More on plain language

JOA · Joined: 13 May 2004 Posts: 2021

There are two advantages to what's called "plain language." These two advantages face in opposite directions, one outward, the other inward. Both advantages have to do with how plain language tends to enhance clarity.

Ray Blount, Jr., aptly described the outward-facing advantage of plain language: "you have to put the kibble out where the slower dogs can get to it." We can get a description of the inward-facing advantage from George Orwell:

anon · Joined: 22 Feb 2008 Posts: 32

Using latin and complicated terms makes you look more intelligent than you really are.

Olan Barnes · Joined: 17 May 2004 Posts: 1648 Location: Michigan

http://www.sec.gov/pdf/handbook.pdf

http://www.ssa.gov/legislation/legis_bulletin_041408.html

Number: 110-21
Date: April 17, 2008

House Passes H.R. 3548, the “Plain Language in Government Communications Act of 2008”

On April 14, 2008, the House of Representatives passed on a motion to suspend the rules H.R. 3548, a bill to enhance citizen access to Government information and services by establishing plain language as the standard style for Government documents issued to the public, and for other purposes. Of interest to SSA:

• The bill would require Federal Agencies, including SSA, to use plain language when writing documents that will be viewed by the public on how to obtain a benefit or service. This would include updates to already established forms and other publications; effective within one year after enactment.

• The bill would require Federal Agencies, including SSA, to follow the guidance of the Plain English Handbook published by the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Plain Language Guidelines, or their own plain language guidance as long as it is consistent with the Federal Plain Language Guidelines; effective within one year after enactment.

• The bill would require, within six months of enactment, the head of each Federal Agency, including the Commissioner of SSA, to submit to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs an initial report describing how it would: (1) communicate the bill's objectives to agency employees; (2) train agency employees to write in plain language: (3) ensure ongoing compliance; (4) meet the requirement to use plain language in new documents within one year of the date of enactment; and, (5) designate a senior official to be responsible for implementation, and, to the extent practicable and appropriate, use of plain language in regulations promulgated by the agency. (NOTE: Agencies would not be required to write regulations in plain language.).

• The bill would further require the head of each Federal Agency, including the Commissioner of SSA, to submit to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs a report on the agency's compliance with the bill and efforts to meet the objectives described above annually for the first two years following enactment and then once every three years thereafter.

deltajudge · Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Posts: 434

Plain language? Not in their vocabulary.; 8)

Olan Barnes · Joined: 17 May 2004 Posts: 1648 Location: Michigan

We were told in DDS that a PDN we were supposed to write the personalized parigraph like a specific grade level - eighth grade I think. we used to call a PDN a personalized denial notice but because it could be something other than a denial (example a closed period) we were to henceforth call a PDN a personalized decisional notice - talk about - plain language. :P

petow · Posted: Thu Dec 11, 2008 02:51 pm Post subject: plain language and readability

We should embrace the concept of plain language and readability. See this discussion about the Flesch test. http://www.readabilityformulas.com/flesch-grade-level-readability-formula.php

Craig Jarvis · Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 06:42 pm Post subject:

"Plain language" is not a virtue if by it we mean only "simplistic language". When I hear someone say that we should write to an eighth-grade level, it seems that they want to confine us to a simplicity of concepts. But simplistic language cannot get at the full wealth of meaning, just as algebra cannot adequately describe the physical world. What we should strive for is not so much plain language, as precise language. Certainly where simplistic concepts will do, it is not a bad idea to stick with them too.

JOA · Joined: 13 May 2004 Posts: 2021

Does complexity come only at the cost of clarity? I deny this.

I also deny that writing at the "eight grade" level amounts to confining the writer to eight grade concepts. The readability formulas that give us grade level calculations are about syllables per word and words per sentence. It's a weighted average that produces the score. There's nothing about this that precludes any particular word. Or any particular idea, either. Craig is thus free to use any inkhorn term he pleases, even if only for the ineffable pleasure of it.

The F-K score for the text above is 8.0 grade level.

Craig Jarvis · Posted: Fri Dec 12, 2008 09:13 pm Post subject:

Does clarity come at the cost of polysyllabic words and subordinate clauses? I deny this.

But of course I am limited in the words that I can use in writing to an eighth grader. By your own formula I apparently must rely mostly on monosyllabic words. Thus, if ever I want to use a polysyllabic word, I must balance it out with a gaggle of monosyllabic ones, and if I want to use a bunch of polysyllabic words, well . . . what's the point!

Furthermore, I may be able to explain the word "schadenfreude" in terms suitable to a eighth grader, but no explanation that I could give would ever match the beauty with which that word encapsulates its meaning.

F-K score : 10.1 (11.4 if you take out the "I deny this," but I'm choosing to keep it for the sake of symmetry.)

Insider (Ret) · Posted: Sun Dec 14, 2008 10:22 pm Post subject:

The parent (or at least one parent) of the plain language effort was Joe Califano back in the 70s when he was Secretary of HEW. He forced a "plain language" re-write of the regulations, including SSA's of course, and the resulting new regs did not always reflect the policy that the original reg writers intended to convey. Whenever someone pointed this out--frequently in the course of trying (vainly) to defend class action litigation, I always thought it was deliciously ironic. And often maddening, as cases had to be re-adjudicated for linguistic, rather than programmatic reasons.