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/S0266078400000705 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
 English-speaking world, what is plain in Man-
chester may be obscure in Madras or Maine.'
Hibbert and Makoni show that Plain English
Campaign Limited (PEC) appears to have
ignored this in its initial intervention in South
Africa. Later work by Phil Knight (backed by
the Canadian Government) has been more
responsive to local circumstances, and has
probably brought about a more clearly drafted
constitution than would otherwise have
occurred. Summary versions of the new consti-
tution have been distributed to all households
in South Africa and are available in translation.
This may go some way towards mollifying crit-
ics such as Hibbert and Makoni.
Since 1993 I have made several visits to
another former outpost of the British Empire,
India, at the invitation of the Federation of
Consumer Organisations of Tamilnadu (Fed-
cot) and the British Council, aiming to stimu-
late the use of plain language there. Fedcot is
concerned, as a genuinely grass-roots con-
sumer body, that government texts and con-
sumer contracts are far too obscure for their
intended audience.
I have found it helpful to tread warily. Indian
English differs from standard British English in
many ways. For example, in Indian English, it
is common to see written that customers may
'avail a service', and this is regarded as fairly
plain, simple language. In British English the
equivalent phrase would be 'avail themselves
of a service', and it would be regarded as some-
what pompous, old-fashioned and not 'plain' at
all. But if the Indian expression is plain to the
local speakers, an outsider should accept it as
MARTIN CUTTS has worked in
the plain language field since
1975 when he left Liverpool
University with a degree in
English, Italian and
Psychology. He has led more
than 1,000 courses in writing
skills. He conceived and co-
founded Plain English
Campaign in 1979 and was a
partner there until 1988. He is
now research director of the Plain Language
Commission, formed in 1994. He can be contacted
at Plain Language Commission, The Castle, 29
Stoneheads, Whaley Bridge, High Peak, Stockport
SK23 7BB, England. Tel: 01663 733177.
Fax 01663 735135.
Email cutts@plc--waw.demon.co.uk
TALK-BACK
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078400000705 Published online by Cambridge University Press
such. If India, or anywhere else, is to have
plainer language, local people must decide for
themselves what is plain and what is not. And
they may not merely want plain English. They
may also want plain Telugu or plain Hindi or
plain Tamil - indeed, that has been a frequent
demand of people I have met in India.
The plain language movement in India is still
in its infancy and its adherents have many other
demands on their time, but at least it is local and
not parachuted in from outside. This should
mean that what it produces will have roots in the
locality and will be sensitive to local issues.
As Hibbert and Makoni suggest, the redraft-
ing of complex legal documents is often an
exercise in adaptation rather than a search for
exact equivalence in simpler words and simpler
sentence constructions. In the South African
situation, it would be absurd for the new gov-
ernment to rewrite the old oppressive laws in
plainer words, for they would still be oppres-
sive. The requirement is new laws written in
accessible language. Capable plain language
practitioners can help with that, but only if
they are first prepared to listen and learn.
The authors are right to be sceptical about
the over-simplifications inherent in using read-
ability formulae and computerised grammar-
checkers. These things are no substitutes for
human intelligence and sensitivity, which are
also vital tools when applying even the best
plain language guidelines.
Hibbert and Makoni should not confuse the
cause of plain English with the business activi-
ties of PEC. They are not synonymous.
In the same edition of English Today, David
Sless makes his well-worn criticisms of the plain
language movement. I applaud his scepticism
and his concern with verification, and I admire
his work on document design; but many of his
methods have been long-established among
people in the plain language movement.
Sless says we in the movement damn the
passive voice unreservedly. This is not so. In
The Plain English Guide and in books by several
others (eg, Eagleson, 1990), the perils of the
passive are noted but its overuse is condemned,
not its use as such.
Sless hints that we pay too little attention to
typography. This is untrue. In everything that I
and most other serious practitioners have writ-
ten about plain English in the last 20 years,
typographical factors have been central (eg,
Cutts, 1986, Eagleson, 1990). In the Guide, I
37
 describe plain English as referring to: 'The writ-
ing and setting out of essential information in a
way that gives a co-operative, motivated per-
son a good chance of understanding the docu-
ment at first reading, and in the same sense
that the writer meant it to be understood.' The
words 'setting out' are a clear reference to
typography, and there is a chapter in the book
on typographical basics.
And we all know the importance of testing
documents with typical readers. In a project for
the government's Supplementary Benefits Com-
mission as far back as 1978,1 wrote and designed
a dozen forms and leaflets - after long 'stake-
holder negotiation', some of which I still have on
film - which were then independendy consumer-
tested (Cutts & Maher, 1981, Firth 1981). In my
recent project to rewrite and redesign a UK Act
of Parliament, the revised version was first put
out to consultation (Cutts, 1993) and then thor-
oughly pilot-tested before final publication
(Cutts, 1994). In the Guide, I say that: 'No doc-
ument can truly be regarded as clearer or bet-
ter... until readers' performance proves it.' The
value of testing is also fully described in Eagle-
son and in Kimble (1994-95), which offers a
detailed demolition of Sless's position.
My experience is, however, r_hat most cus-
tomers are not prepared to pay for testing or to
await its results. They hire practitioners like me
to apply our experience and expertise to do the
best we can to clarify their documents, which
they then test by using them for real - arguably
the best method of all. D
References
Cutts, M. 1993. Unspeakable Acts? Stockport: Words at
Work.
—. 1994. Lucid Law. Stockport: Plain Language
Commission.
—. 1995. The Plain English Guide. Oxford: University
Press.
—. & C. Maher. 1986. The Plain English Story.
Stockport: Plain English Campaign.
—. & C. Maher. 1981. 'Simplifying DHSS forms and
letters'. In Information design journal, vol. 2. no. 1,
28-32.
Eagleson, R. 1990. Writing in Plain English. Canberra:
Australian Government Publishing Service.
Firth, D. 1981. 'An investigation of the success of
redesigned supplementary benefit documents'. In
Information design journal, vol. 2. no. 1, 33-43.
Kimble, J. 1994-95. 'Answering the critics of plain
language'. In The scribes journal of legal writing,
vol. 5.

Shetlandic and English: same poem?

A peerie codicil A little codicil
Dinna lay me wi uncan fok Do not lay me between strangers
ta lie a thoosand year to lie a thousand years
sabbin dagidder; da stane co-mingling; the stone
heavy, marking oot a piece o heavy, marking out a territory
laand without meaning.
ithoot meanin.
Quench me clean and quick:
Slock me whick an clean: let the ash fly lightly
lat da ess birl whaar hit wil: where it will: no stone,
nae monimints. A'm in dee: no plaque. I am in you:
an du's mi mindin. you are my memorial.

Christine De Luca 1994, in Poems in English and Shetland Dialect,

The Shetland Library, Lerwick (1995)
ISBN 0 904562 44 1

38 ENGLISH TODAY 53 January 1998

https://doi.org/10.1017/S0266078400000705 Published online by Cambridge University Press