Interestingly, a new non-profit, Center for Plain Language, is trying to simplify language in the government and business sectors. The president of the center, Annetta Cheek, argues that complex wording and phrasing in bank, government, and insurance documents leave most Americans in the dark on important issues. This is often intentional (especially in the business sector). For example, when purchasing a Blackberry, the website has consumers agree to a set of policies indicating that they understand the company's policy; however, in the fine print, complexly worded, the form also states that by signing the document, the consumer agrees to any future policy changes the company makes. Furthermore, the company is not responsible for announcing when changes are made; rather, it is up to the costumer to check the website for changes. These kind of sneaky loopholes are hidden behind complicated language that most people either avoid or don't understand. This becomes increasingly important when ordinary citizens are dealing with government or insurance documents.
One example included was the following wordy Medicare letter (don't bother to read it all!). "Investigators at the contractor will review the facts in your case and decide the most appropriate course of action. The first step taken with most Medicare health care providers is to reeducate them about Medicare regulations and policies. If the practice continues, the contractor may conduct special audits of the providers medical records. Often, the contractor recovers overpayments to health care providers this way. If there is sufficient evidence to show that the provider is consistently violating Medicare policies, the contractor will document the violations and ask the Office of the Inspector General to prosecute the case. This can lead to expulsion from the Medicare program, civil monetary penalties, and imprisonment."
Which the Center for Plain Language translates as "We will take two steps to look at this matter: We will find out if it was an error or fraud. We will let you know the result." These simplified version is easier to understand and a quicker way to pass on information. There is also an interesting chart that translates commonly used phrases. For example, they translate "economically marginalized" as poor and "render non-viable" as kill.
The arguments for the use of plain language are that it's easier, quicker, and even cheaper. For example, when an office of the Veterans Benefits Administration simplified a standard letter sent to all veterans, the frequency of calls for questions dropped from 1.5 calls per letter to .27 calls. Also, in Washington state when the State Dept. of Revenue reworded a notice sent to business owners about paying "use taxes" (tax on items bought in other states or online), they exceeded the estimated tax revenue by $800,000 (previously, 97% of business owners had ignored the notices).
Opponents argue that over simplification of language dumbs down vocabulary. However, in these cases, I feel that language simplification is necessary. Businesses, insurance companies, and even the government are taking advantage of Americans by hiding policies amidst jumbled, complex language. Although I understand the benefits of and need for official/professional language in these types of documents, when it becomes so jumbled that the readers do not understand, the documents become useless and sometimes even deceiving. I support the simplification of language in these types of documents. What do you think? Would this threaten American intellectualism or decrease our breadth of vocabulary?
See:
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/04/22/pm-complicated-language-made-clearer-q/
http://marketplace.publicradio.org/display/web/2010/04/22/pm-plain-language-examples/
http://www.centerforplainlanguage.org/aboutpl/selling_benefits.html
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I totally agree with what you say about simplifying the language. I think that there is a fine line between simple language and simplistic language. As long as the meaning does not disappear, the language can be made more simple and easier to understand. If simplifying the language takes something out of the meaning or the message though, then there is a danger of making the issue more simplistic than it is.
ReplyDeleteStill, as long as we pay attention to this, I think there are many advantages to simplifying the language. It does not necessarily mean that we will lose the complexity of the language - there are always an elegant, yet not complicated, way to express ideas. Also, the rich literature and writing culture, in my opinion, can take care of preserving the complicated nature of a language, if any. That should not be the objective of business or government documents.
I think this is particularly important in the United States. The country is becoming more and more global everyday. There are a lot of immigrants and international people living here whose native language is not English. Simplifying the language in important government, tax or insurance documents will make things easier, more understandable and approachable for them.
I also listened to this article on NPR. The Center for Plain Language is currently having a competition identifying the worst and best examples of formal statements. One of the nominations for worst writing was for Chase Bank statement " We may charge no less than the minimum interest charge if any periodic interest charge is due for a billing cycle." The ironic thing is that when the CPL told Chase Bank that they had been nominated they were extremely distraught. They had already reworked this statement and this rendering was what they thought was succinct language.
ReplyDeleteThis will continue to be a problem until business start to understand what a disservice they are doing to their customer. Simplifying language will actually be a benefit to them in the long run as it will decrease consumer calls.