Many companies try to communicate calm to their shareholders to keep them from panic.  As often as not they produce the opposite results. Here is a case-study.

Press Release: 3-31-2011

Wanderport Corp. (PINKSHEETS: WDRP) today announced that procurement authorization has been granted and approved for the remaining equipment and provisions, which were quoted by engineering and design partners for its microwave energy tankless water heater (MHU).

In conjunction with said engineering and design partners, the Company is well within the end process of procurement in order to complete the single cavity MHU.

“This is significant because the pieces of the puzzle are finally coming together and it symbolizes the transition of my long held vision into reality,” said Robert Simoneau, Wanderport’s Technical Advisor and Product Licensor.

The procurement list includes the advanced heat exchanger unit fabricated using a ceramic type material and customized to exact specifications. This unique enclosure or chamber was designed using thermal dynamic techniques and forms an integral and key component of the baseline single cavity unit. Other items include the metal enclosure, tubes and fittings for plumbing and some miscellaneous items.

“This juncture has been long awaited, as we take the final steps to producing the MHU expected this April 2011. Proceeding with a single cavity ‘point of use’ MHU provides a premise to evaluate the function of our product prior to expansion toward a ‘Point of Entry’ MHU,” said Wanderport’s CEO, Richard Martel. “Suddenly, the immense ‘point of use’ revenue steam is within sight, while we anticipate preparations toward a ‘Point of Entry’ MHU and the considerable market it represents,” further added Mr. Martel.”

After receiving this release, one shareholder posted online:

…it would be nice if the company would just speak to investors in plain language. Once again, they have chosen words which can and are being interpreted differently by different investors. I don’t understand why they have to choose words which cause confusion. A PR is a company’s opportunity to create excitement and generate public interest. Although they have provided some information they have also created doubt.

Many of you know I’ve been here for over a year and am a long-term investor. I’m not a trader and and don’t flip anything here. I believe in the potential of this product and would be thrilled if this PR left me warm and fuzzy…but it doesn’t. Today, one of my friends who invested in the company at my recommendation asked me if there is something wrong after reading today’s PR. Another said that much of it was just mumbo-jumbo. That is not what a PR should instill in someone invested in the company. ..

Too often, we are expected to go faster and faster for political reasons. Too many people think plain language change is quick and easy.

Plain Language in Organizations

To help people cope, Kate Harrison and I wrote Plain Language in Organizations: An Action Plan (ebook) but this plan addresses the plain language change in a single organization. The newest developments apply to an entire industry, a U.S. state, or a national government apparatus.

Delay: Country by country

Recently in South Africa, the plain language trainers, writers aountrynd editors had been rushing to satisfy clients who needed to comply with the approaching deadline set by their new Consumer Protection Act. And businesses spent millions over the 18-month advance period. The original date for effect has now been delayed from October this year to March 2011. Even after 18 months for preparation the government has not filled all the commission posts nor released regulations to guide compliance efforts.

Elizabeth Warren has been given the task of setting up the U.S. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau by July 2011. Because hers is a temporary appointment, the Bureau won’t be able to publish regulations until a permanent director is approved by the U.S. Congress. Not a bad idea to take some time.

One U.S. government employee is quoted elsewhere saying:

Making plain language a requirement, rather than just a best practice, means agency web managers will be able to make a stronger case for allocating dollars towards content producers and writers… It isn’t easy to simplify some government content, so you need that expertise to be truly successful. Plain language would mean better service for citizens, which is what every federal web manager is striving to provide.

Changing the whole government’s style

Soon the U.S. President will sign the Plain Writing Act 2010 (almost certain since Obama was a sponsor of the previous bill). Another change process will begin as all government agencies scramble to comply. This legislation may run into problems with its deadlines also.

My friend and a plain language advocate, William Dubay , has commented elsewhere on this new Act:

Government interest in plain language began in the 1970s in response to consumer complaints. Most states at that time enacted laws that required plain language in agency regulations and insurance policies. Some of these laws have been very effective. Insurance commissioners regularly enforce the insurance requirements but most of the agency requirements are lacking enforcement and standards.

The message may be loud and clear on jargon, but weak and vague on standards, funding, and enforcement. Managers will be loathe to implement new demands for which no resources have been provided. Americans may be losing money because of poor writing practices, but good writing practices take training, method, and practice, which all cost money.

Clear definitions still to come

For all of these programs, one challenge is to decide what sort of efforts or results will satisfy the expectation of plain language. An agreeable definition is hard to come by. The international, non-government Plain Language Working Group of experts is still working on this too. Even agreement amongst plain language advocates is hard to reach.

