A Model to Identify Opportunities for Ethical Use of Plain Language

The next two narratives exemplify some of the situations in which writers and organizations could use plain language to promote the self-interest of others who face stressful, challenging situations.

Example 1: A Patient’s Confusion

Nadia Ali once took her husband to the emergency room at 2:00 a.m. Her hus- band had severe shoulder pain, nausea, and light-headedness (Ali 2012). The brusque triage nurse directed them down the hall but did not specify a room. The nurse ordered her husband to put on a hospital gown but left before Ali could say that his shoulder pain would make that difficult. Around 3:00 a.m., her husband

Willerton, Russell. Plain Language and Ethical Action : A Dialogic Approach to Technical Content in the 21st Century, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=2057975. Created from uhdowntown on 2020-09-09 09:20:13.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. T

ay lo

r & F

ra nc

is G

ro up

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Understanding Plain Language 13

finally saw a physician. Ali, who is a hospitalist physician herself, described the remainder of their visit:

My husband, who is educated and intelligent, got more confused with all the jargon used by the physician. I asked him why he didn’t ask any questions. He said he wasn’t sure it would be helpful in case the doctor repeated the same technical terms again. He also felt the doctor was pos- sibly in a rush since he stood the whole time. Finally, around 4:00 a.m., my husband got some pain and nausea medication. We left the ER around 6:00 a.m. with a script [prescription for medicine]. Our next task was to find a pharmacy that would be open, since that information was not pro- vided. (2012, para. 5)

Going through this experience with her husband, Ali (2012) realized “the pain and agony [patients] have to go through to get the care they need. Patients and families feel lost and helpless amongst a sea of health care professionals they encounter. . . . Lots of questions and concerns are never addressed.” If the physi- cian had used more familiar vocabulary in speaking with Ali’s husband, if the hospital staff had provided a list of 24-hour pharmacies to patients with pre- scriptions to fill at odd hours, and if the triage nurse had given even a specific room number—each an opportunity for plain language—Ali’s husband might have avoided some of the anxiety he experienced in the hospital.

Example 2: Voters’ Uncertainty

The second example of an opportunity to benefit others through using plain language comes from the state of Kansas. In February 2012, voters in the city of Wichita considered a referendum on whether the developer of the Ambassador Hotel downtown should get to keep a portion of the hotel’s future guest-tax reve- nue (Lefler 2013). A “yes” vote supported giving the developer the tax break while a “no” opposed it. Unfortunately, the complicated wording of the referendum left many voters confused. The language on the ballot question read as follows:

Shall Charter Ordinance 216 entitled: “A charter ordinance amending and repealing Section 1 of Charter Ordinance No. 213, of the city of Wichita, Kansas, which amended and repealed Section 1 of Charter Ordinance No. 183 of the city of Wichita which amended and repealed Section 1 of Charter Ordinance No. 174 of the city of Wichita, Kansas, pertaining to the application of revenues from the transient guest tax” take effect? (Lefler 2013)

Election workers received a flood of phone calls and questions about the refer- endum, but election supervisors instructed them to answer only “Yes means yes.

Willerton, Russell. Plain Language and Ethical Action : A Dialogic Approach to Technical Content in the 21st Century, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=2057975. Created from uhdowntown on 2020-09-09 09:20:13.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. T

ay lo

r & F

ra nc

is G

ro up

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

14 Plain Language and Ethical Action

No means no.” The attorney who wrote the language said he had to comply with the requirements of the state constitution and that he could not add explanatory information.

In 2013, the Kansas legislature approved a bill allowing county election offi- cials to request that a designated official write an “explainer” in plain language when the language in a ballot measure is confusing or contains too much legalese for voters to understand easily. Under this policy, a second official reviews each explainer for accuracy and neutrality (Lefler 2013). These explainers help voters exercise their rights to vote and to participate in the democratic process.

Empathizing and Acting through the BUROC Model

Elspeth Murray (2006), a poet in the UK, summarizes the feelings and frus- tration of someone dealing with a serious medical problem in her aptly titled poem “This Is Bad Enough.” Murray complains about poorly written, shoddily reproduced materials that confuse patients instead of helping them. She calls out medical providers who leave patients “adrift” and “lost in another language.” She asks for empathy, clear information, helpful visuals, and time to process what a provider says. Murray (2006) concludes the poem poignantly:

Because this is bad and hard and tough enough so please speak like a human make it better not worse.

