Building Rapport

Language-Change Index

Oxford University Press reports that the third edition of Garner’s Modern American Usage has a most interesting new feature: the Language-Change Index categorizes the level of acceptance of changes in adoption of new usages for words or phrases.

Five stages of language change

Stage 1 – rejected except by a minority of the language experts

Stage 2 – rejected by those who insist on “standard usage” but spreading fast

Stage 3 – used widely, even among the well-educated, but still avoided by the language mavens

Stage 4 – ubiquitous, meaning virtually universal, but still argued against by grammar police

Stage 5 – fully accepted by rational people

Evolving English

For another perspective on changing usage, we can turn to Robert Levy’s blog Save the Semicolon:

The Six Stages of Word Grief http://savethesemicolon.com/2010/05/11/the-six-stages-of-word-grief/
You will have to read his post for the explanations.

The Six Stages of Word Grief

1. Confusion

2. Amusement

3. Annoyance

4. Exasperation

5. Acceptance when OTHER people do it

6. Complete Acceptance or death

And, in “Very Unique” is Here to Stay, http://savethesemicolon.com/2007/07/29/unique-and-monique/

Robert says:

I think that there are at least two phases after a word becomes well-known, but before it becomes really standard.

The first is when people who care about these things (and even people who don’t, but who consider themselves educated) would never use it that way, and in fact, they sort of judge people who do use it. They roll eyes, or cringe a bit, or get annoyed when they hear role-models (like politicians) use it. They consider the usage a pet-peeve, or laughable.

The second is when the people who care about these things would still not use the word, but they accept that even educated, intelligent, well-read people do use it the new way. They start to feel curmudgeonly, or pedantic, if they insist that others avoid the new usage. They recognize that they’re on the way out.

So, for my call to action: Pick the stage with which you are comfortable, write there, and stop your belly-aching.

That prescription-drug info from the pharmacy can fall short

The LA Times has reported that the legally required type of medical information given out by pharmacies is not doing the job of communciating risk.

Researchers at the University of Florida found shortcomings in the written information for on “directions for use” and “comprehensibility/legibility”.

They wrote: “Many leaflets failed to meet the minimum requirements, such as provision of a complete list of absolute contraindications, and more than half lacked specific directions that would allow patients to manage problems. Because CMI [consumer medical information] was the sole written information dispensed, some patients had no information about the risk of lactic acidosis associated with metformin or related warning signs or action steps. The high reading level required to comprehend the presented information and the inadequate formatting suggest additional shortcomings.”

Drugstores are for ‘One-Document Solution’ for patient information

The National Association of Chain Drug Stores says pharmacy and consumer groups should collaborate with the government to develop a “one-document solution” for information provided to patients regarding prescription drugs.

NACDS submitted its letter in response to an August 9, 2010, article in the newspaper that was critical of such information. NACDS President and Chief Executive Officer Steven C. Anderson says:

“Pharmacy is working with the government to help provide enhanced user-friendly information to patients about their prescription drugs. The National Association of Chain Drug Stores submitted a Citizen Petition to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in June 2008. Seven additional organizations, including other pharmacy and consumer groups, joined in the petition.

“The petition requests FDA guidance describing the parameters for a voluntary, FDA-approved, concise, plain-language document for patients. Such a format could consolidate and replace the multiple written communications pharmacies must now distribute to patients.

“This ‘one-document solution’ could harmonize multiple documents that arise from different FDA-imposed legal requirements or information interpretations, and from different offices and constituencies within FDA.

The Los Angeles Times article is available by clicking here http://www.latimes.com/health/boostershots/la-heb-prescription-information-20100809,0,3840303,print.story

Plain language writers can benefit from these insights, even when delivering information important to daily life from business or government to the public.

Tips for storytellers
from Spark Now
http://www.sparknow.net/tips.html

Here is an extract from the Story Guide we produced for the Swiss Agency for Development and Cooperation.