Managing change

Dominique Joseph, a language analyst in Ottawa, has provided some links for support on managing change:

• Kotter’s 8-step change model: http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/newPPM_82.htm
• Website based on Kotter’s “Heart of Change” book: http://www.theheartofchange.com/
• Chip and Dan Heath (in their book “Switch”), also talk about the importance of using both “feeling” and “thinking” to create the motivation for change.
• A favorite story — Gloves on the boardoom table: http://www.theheartofchange.com/ It’s wonderful

Still, for a mere $15 Plain Language in Organizations is a good guide for use within a department or division of a larger entity.

picture credit: Cover image of a foundational text of the plain language movement, the 1966 Gobbledygook Has Gotta Go by Bureau of Land Management employee John O’Hara; via the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service.

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.

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 think Ms. Lucy is a real Ms. Sweetie. She has permitted me to reprint her whole post below. She makes learning English easier by teaching plain English:

Communication flows when all parties clearly understand the message. In companies, translating numerous documents to Plain English (often called Plain Language), can help employees better understand company rules, procedures, product information, sales strategies, employee benefits and more. Reading becomes easier and the message is easily conveyed. This makes perfect sense because the act of reading should not be an obstacle. Reading is the vehicle to getting to the message. Translating to Plain English has helped clarify the message so that everyone can understand the meaning.

This got me thinking about how consciously using Plain English when teaching conversational ESL-EAL can positively enhance the learning process. Verbally, Plain English can help get the message across quickly as well as effectively. When we teach beginners, as ESL teachers, we know that it is essential to keep language clear and simple. This is not only achieved through pacing and careful pronunciation and intonation; we do this by using Plain language. We do this naturally in order to keep our students engaged while learning. Students integrate the language more readily and learn to trust themselves to speak with more confidence. Consequently, they learn how to speak English with ease and confidence.

So, in effect, the key is to consciously use Plain English as often as we can with our students. This should apply not only with beginners but also with our intermediate level students. Of course, when learning a language, it is important to continue to improve on vocabulary and raise the bar when it comes to fluency and level of sophistication and we cannot lose sight of this. However, if students can be taught primarily using clear, concise and meaningful language, this will enble them to further advance their learning while expanding on their skills. Concepts will be understood; questions will be answered/asked correctly; communication will flow.

After all, the goal in learning a second or additional language is to communicate effectively with others around us; for social, business; educational or travel purposes, to name a few. By simplifying and clarifying we will reach our students and motivate them to learn more. Students will have an easier time learning when they understand and integrate the message being communicated. This will enable them to become active participants who are eager to learn and exchange with greater facility.

I started this blog 3 years ago today.

I am still interested in the same concerns, so this blog will continue “advocating plain language, clear design, sensitivity to audience concerns, and civility”.

I will be semi-retired in 2009, so I may have more time to devote to blogging. But I will be more concerned with plain language in its applications for a general audience. I have worked mainly with legal writers in past, but that is the retired part of my work. Which leaves me talking to government, business, and other writers about plain language.

Social networking has blossomed in these three years and I have followed my friends in using various services. Now I am trying to organize my practices in what seems to me a rational use of the newer services.

I will tweet to Twitter the interesting links and connections I find. So that’s @CherylStephens on Twitter.

I will share my news, photos, and art with friends on Facebook. Friend me as Cheryl Stephens on Facebook.

I am LinkedIn but I don’t find much use for that service.

I am using Blogger to share what I have learned and am still learning about communication issues. Building Rapport is at http://www.plainlanguage.com/blog/

I hang with the artsy-crafty Glitter Sisters at Violette’s blog: violette.ca

And I participate in a Yahoo Group listserve on plain language which requires you to join PLAIN to participate in that conversation.

So I’ll see you around, eh?

Today’s post is inspired by a recent Word of the Day from dictionary.com

Word of the Day Archive
Wednesday December 19, 2007

discursive \dis-KUR-siv\, adjective:
1. Passing from one topic to another; ranging over a wide field; digressive; rambling.
2. Utilizing, marked by, or based on analytical reasoning — contrasted with intuitive.

Discursive comes from Latin discurrere, “to run in different directions, to run about, to run to and fro,” from dis-, “apart, in different directions” + currere, “to run.”

Wikipedia

A word that can be used, depending on the circumstance, to mean both of two opposite concepts.

• Auto-antonyms are the same words that can mean the opposite of themselves under different contexts or having separate definitions
  • enjoin (to prohibit, issue injunction; to order, command)
  • fast (moving quickly; fixed firmly in place)
  • cleave (to split; to adhere)
  • sanction (punishment, prohibition ; permission)
  • stay (remain in a specific place, postpone; guide direction, movement)

Sanctions are frequently called for on the politcial stage and in the law. Sanction is one of those duplicitous words– it can can mean both reward and punishment.

This is a type of word to avoid. You cannot count on you reader giving the same interpretation to the circumstances that you do. So you cannot be sure your meaning will be understood. Far better to choose a simpler word.

My co-author, Kate Harrison Whiteside, and I have released two books on LuLu, in The Plain Language Wizardry Series.

These are downloadable and printable but the second is also an interactive ebook:

Plain Language in Organizations: An Action Plan

and

Website Usability: A Plain Language Toolbox

The previews provide each book’s table of contents.