We English scholars are a bunch of snobs. There, I said it.
Historically, English loves to gatekeep “correct” and “proper” English. Recent movements to decolonize the field have attempted to foster the ideology that no language usage is more correct than the other. And while anti-racist English standards are necessary, it’s also necessary to teach individuals how to make themselves intelligible in writing. Enter the plain language movement, stage left.
“Plain language may offer an important strategy for advancing social justice, but if used shallowly, it may deflect attention from vulnerable audience groups or other issues of access, and it may re-inscribe existing marginalization.”
In Effective Teaching of Technical Communication: Theory, Practice, and Application, we see an attempt to create an updated TPC pedagogy. In chapter 3: Engaging Plain Language in the Technical Communication Classroom, Kira Dreher attempts to give an overview of the plain language movement in the field of technical communication. Dreher begins her brief history of TPC in the dawn of the 20th century, where the need for standardization created “readability formulas,” which in fact are the ancestors of Word’s spell check, and other programs like Grammarly.
“Longo (2004) describes these [readability] formulas as “cultural artifacts” emerging in a post-World War II moment that championed the idea that “[a]n educated cit- izenry would be better prepared to understand and act on rapidly changing so- cial, technological, and political situations” (p. 166).”
Dreher tells us exactly how inadequate these formulas are, and how poorly they are being used today. Anyone who’s ever wanted to fight their auto-correct knows what she means. Making people frustrated and alienated by language is not the aim of TPC. Increasing language access to all is. Dreher says “Robust plain-language strategies overlap substantively with core aims of technical communication.”
“…plain language can be used to promote ethical communication, especially in contexts that are bureaucratic, unknown, rights-oriented, and critical for users. That said, ethical communication is not inherent to plain language (Ross, 2015), and in teaching, we must explicitly recognize that using plain language doesn’t guarantee ethical communication.”
Dreher goes beyond just discussing the topic, and actually gives five potential in-class applications of plain language for technical communication instructors, to help frame and explore the plain language movement with their students. It’s important to update our pedagogy to reflect these standards, she says. If we don’t address the needs of the communities served by plain language standards, we are not living up to our ideals of user-centered design.
“Any deep, substantive consideration of audience, especially in light of the recent plain-language movement focus on user trust (Schriver, 2017), demands that technical communication scholars confront the complex system of language and power that surrounds access to information. How is the notion of “plain” or “clear” language bound to race, class, and linguistic privilege?”
Dreher also gives some examples of plain language practices in various contexts, such as healthcare and government, and most importantly (to me) she spends time exploring the ways in which plain language practices interacts with the social justice concerns of technical communication. It’s important to know that plain language is not a “get out of jail free” card for technical communicators. Plain language for plain language’s sake does not automatically constitute ethical communication practices.
“…the plain-language movement offers strong, publicly anchored strategies of communication that scholars and practitioners can explore as a potential way to advance social justice work, but they must constantly interrogate their practices and assumptions, always remaining alert to the way plain language may deflect attention from systemic and social issues.”
Dreher lays out how integration of plain language can bolster the social justice aims of tech comm, in our theory and our pedagogy, but is careful to say that plain language is not enough. Dreher warns against leaning too heavily on MERELY plain language standards, and these matters should always be examined with a critical eye.
“In practical terms, instructors can show that technical communication expertise is central to the plain-language movement, which is well-anchored and recognizable across fields (business, law, health, the sciences) and across the globe”