• Only tell stories that matter to you.
• Know your audience and the reaction you seek. This will help you shape your story.
• Put yourselves in the shoes of a particular member of the audience and imagine the ears they will be listening through.
• Tell a story about a particular time, place and event. Weave in small details that bring the whole scene to life using vivid language (generalised concepts will lose listeners).
• Paint pictures in the mind of your listener. People will remember sequences of images and not the words.
  Rehearse with a partner. Tell the story. Ask them to tell it back to help you assess whether your structure, messages and images are clear enough.
• Think about your relationship to the story. Are you a character in it? Are you telling somebody else’s story? Do you need to be clear that you have ‘borrowed’ the story? Do you need to tell it anonymously to protect the original teller or characters?
• Disguise locations and names where the material is sensitive.
• Think about what props you could use – images, sounds and objects.
• Think about whether you are going to introduce the story or just slide it into the proceedings without announcing it.
• Avoid too much explanation and heavy-handed lessons and morals that ‘close’ the story, rather than leaving it open to the listener to choose how to take it on.

© 2010 Sparknow LLP some rights reserved under a creative commons attribution-noderivs 3.0 unported license

So-named because they are examples of zealous over-editing, whiz deletions happen when the editor strikes out the relative pronouns which and that.

Dominique Joseph has commented on these elsewhere:

As a Francophone and a translator, I can confirm that keeping the “whiz” words in makes the text clearer and easier to understand. When “whiz” words are deleted, it can be tricky to figure out the underlying structure of the sentence and the relationships between words or ideas.

1. From “Rules for writing plain English”, by Bill Lutz (http://www.plainlanguagenetwork.org/Resources/lutz.htm#anchor)

Bill Lutz says we should avoid “whiz deleletions”, which he explains as follows:

Subordinate clauses are often introduced by such words as “which is,” “who was,” “that are,” etc. Deleting these words (the relative pronoun and linking verb) is known as “whiz-deletion.” For example:

1.The supervisor wants the report which was written by the Purchasing Office.
With a whiz-deletion we get:

2.The supervisor wants the report written by the Purchasing Office.
The whiz-deletion makes sentence 2 ambiguous. Does the supervisor want the Purchasing Office to write the report, or does she want the report that the Purchasing Office has already written? Generally, it’s a good idea to avoid whiz-deletions.

(source: http://www.plainlanguagenetwork.org/Resources/lutz.htm#anchor)

2. From “Revisiting Plain Language”, by Beth Mazur (http://www.plainlanguage.gov/whatisPL/history/mazur.cfm)

One such guideline is the suggestion to “avoid whiz deletions.” A whiz deletion is the absence of introductory text for subordinate clauses. The Guidelines offer the comparison between the sentence “The director wants the report which was written by the Home Office.” and “The director wants the report written by the Home Office” (Felker and others 1981, pp. 39-40). This guideline was based on direct research done by Charrow and Charrow (1978). In their extensive study of jury instructions, these authors found that whiz deletions made jury instructions harder to understand (Felker and others 1981).

The last defence of the nervous lawyer is “the judge won’t like it.” Guess what she will like plain language.

Joe Kimble and others conducted studies in Michigan, Florida, and Louisiana more than twenty years ago. Robert W. Benson and Joan B. Kessler conducted another study in Los Angeles, California. The results indicate that the participants found the Legalese passage to be less persuasive than the Plain English version. The respondents also believed the Plain English author was more believable, well-educated, and worked for a prestigious law firm. All of these studies compared only sentences or paragraphs and included both lawyers and judges.

A new study compared actual pleading documents, surveyed only judges, and asked directly and only about persuasiveness. Of 800 judges mailed the survey, 292 responded. This survey was conducted by Sean Flammer, a trial attorney at a Texas litigation firm. He had previously clerked for a judge of the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit.