Situations like those Ali, Lefler, and Murray describe are just some examples of the situations I identify and analyze with concepts that together form the acro- nym BUROC (byoo-rok):

• B is for bureaucratic. These situations involve bureaucracies with policies and procedures that individuals must follow assiduously. Often the decision makers with whom people need to communicate are in a distant location or are behind the bureaucracy’s public façade. For example, buying insurance and making insurance claims are bureaucratic processes.

• U is for unfamiliar. People sometimes face situations that are unfamiliar or occur infrequently. Jargon, policies, and even facilities that people must use are not immediately at their command or recollection. For example, an ill patient considering enrolling in a clinical trial likely faces unfamiliar terms and concepts.

• R and O are for rights oriented. These situations are especially important because they affect individuals’ choices to act within their rights—rights as Willerton, Russell. Plain Language and Ethical Action : A Dialogic Approach to Technical Content in the 21st Century,

Taylor & Francis Group, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=2057975. Created from uhdowntown on 2020-09-09 09:20:13.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. T

ay lo

r & F

ra nc

is G

ro up

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Understanding Plain Language 15

citizens, as patients, as consumers, as humans. Instructions on how to obtain an absentee ballot, for example, affect a citizen’s opportunity to exercise the right to vote.

• C is for critical. These situations are weighty, serious, and important; they can have significant consequences for people facing them. These situations often arise without warning, and they may require people to make important decisions quickly. For example, a policy document for an organ transplan- tation network addresses matters of life and death for individuals needing new organs; administrators must make decisions about implementing such policies quickly.

I do not argue that every decision to use plain language involves ethics. Nev- ertheless, BUROC situations are important to view through the lens of ethics because they involve individuals’ rights and because they provide opportunities to assist others in need. To assess the validity of this proposed model, I presented it to an international group of plain-language practitioners and asked for their feedback. Chapter 3 contains their comments on the BUROC model.

In This Book

In the chapters ahead, I argue that the choice to use plain language when inter- acting with constituents facing BUROC situations is both useful and ethical. I profile organizations that use plain language in ethical ways to benefit their constituents. Each profile identifies the processes and procedures used to create effective plain-language materials that affect ethical situations.

Chapter 2 reviews the literature on ethics in technical and professional com- munication. It identifies dialogic communication ethics as a way to understand the ethical impact of plain language.

Chapter 3 describes the views of prominent plain-language practitioners about plain language’s ethical impacts and about applications for the dialogic model of ethics. These practitioners provide a broad perspective on readers’ rights to understand the information they receive from governments and compa- nies. This chapter provides a link between theories of ethics and plain-language practices around the world.

Chapter 4 profiles work at Healthwise, a nonprofit company providing health information for consumers in many print and online formats. Links to the BUROC model include the bureaucracy of health care, unfamiliar situations for patients, rights of patients, and the critical and urgent nature of health and medical problems.

Chapter 5 profiles work by the group Civic Design, which created a set of plain-language guides for county election officials to use for the 2012 presiden- tial election. Dana Chisnell is the principal designer on this project. Ties to the BUROC model include the bureaucracies and laws affecting elections, unfamiliar situations for many poll workers, rights of citizens to vote, and the critical impor- tance of getting things right in a short time.

Willerton, Russell. Plain Language and Ethical Action : A Dialogic Approach to Technical Content in the 21st Century, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=2057975. Created from uhdowntown on 2020-09-09 09:20:13.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. T

ay lo

r & F

ra nc

is G

ro up

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

16 Plain Language and Ethical Action

Chapter 6 describes the work to revise or “restyle” into plain language the Federal Rules of Evidence, which govern the introduction of evidence into US courts of law. These rules address BUROC situations that occur in courtrooms every day. Decisions about evidence are especially urgent and critical because judges and attorneys must make them quickly and with little advance notice; all parties in a lawsuit have a right to fair proceedings. Although many in the legal community are skeptical about plain-language legal documents—including some who participated in the restyling effort—attorneys, judges, law professors, and law students benefit from the restyled rules.

