TALK-BACK
Defending Plain English
Replies to the articles assessing the Plain English movement
in South Africa and Australia in ET50, Apr 97.
'We should not have to keep correcting the record'
GEORGE MAHER on behalf of Plain
English Campaign
I was disappointed to read the recent article "The
Plain English Campaign and South Africa' by
Liesel Hibbert and Sinfree Makoni in English
Today, and the accompanying comments by
David Sless. If Liesel, Sinfree, or David had
shown us their comments before the article was
published, we could have cleared up a lot of mis-
conceptions. Unfortunately they chose not to.
The terms 'the Plain English Campaign', 'the
plain language movement', and 'the plain
English movement' appear to have been used as
if they are interchangeable. Plain English Cam-
paign is an independent organisation with
offices in the UK, the USA, and Africa and is only
one part of a huge worldwide plain language
movement. The plain language movement is
represented by many different groups who
work in many different languages.
Plain English Campaign works in many
countries around the world. Our main aim is to
encourage organisations to communicate
clearly with the public. Our work is not
restricted to printed documents or to the false
definitions of plain English that sceptics choose
to label us with.
In 1995, the South African Minister of Justice
invited Plain English Campaign and others
involved in the plain language movement to visit
South Africa. The purpose of our visit was to pass
on our experience to other people. The Minister
of Justice was keen to find ways of communi-
cating official information more clearly to the
people of South Africa, and the Minister realised
that one of the answers could be the use of plain
language. I stress that the use of plain language
could only be one of the answers. This is because
English Today 53, Vol. 14, No. 1 (January 1998). Printed in the United Kingdom © 1998 Cambridge University Press 3 5
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078400000699 Published online by Cambridge University Press
many people in South Africa:
• can't read any language;
• live in remote areas that are difficult for
messengers to reach to explain what is going
on; and
• don't have radios to receive spoken informa-
tion.
These are some of the real problems facing
South Africa's new government in its attempts
to communicate with its citizens.
The article states that 'Plain English Campaign
seems to assume that by simplifying lexical con-
structions a particular variety is made more
accessible....' We assume nothing. If there is one
theme we have tried to emphasise over the last
20 years it has been the importance of testing
draft information on its intended users. Read-
ability scores and computer software can be of
some use, but they can't put information into a
logical order (among other subtleties), and they
are no substitute for testing.
We are well aware that what works for peo-
ple in the UK may need to be adapted for the peo-
ple of South Africa. Every country has its own
language needs. That is why we fund research
GEORGE MAHER is the eldest
son of the Campaign's founder,
Chrissie Maher, and has
worked at the Campaign since
1982. He is a regular speaker
and commentator in the media
on plain language and the
benefits it gives to government
and business. He has spoken on
plain language at seminars in
the UK, the USA, France,
Canada, Gibraltar, Spain, South Africa,
Switzerland and Ghana.
 projects to find out what is really needed rather
than just relying on our own opinions. In South
Africa, we funded a research project tofindout
whether a plain language redraft of the Human
Rights Act was more comprehensible than the
traditional-style original. The results of this pro-
ject have been published and clearly show that
adopting plain language drafting guidelines can
make the language of the law more compre-
hensible for people in South Africa. If Liesel,
Sinfree, or David have any research showing that
a plain language approach won't improve the
communication problems in South Africa, I
would be very grateful to see it.
The article mentions our interest in clarify-
ing the language of the law in South Africa. The
staff at Plain English Campaign are not politi-
cians. It is up to the elected officials in South
Africa, not us, to decide policy. Our wish is to
try and encourage a drafting style in South
Africa that results in a clearer, more precise
statement of the law.
Liesel and Sinfree criticise a plain English
example that supposedly changes the original
meaning. The original said, 'Every person shall
have the right of access to all information... in
so far as such information is required for the
exercise or protection of any of his or her
rights.' The revision says, 'Every person has the
right to all the information he or she needs to
use or protect his or her rights.' Apparently,
Liesel and Sinfree think the original gave the
government the right to decide what informa-
tion to withhold as not 'required' - but the
revised version somehow changes that. Is there
a difference between having to give people the
information they require and having to give
people the information they need? We'll leave
it to fair-minded readers to decide.
In his comments David Sless says, 'We have
argued that Plain English is the wrong solution
to the problem of ensuring that written
'Plain English is not an absolute'
MARTIN CUTTS on behalf of the
Plain Language Commisssion
The article by Hibbert and Makoni (ET50) was
as revealing as it was fascinating. Revealing, in
that it showed the adverse reactions that can
be provoked when outsiders venture into
36 English Today 53, Vol. 14, No. 1 (January 1998). Printed in the United Kingdom © 1998 Cambridge University Press
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078400000699 Published online by Cambridge University Press
communication is accessible and easily read-
able.' David can say this only because he has
chosen his own narrow definition of plain
language that bears little resemblance to real-
ity. David explains that improving the clarity of
communications involves many techniques
such as testing and typographical design, as
well as just crafting the words. This is
absolutely correct, but it states the obvious.
David chooses to exclude these other processes
from his personal definition of plain language,
but this is no reflection on the real concept of
plain language.
David states that 'the Plain English move-
ment has failed to offer convincing evidence
that their methods work.' This is nonsense. The
plain language movement has shown time and
time again through research projects and expe-
rience that plain language principles do work.
We would not, as David claims, think that just
because a document was written in a plain
language style that it was automatically
clearer. We would not, as David claims, insist
that only active verbs be used or that short
words will be automatically understood. That
is why we have always stressed the value of
testing public documents.
At the same time, though, there are many
occasions when testing cannot be carried out
for one reason or another. And when testing is
not possible, plain language is much more
likely to connect with readers than the convo-
luted, inflated style that has marked public
documents for centuries.
Finally, David states that 'good communica-
tion occurs with collaboration, mutual engage-
ment, exchange and dialogue.' That's true. But
why pretend that these are new ideas?
The plain language movement has repeat-
edly answered the criticisms and mischaracter-
isations of plain language. We should not have
to keep correcting the record. •
complicated linguistic areas, and fascinating
for its insights into the politics of language in
South Africa.
The Plain English Guide (Cutts, 1995), says
this: 'Plain English is not an absolute: what is
plain to an audience of scientists or philoso-
phers may be obscure to everyone else. And
because of variations in usage across the