Plain Language

When the “plain language” movement in the 1960s resulted in legislation requiring plain language in public and commercial documents a number of articles attacked the use of readability formulas. They had titles like, “Readability: A Postscript” (Manzo 1970), “Readability: Have we gone too far?” (Maxwell 1978), “Readability is a Four-letter Word” (Selzer 1981), “Why Readability Formulas Fail” (Bruce et al. 1981), “Readability Formulas: Second Looks, Second Thoughts“ (Lange 1982), “Readability Formulas: What’s the Use?” (Duffy 1985) and “Last Rites for Readability Formulas in Technical Communication” (Connaster 1999).

Plain Language and Legalesse

For years, plain-language advocates have sought to debunk the myths and misconceptions about plain language. I’ll briefly mention them again only because they are so stubborn and lawyers can be so blinded by them. They need to be exposed at every opportunity.

First, plain language does not mean baby talk or dumbing down the language. It means clear and effective communication — the opposite of legalese — and it has a long literary tradition.

Second, plain language and precision are complementary goals, not antagonists. The choice between clarity and precision is usually a false choice. Countless projects worldwide have shown that even complex subjects can be translated into plain language with no loss of accuracy or precision. (The most recent example is the Securities and Exchange Commission’s pilot program to write parts of disclosure documents in plain language.

If anything, plain language is more precise than traditional legal writing because it uncovers the ambiguities and errors that traditional style, with all its excesses, tends to hide. People and organizations that undertake plain-language projects are routinely surprised, and sometimes terrified, by the deficiencies they discover in their trusted old documents. So plain language is not only the great clarifier — it improves accuracy as well.

Third, plain language is not subverted by the need to use technical terms or terms of art. Real terms of art are a tiny part of any legal document. What’s more, lawyers have an exaggerated notion of the extent to which legal terms are precise or are settled and unchangeable. I invite anyone to find a case saying that give won’t do in a will — that it has to be give, devise, and bequeath.

Fourth, plain language is not just about vocabulary. It involves all the techniques for clear communication — planning the document, designing it, organizing it, writing clear sentences, using plain words, and testing the document whenever possible on typical readers. Well, then, why not just use the term “clear communication”? For one thing, “plain language” has come to signify the kind of fundamental change — in attitude and practice — that’s needed to finally break the cycle of poor legal writing. Plain language has transforming power. For another thing, a body of literature has grown up around the plain-language movement. This literature goes beyond the typical “style” texts in its willingness to innovate, to consider research from various disciplines, and to test its advice to show that readers are better served by plain language.

Finally, contrary to what some critics have said, there’s a pile of hard evidence showing that plain language is more understandable to readers than the traditional style of official and legal writing. I’ll review some of that evidence in this article.

Gathering Evidence About Plain Language

To most nonlawyers, the benefits of plain language are intuitive. If readers understand plain language better, then no doubt they’ll like it better than the dense, impersonal prose of most public documents. And because they understand it better, they’ll make fewer mistakes in dealing with it, have fewer questions, and ultimately save time and money — for themselves and for the writer’s company or agency.

There is, in fact, much informal evidence to this effect. Take, for example, three publications called The Productivity of Plain English, How Plain English Works for Business: Twelve Case Studies, and Plain English for Better Business.

They are full of testimonials from officials at trade associations (American Council of Life Insurance, American Gas Association) and at businesses (Shell Oil, Target Stores, Pfizer, Sentry Insurance, Bank of America, General Motors). These officials offer the evidence of their senses. They can see and feel the change that plain language makes:

It streamlines procedures and paperwork, makes it easier to train staff, and increases staff productivity and morale.
It reduces confusion, complaints, and claims, and it improves customer satisfaction.
It increases sales and raises the company’s standing in the marketplace.