Chapter 7 examines an international, grassroots effort called CommonTerms that advocates for plain-language terms of service (TOS)—the rules a person must follow and the conditions a person must accept to use a service, such as an email account or a social network. TOS tend to be long and dense documents, written in legalese and jargon. One study of common TOS indicated that peo- ple need 76 workdays each year to read all the privacy policies for software and online services that they use (Wagstaff 2012). CommonTerms is a BUROC proj- ect because it deals with bureaucracies of law and policy, unfamiliarity of jargon for consumers, rights to privacy as internet users, and the critical importance of making sound choices quickly.

Chapter 8 contains a profile of plain-language work at Health Literacy Mis- souri, a nonprofit organization addressing the causes and effects of low health literacy in the state. The organization provides many services to help others use and benefit from plain language. Links to the BUROC model include the bureau- cratic nature of health-care systems and insurance coverage, unfamiliar vocabu- lary and situations for patients with low health literacy, the rights of patients to make decisions, and the critical nature of both low health literacy and health and medical problems.

Chapter 9 profiles work done by a consulting firm, Kleimann Communication Group, to create new mortgage disclosure forms in the US. Links to the BUROC model include the bureaucracy of organizations and regulations that affect the purchase of a home, unfamiliar vocabulary and processes for homebuyers, indi- viduals’ rights to choose homes they can afford along with mortgages on the best terms, and the critical consequences of a home purchase.

Chapter 10 identifies and discusses prominent dialogic applications of plain, clear language to technical content in public settings. Creators of these works do not necessarily call themselves practitioners of plain language, but they show how clear communication can reach a wide audience. These applications include the approaches of Common Craft, a Seattle duo of pioneers in the development of online explanation videos, and the Alan Alda Center for Communicating Sci- ence, which uses improvisational theater techniques to help scientists, physicians, and other skilled specialists to communicate more effectively with policy makers and the general public. The chapter identifies how these approaches incorporate dialogue with the audience while addressing issues of ethical importance.

Willerton, Russell. Plain Language and Ethical Action : A Dialogic Approach to Technical Content in the 21st Century, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=2057975. Created from uhdowntown on 2020-09-09 09:20:13.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. T

ay lo

r & F

ra nc

is G

ro up

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .

Understanding Plain Language 17

Chapter 11 concludes the book by summarizing major insights from previ- ous chapters and providing suggestions for ethically applying plain language to technical content.

Questions and Exercises

1. Search online for a definition of plain language (or plain English, or plain writing) and compare it with Cutts’s definition on page 1. How are the defi- nitions similar, and how do they differ? Review both definitions and describe some of the benefits of plain language in around 200 words.

2. Search online to find a guide for communicating in plain language (or plain English, or plain writing). • Identify a guideline that you think you follow well in your own writing,

and then identify one you do not follow as well. What about these guide- lines makes them easy—or difficult—for you to follow, and why do you think that is so? Explain your response in about 150 words.

• Identify the organization that posted the guide you found. Why do you think this organization promotes plain language? Why might this orga- nization’s audiences benefit from plain-language content? Explain your analysis in about 150 words.

3. Search online to investigate how people use plain language in a technical field that interests you (for example, law or medicine). In some instances, you may need to start searching broadly before narrowing your search. Sum- marize what you learn in about 300 words.

4. Think of a BUROC situation that you have faced—one in which you needed information to make an important decision. Write around 200 words describing the situation and how it turned out for you. If the resources you used or needed are online, review and describe them as well. • What was the situation? • Which parts of the BUROC framework (bureaucratic, unfamiliar, rights

oriented, and critical) were most salient or prominent in the situation? • What information did you get, and was it easy to use and understand?

Explain. • How did you respond to the situation? (How did you act, or what did

you decide?) • How do you feel now as you reflect on the situation?

Willerton, Russell. Plain Language and Ethical Action : A Dialogic Approach to Technical Content in the 21st Century, Taylor & Francis Group, 2015. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/uhdowntown/detail.action?docID=2057975. Created from uhdowntown on 2020-09-09 09:20:13.

C op

yr ig

ht ©

2 01

5. T

ay lo

r & F

ra nc

is G

ro up

. A ll

rig ht

s re

se rv

ed .