The Plain Language Bill seeks to improve poor writing in government documents, and proposes 'clear, concise and well-organised' language
The authors of the writing style manual informally known as Strunk and White – The Elements of Style, the American-English writing style guide that sold about two million copies in 1959 – were adamant, emphatic and plain-speaking: writers should show simple courtesy to their readers.
They should strip out the clutter of superfluous words — for example, replace ‘at the present time’ with ‘now’. They should use simple words rather than ‘utilise’ the Latinate ‘lexicon’. The order of information should be logical, with necessary detail only, and in the right order.
That desire for the good citizenship of plain language has resurfaced in Aotearoa New Zealand, here and now, with a Plain Language Bill under Parliament’s consideration. The Labour backbencher Rachel Boyack has identified poor writing as an obstacle to many readers of government documents and proposes a ‘reporting framework’ to check that "public service agencies and Crown services comply with plain language requirements". The draft bill defines plain language as "clear, concise and well-organised" and accessible to intended readers, exactly as Strunk and White argued for decades earlier.
Of course, plain, clear writing is much better for readers but for some, it is hard to produce. Would parliamentarians want to consider the demands on writers, though, while the bill is under consideration? Some people have a great deal of difficulty writing complex ideas in plain English. They may not understand concepts behind grammar, syntax and punctuation — often these considerations do not seem a priority when you are distracted by ideas. Plain, clear writing is great for readers and usually not easy for writers to achieve.
It matters when many members of the public are in effect shut out from service because the writing they need to understand is difficult for them to interpret
I’ve hosted well-attended writing workshops for doctoral candidates and academics at one university over the past two decades. Some very clever people can have difficulty producing plain language and are relieved to join others who also find it hard. One semester-long course with two-hour workshops every week proved helpful. That required a considerable time investment, in which we shared strategies for clarity and persuasion, organised peer reviews, set weekly writing tasks, and made a space for honest talk and learning about plain writing. Clarity requires commitment.
For research writers, the writing goal is usually publication in high-ranking journals with reviewers whose rigour is daunting. The Plain Language Bill has a more modest intention: to help the public understand what public service agencies and Crown services are saying. This is important. It matters when many members of the public are in effect shut out from service because the writing they need to understand is difficult for them to interpret.
There are many tips for producing plain language. One idea only per sentence, and one (bigger) idea only per paragraph means readers are not distracted. It helps readers when paragraphs begin with a topic sentence followed by examples and evidence and finish with a summary sentence that leads towards the new idea in the next paragraph. The most important noun (the thing or person doing the action) and most important verb (the doing word) should take emphatic positions in the main clause of the sentence — things that matter shouldn’t be sunk into subordinate clauses buried in the middle of a paragraph.
Linguists analyse writing — fiddly, complicated work — so they can advise on what ‘moves’ should be made in different genres of writing. ‘Moves’ are like the moves you may make when you are trying to make friends with someone. Noticing you need to introduce your topic as a ‘move’ treats writing as something that is ordinary in terms of happening within social situations. There’s an industry of work behind teaching writers to be clear.
It’s exciting that someone has noticed service intending to benefit the public – public service – should always communicate clearly. As the bill cautiously proposes, there may be officers who would teach public servants how to achieve plain prose plainness. Should the practice of plain language be legislated into practice, or should it be just brought into practice with some staff development? Maybe that is where any debate lies.
But critics who have raised the spectre of ‘language police’ seem to be missing the point. For example, National MP Simeon Brown’s suggestion that a desire for plain language in public service and Crown documents ‘is all about the Government wanting to control the message to New Zealanders more and more’, looks somewhat influenced by conspiracy theory.
Strunk and White have long established plain language as an ideal — there’s no plot here. If ordinary people have access to services more readily and better understand how things work, that empowers the people, not the government — unless you are obstinately anti-democratic or are in opposition and need to always gripe in that particular genre.