The study has been reported in the Journal of the Legal Writing Institute and has become available online:

PERSUADING JUDGES: AN EMPIRICAL ANALYSIS OF WRITING STYLE, PERSUASION, AND THE USE OF PLAIN ENGLISH
Sean Flammer
The Journal of the Legal Writing Institute [Vol. 16] 212
also: http://www.journallegalwritinginstitute.org/archives/2010/183.pdf

Flammer survey shows:

The results are clear: judges prefer Plain English to Legalese. Whether a judge is an appellate or trial judge or a federal or state judge plays no role in whether the judge prefers Plain English. Nor does the judge‘s gender, age, years of judicial experience, or years of experience in the legal profession. Whether a judge‘s district is rural or urban plays no role, either. Judges—by a two-thirds margin—find Plain English more persuasive than Legalese. Thus, it is in the litigator‘s interest to submit pleadings in Plain English.

Flammer worked with 3 samples drawn from an actual court pleading:

1. a 3-page excerpt from the original pleading
2. a plain language revision, following the advise of experts in legal writing
3. an “informal” version taking plain language plainer, using contractions and colloquialisms

Each judge saw either #1 and #2 or #1 and #3. A majority of judges preferred 2 or 3 over the legalese of #1.

Flammer reports:
The judge‘s age, number of years spent in the judiciary, number of years spent in the legal profession, and gender had no correlation with whether the judge preferred Plain English or Legalese. Further, whether the trial judge was from a rural or urban district did not matter.

Some judges elaborated on their preference with these remarks about the the Plain English sample:

• more persuasive because of the succinctness of the argument.
• easier to understand, more clear and straightforward, and therefore, more persuasive.
• simpler, more direct prose. Getting to the point trumps pontificating any day.
• easy reading. It goes directly to the point.

Judges appreciated:

• brevity
• use of lists
• deletion of the opening paragraph‘s gobbledygook language

These judges found the Plain English sample to be ―cleaner, leaner, and more effective and understandable.

The bad news for legalese writers is that they won’t be read carefully:

The convoluted style led me to skimming for its essence. This was not the only judge who stated that the writing style in the Legalese sample inspired him to pay little attention to the document‘s logical intricacies. These comments make clear that an indirect and convoluted writing style is likely to make the document go unread. An unread document cannot be persuasive.

The minority of judges who preferred legalese, liked that it was
―more polished
―formal
―easier to read

What about the “cranky” judges (my soulmates)? They said that the two plain language versions did not go far enough. Those writings were

• too wordy
• poor writing
• too verbose and filled with formal legalese
• not punchy enough
• capable of being made more succinct

The data show that judges—as a group—would much rather have an attorney err on the side of informality than err on the side of being too stilted and formal. One judge made a fair criticism of this Plain English sample in that it was not plain enough and was too wordy. Another said, “Short and direct is almost always more persuasive.”

More evidence is in, judges are sold on plain language, so why not be brave and use it.

Read my books, Plain Language Legal Writing and Plain Language in Plain English, both available with free U.S. shipping this summer at Plain Language Wizardry.

I’ve just posted over at the PlainLanguageInPlainEnglish group blog. Go see: Magically simple process, but not quick and easy

Today we have a guest post from Dominique Joseph.

Is it possible or even useful to legislate ‘plain language’?

This question has been asked, at least, since “The Decline and fall of gobbledygook: Report on plain language document”, produced by the Canadian Bar Association and the Canadian Bankers’ Association joint committee in 1990.

There is more complete and recent info, but it still raises good points. I will start with the committee’s point of view, and then provide the definitions for the subjective and objective approaches (since those two terms appear in the point of view).

THE JOINT COMMITTEE’S POINT OF VIEW:

“The Joint Committee does not believe that plain language documentation is a suitable matter to be dealt with in legislation. The problem with plain language legislation is that it ignores the fact that plain language drafting is a process rather than the application of a fixed set of rules.

Thus, in the case of the “objective approach, one could apply the rules set out in the Connecticut statute and still have a document that is unintelligible. In the case of the “subjective” approach, a problem arises because there is no commonly accepted standard of what is readable. A person compelled to draft a “readable” document by statute is unlikely to strive for the highest standard of readability.

Legislation can be effective when its object is to prohibit persons from engaging in specified types of undesirable conduct. Legislation is not effective when it tries to require individuals to undertake some positive action that requires time, skill, effort, and commitment.”