But — and here is the irony — for the very reason that these benefits are so apparent, companies and agencies are not inclined to try to measure them. Why spend more money to study how much money the company was losing and is now saving? Rather, the company knows from experience that a document is causing trouble; somebody revises the document; and if the trouble seems to go away, the company calls it good.

To do otherwise would require a cost-benefits study, which is inherently difficult. You have to collect before-and-after data about the document. How many errors was the staff having to correct, or how many phone calls was it getting? How long did it take, on average, to fix the error or answer the call or process the document? (Sometimes you have to make a conservative estimate.) Then you have to figure out how much the staff’s time was worth. Then you have to calculate how much it cost to develop the new document. Finally, you have to get parallel data for the new document. And after all that, you can’t be sure that you’ll realize similar savings by converting a different document into plain language. There are too many kinds of documents and too many variables.

Despite these difficulties and limitations, though, studies have been done. Most of them have been done not by accountants, not by managers, but by persons with a concern for writing — consultants, technical writers, and proponents of plain language. If numbers are needed to make the case for clear writing, then we’ve got numbers.

Assessing from a Legal Perspective

I’ve divided the studies, somewhat artificially, into two groups. The first group reflects the cost benefits of plain language for the writer’s company or agency. The second group confirms the many benefits of plain language for the reader. Of course, the benefits for the reader usually produce the benefits for the writer’s organization.

You might ask, Why should a lawyer or judge care about these studies? The reasons total four, at least.

First, lawyers and judges — who write for a living — surely care about the effect their writing has on readers. So even though some lawyers and judges might not be inspired by the studies on cost savings, the second group of studies — on pleasing and persuading readers — should be of particular interest.

Second, corporate lawyers and government lawyers need to know what kinds of tangible and intangible harm their organizations may suffer by clinging to legalese. Armed with the evidence, enlightened lawyers can lead the way to plain-language reform.

Third, the studies contain philosophical lessons for all writers, including all lawyers. The lessons may not be new, but the studies bear them out:

Write for your readers. Select only the content they need, without trying to cover every conceivable detail, however remote. Overprecision tends to be self-defeating, and perfect precision is a dream. Since even private legal documents should be flexible, the writer often needs to use language that is vague to some appropriate degree.
Writing major public documents in plain language involves a process. You have to do more than sit in a room and trust your intuition. You should consult with those who handle the document, negotiate (if necessary) about some of the changes, and test the document on typical readers.
Writing in plain language almost always improves the content. By improving the structure and style, you improve the substance.
Readers are more likely to read documents that are written in plain language. It greatly increases your chances of getting fully and attentively heard.

Last, and equally important, the studies contain practical lessons for all writers. Although only about half the studies and examples are from legal documents, remember that legal writing is just one kind, one subset, of technical writing. The same guidelines and techniques should apply across the board, to all kinds of technical writing. Once again, these guidelines are old news, but the studies show that, used sensibly, they work. Here are some of them:

Pay attention to document design — the typeface, length of line, white space, and so on.
Use short sections, or subdivide longer ones.
Use lots of headings. In public documents, try putting the main headings in the form of a question.
Group related ideas together, and order the parts in a logical sequence.
At the beginning of most documents, have an executive summary (for memos and judicial opinions) or a purpose statement (for legislation) or a table of contents (for manuals and long contracts).
Don’t hesitate to use examples, tables, and charts.
Eliminate unnecessary words and details.
Break up long sentences.
Don’t put too much information before or between the main subject, verb, and object.
Prefer the active voice.
Put the the central action in verbs, not in abstract nouns.
Use a vertical list — at the end of the sentence — for multiple conditions, consequences, or rules.
Try to address the reader as “you” in public documents.
Give shall the boot; use must instead.
Use familiar words — the ones that are simple and direct and human.

By Joseph Kimble (Writing for Dollars, Writing to Please)

Plain Language

Plain Language

Plain Language and Legalesse

Gathering Evidence About Plain Language

Assessing from a Legal Perspective

Resources

Further Reading

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply