Plain language starts with intention

When you wish to inform, communicating clearly to the reader comes relatively easily. You will try and provide all the required information or point the reader to where they can find it.

The reverse is also true. That is, when you do not wish to inform, you will not speak clearly. You will not point out helpful resources. You will write words and sentences that mean nothing, are not relevant to the reader, or at worst can mislead the reader.

Let me explain with two examples.

Exhibit A
A researcher approached the National Archives to request for some records. The National Archives told the researcher, “Research facilities are available for researchers subject to fulfillment of certain conditions as specified in the guidelines uploaded on our official website www.nationalarchives.in under the head, ‘what’s new’.”

The communication from the Archives failed because of two reasons:
1. It could have listed the conditions outright instead of sending the researcher on a wild goose chase.

2. Or, it could have pointed out the exact location on the website to the researcher. Not done either. (I visited the website but could not find the What’s New section. No wonder the researcher got frustrated.)

It also didn’t help that the entire communication was in officialese. When the Central Information Commission asked the Archives to communicate in "simple, clear language", I couldn’t help but wonder how this could happen when the context for clarity was missing. Government communication frequently tends to speak down and confuse. It is not the ecosystem for clear words and sentences.

Exhibit B
The Supreme Court recently pulled up legal firms for drafting confusing clauses. Clause 13 of an agreement said that the arbitration venue would be New Delhi, while Clause 14 said that Jaipur courts would have exclusive jurisdiction.

Seriously? I am surprised that the apex court of this land has to deal with such drivel.

Chief Justice Surya Kant exclaimed, “Why can't you simplify the clause when you enter into [an] agreement ...?”

In both these examples, the very intention to communicate and inform is missing. When this is so, it is a given that language will mirror the intention and be as confusing and intimidating as it can be.

Clear Enough -- First edition!

Hello and welcome to the first edition of Clear Enough, India's only newsletter on all things plain language! I am excited and nervous for the same reason: I've never had a newsletter of my own before, much less on plain language! So bear with me as I unpack this edition.

Read more on LinkedIn...

Why India's Legal System May Finally Be Moving Beyond Legalese

I am linking here to my article published in the Frontline magazine on the Bar Council of India's move to include plain language drafting in law school curriculum. This is an important step towards clarity and I dare say it's an important article, too. It sums up the plain language journey so far in India and discusses the challenges to plain language drafting and the way ahead. 

I spoke to Joe Kimble for this article -- thank you, Joe! I also thank the other interviewees, Kishore Pariyar and Rohit Sharma.  

The article is paywalled. If you'd like to read it, please get in touch using the contact form on the right and I'll send you a copy. 

Plain language guideline 4: Using vigorous verbs

One of the beauties of the English language is its ability to transform most nouns into verbs. These noun-turned-verbs are vigorous and can bring the text alive. It is also equally true that one of the ways to write poorly is to do just the opposite: make nouns of perfectly sound verbs. 

Here’s an example from Martin Cutts’ Oxford Guide to Plain English: 

“The team’s role is to perform problem definition and resolution.”

The writer created nouns from the verbs define and resolve. If these were to revert to their verb forms, the sentence could read thus:

“The team’s role is to define and resolve problems.”

Apart from flowing well, sentences are shorter when verbs are used as verbs --  nine words in the rewrite versus 10 in the original. Yes, that’s just one word less, but visually it makes a huge difference when you drop all the “ition”s. 

In Indian languages, though, it doesn’t sound odd if you were to nominalize – the tendency to noun-ify the verbs. In fact, it’s inherent in all Indian languages. 

Jyoti Sanyal, the author of Indlish and the pioneer of plain language in India, intimately understood these mannerisms and came up with the “mother tongue, other tongue” approach to help Indians communicate better in English. He said, “Consider the expression: ‘His mother still mothers him.’ It would be impossible to render that expression into any Indian language with such economy. Indian languages operate on the noun. The noun is retained rigidly as a noun, and a do/doing word is placed after it to arrive at action.”

The bane of most legal, academic, and, in India even journalistic writing, seems to be this systematic weakening of verbs. Instead, let verbs be. If possible, create a verb from a noun and enliven your text. Nominalization can end up in noun strings that only serve to muddle the reader or put them to sleep.

Pic credit: Photo by Mo Saeed: https://www.pexels.com/photo/sporty-female-playing-tennis-on-court-5409085/

Why plain language may not work for you

I recently came upon this study of terms of use contracts from tech companies. Two things stand out: 

1. A plain language translation of the contracts made it much easier for users to understand what the contract actually said. 

2. At the same time, it made some users trust the companies much less, once they understood what the contract actually said. 

The study says, “Participants inherently trusted companies using plain language summaries more and were more willing to share personal information with them.” However, they backtracked when they realized that the companies were essentially saying, ‘I’m taking your data, I can use it however I want, and you have no legal recourse.’ 

So, does plain language work to win the trust of customers or does it backfire? 

On the face of it, it may appear that it backfired for the tech companies. But let’s dig a little deeper here. Let’s begin from the beginning, or at the top of the funnel, in marketing-speak. Let’s start at how an individual turns into a customer of a company in the first place. 

Typically, companies invest a lot of time and money in understanding their target audience and tailoring their advertising campaigns with terms and visuals that their target persona use, understand, and relate to. They spend oodles of money to come up with taglines with deep emotional pull and strong brand recall. 

However, the same time and effort do not always go into sustaining the customer’s trust once they become a customer. It’s almost as if the companies have split personalities. 

See examples below. 

Exhibit #1: Airtel
Airtel’s homepage feels like a luxury lounge with lots of breathing space. Messaging is clear and crisp. The call to action is staring you in the face. Not an extra syllable.   

But here’s how the terms look like:

I can hardly read it, given the narrow columns down which it’s flowing. This can’t be thought through. Is this a display glitch? For the record, I had opened it on my laptop on Chrome browser. Somehow I find it hard to believe that while the rest of the site is optimized, the terms aren’t?!

Not only are the terms hard on the eyes, but the language also gets denser, more passive, and distanced from the customer, with phrases such as “It is clarified and stated that…” 

Gone is the luxury lounge. I feel ditched. 

Exhibit #2: ICICI Prudential

Here’s an interactive product explainer from ICICI Prudential. It’s easy on the eyes and gives various options for you to play around with and explore. Note that it uses terms such as “his death”. 

In the screenshot below, you can see the use of pronouns such as “we”, “our”, “you”, and “your”.

Now, savour the following text from the terms and conditions: 

“In the event of the Life Assured’s death due to an Accident…” Note how they hesitate from saying “your death”. 

“The revival will take effect only if it is specifically   communicated by Us  to the You.” Yes, the you!!!

“A policy of life insurance may be called in question at any time within three years from the date of issuance of the policy or the date of commencement of risk or the date of revival of the policy or the date of the rider to the policy, whichever is later, on the ground that any statement of or suppression of a fact material to the expectancy of the life of the insured was incorrectly made in the proposal or other document on the basis of which the policy was issued or revived or rider issued: Provided that the insurer shall have to communicate in writing to the insured or the legal representatives or nominees or assignees of the insured the grounds and materials on which such decision to repudiate the policy of life insurance is based: Provided further that in case of repudiation of the policy on the ground of misstatement or suppression of a material fact, and not on the ground of fraud, the premiums collected on the policy till the date of repudiation shall be paid to the insured or the legal representatives or nominees or assignees of the insured within a period of ninety days from the date of such repudiation.” Enough said?

From marketing-speak to legal terms, it does not feel like I am dealing with the same company. Yet, it is the same me they are addressing, either to woo me into being their customer or impose those mind-boggling terms on. 

So, it’s just this: communication from companies is broken. It is disconnected. For me, Airtel is Airtel – the company that provides me cell phone services. ICICI Prudential is the company that provides me life insurance. And so on for all the companies whose products or services I use. I don’t see it as the marketing department of Company X or the legal department of Company Y. When I sense a disconnect in the language of the company, comes the first feeling of I’ve been had. Or at least, that the romance is over. 

The use of plain language throughout the company’s communication can address this gap. It can make the communication feel more connected, more whole. 

But wait, didn’t those tech companies use plain language and yet, some users said they trusted the companies less after their contracts became clearer? Does that mean plain language didn’t work? 

Actually, plain language worked. It worked to help users cut across the jamboree of words and see what the companies actually meant. But if the company’s intention is to harm users or cheat them or take advantage of them in some way, plain language will simple make this intention clear.  

Moral of the story: If plain language is used to “privacy wash” or “ethics wash”, that is, if companies use plain language to pretend to be trustworthy but actually aren’t, it will fail. 

Do not use plain language if you are not ready for it. Plain language is ethical communication, above all else. Yes, it can help your marketing messages become clearer and more focused. Customers can easily understand them and hence trust the company more. But the actual offering of the company must stand up to the promise delivered by the use of plain language. Else, don’t even try. 

Plain language guideline 3: Prefer the active voice

 What is active voice? Here’s an example: 

“I ate the apple.” 

In active voice, the subject of the verb comes first and performs the action. Compare this to the passive voice: 

“The apple was eaten by me.” 

The subject of the verb comes later in passive voice or can be dropped and still be grammatically correct, though enigmatic (“the apple was eaten”). It takes more time and words to convey the same meaning. 

This is why we prefer the active voice in plain language -- cognitive load is higher in the passive voice. That is, it takes more time and effort to figure out what is being said in the passive voice. 

Does that mean we get rid of the passive voice? Banish it altogether? No, we don’t. Even this post uses the passive voice where required. 

As Martin Cutts notes in his Oxford Guide to Plain English, the passive voice is useful:  

    • in defusing hostility

    • in doing away with the subject when it is irrelevant

    • in some other sentence constructions where the receiver of the action is more important than the doer: “The graffiti artist was arrested by the police today.” 

I recently read an article by Erin Brenner favouring the passive voice. Using the passive voice is not technically wrong, but I wouldn’t go so far as to love the passive voice. Here’s why: 

>> Passive voice is commonly used when someone somewhere wants to evade responsibility or suppress information about the doer. Not surprisingly, it is widespread in bureaucratic communication. Either the doer is dropped altogether or distanced very well from the action. If I am editing for plain language, I am editing for the cause of clarity, better consumer or civic rights, even better health. I cannot simply shrug my shoulders and walk on if I don’t know who is the doer. I stop to ask why this information is being withheld. Of course, if one is merely editing copy according to the client’s brief which may not include compliance with plain language guidelines, activism is not required. 

>> It can also be confusing when the doer of the action is so far removed from the action. If the goal is clarity, more often than not I may have to recast the sentence in active voice. 

>> Brenner’s article mentions objectivity as one of the benefits of passive voice and the reason why it's so popular in academic and scientific writing. Here I must disagree. This is a myth that has choked academic and scientific writing and rendered them nearly unreadable and definitely un-enjoyable. As this excellent article by Kerry Evans points out, even scientists should (and very well can) avoid the passive voice and still be objective. She says, “I fail to see how writing the cells were lysed is more objective than writing we lysed the cells.” 

She adds that using the active voice doesn’t always mean writing in the first person, which is seen as a limitation by pro-passive writers. See these examples from her: 

It has recently been found that antibodies that bind quaternary E protein might contribute to this effect.

Protein was not removed from the centrosome by exposure to nocodozole.

When re-written in the active voice:

Recent studies have found that antibodies that bind quaternary E protein might contribute to this effect.

Exposure to nocodozole did not remove protein from the centrosome.

And, if active voice does necessitate the use of the first person, what of it? Academic and scientific papers are also written by human beings (or at least were till the advent of AI) and using “I” or “we” does not decrease, or for that matter increase, the objectivity of the paper. 

So while we need not ban the passive voice, we definitely need to favour the active voice if our goals are reader-friendliness, clarity, and brevity. 

Plain Language 2: Use common, plain words

What is it about big words? Why do we use pompous words or jargon when shorter, plainer words will do just the same, or even better?

Note that big words and jargon are not the same, but they almost always have the same effect – confusing the reader. Big words are, well, big words, and jargon refers to terms of a trade or profession that are usually well understood only by members of that trade or profession.

Read the rest of the article here.