SUBJECTIVE and OBJECTIVE APPROACHES:

“The legislative approaches to date have taken two forms. The first approach, adopted by New York and the Alberta legislation, has been called the “subjective” approach because of the general requirement that agreements and contracts be written in a “clear manner using words with common everyday meanings.” Beyond this general guideline, the subjective approach does not define plain language nor does this approach establish specific criteria for a plain language document.

[...] The second approach to plain language legislation, adopted by Connecticut, has been called the “objective” approach because of specific requirements defining what constitutes a plain language document. Typically, this approach stipulates the average length of sentences, the size, and style of typeface used, the length of lines and the size of margins. In addition, this approach may require the document to score in a particular range on a readability test, such as the Flesch test.”

A very interesting puzzle, indeed!

I recently complained on Twitter about this headline originating from a company that consults on plain language projects:

“Driving a positive customer experience across touch points”

Matthew Stibbes is now holding a contest for best and worst headlines.

He also provides us with a brief list of qualities of good headlines:

BBC News’ headlines are the best in the world according to web-usability guru Jakob Nielsen. Nielsen’s guidelines state that web headlines must be:

1.Short
2.Rich in information scent, clearly summarising the target article
3.Front-loaded with the most important keywords
4.Understandable out of context (because headlines often appear without articles, as in search engine results);
5.Predictable, so users know whether they’ll like the full article before they click

Personally, I find headlines and subheads very challenging to write but I appreciate them as a reader.

I want to hear from you: tell me what is right or wrong with this advertisement. This not a test. I am interested to hear from people with differing perspectives or focuses.

HST ad in daily newspaper

New legislation in South Africa to protect consumers and promote fairness also requires plain language. Elements of law that now interact to raise expectations arise from:
Consumer Protection Act
Financial Advisory and Intermediaries Services Act
Financial Services Board’s “Treating Consumers Fairly” initiative

The reaction has begun. The Sunday Times “Times Live” has begun a survey of its effects.

1. Contracts customers comprehend
The main aim of pending consumer-protection legislation is to improve the standards of information passed on to consumers – and this brings with it a front-line role for financial intermediaries. Intermediaries should ensure that consumers understand what they are buying and paying for, and that contracts are in plain language.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/business/article531303.ece/Contracts-customers-comprehend

2. Goal is healthy understanding
“The role of the intermediary is not only an administrative one about signing up a member on a medical scheme and then disappearing… The healthcare intermediary has the most administrative and intensive task compared to any other pillar of insurance. The healthcare industry is very dynamic but unfortunately it is also very complex. To give consumers a medical scheme brochure and leave it with them without offering advice or explanations serves no purpose. The terminology is such that the medical scheme intermediaries themselves frequently need to update themselves, so the consumer is often unaware of what the implications are.
http://www.timeslive.co.za/business/article531299.ece/Goal-is-healthy-understanding

3. Stamping out the small print
“The Consumer Protection Act and the forthcoming proposed ‘Treating Customers Fairly’ initiative of the Financial Services Board will apply equally to intermediaries and insurers. Insurers will have to make certain that the products and services they offer are fair and equitable and that the manner in which they promote and sell these is also fair. Benefits will have to be quantifiable and ensure that customers understand what they are buying and that the product meets their reasonable expectations.”
http://www.timeslive.co.za/business/article531302.ece/Stamping-out-the-small-print

4. Putting the emphasis on ethics: A key part of financial services industry takes itself in hand
The Financial Intermediaries Association of Southern Africa representative says they are looking to go beyond the letter of the law:
“It is an ethical interpretation, rather than a legalistic interpretation of what we should or should not be doing… “Few people read the fine print in disclosure notices … there needs to be an absolute moral position spelt out and our membership is actively encouraging this, taking the view that the letter of the law is insufficient… There are the right things to do and the legally correct things to do – we are doing the right things and we are encouraging our members to do the same.”
http://www.timeslive.co.za/business/article531300.ece/Putting-the-emphasis-on-ethics