Writing for Equality
The argument for plain language from a social justice perspective.
“Social justice in plain language advocates for the individual and condemns institutional oppression.” - Michela Sims
When writing, it is crucial to keep one’s audience in mind, especially when determining the best course of action in ensuring that the audience fully understands the text.
One of the ways to accomplish this is by utilizing plain language. In simple terms, plain language is communication that an audience understands the first time they read or hear it; it is designed to increase the readability of a text, which consequently raises the audience’s comprehension of the content contained within. In the field of technical and professional communication, audiences are extremely diverse—nationally, culturally, ethnically—indicating that the simpler the text is, the easier it is for the entirety of this audience to understand.
When discussing communication through a social justice lens, there arises the problem of creating a document that is virtually inaccessible to certain subgroups of this audience because the language used is too complex. Therefore, by adopting plain language, technical and professional communicators can establish equity, inclusivity, and integrity in their writing.
What is Plain Language?
To start, what exactly is meant by plain language? Unfortunately, there is no concrete definition that seems to perfectly wrap up this idea in its entirety.
In the Oxford Guide to Plain English, Martin Cutts discusses this dilemma of deciding what this term means and how one goes about applying it. At the start of the guide, he pulls the working definition from PLAIN—the international association of plain-language professionals—who provide the following explanation:
“A written communication is in plain language if its wording, structure, and design are so clear that the intended readers can easily find what they need, understand it, and use it” (Cutts xii).
The members of PLAIN themselves do not believe that this is the best way to encapsulate plain language and all that it entails, and Cutts seems to agree; however, the perfect sentence to fully flesh out this concept has yet to be written.
To add to this running definition, Cutts believes that plain language should embrace honesty and clarity and should not be centered around lies or half-truths. He also explains that those writing in it should keep in mind that plain language is “not an absolute” and varies depending on its intended audience (Cutts xiii).
For instance, what is considered plain language to a group of astrophysicists is going to look drastically different than that of professional athletes, and vice versa. This is not inherently based on an individual’s intelligence level, but rather the communities they belong to, and the language or “jargon” utilized in their everyday vocabulary.
With this in mind, how can plain language be utilized to reach a broader audience? Rather than just focusing on a certain group of individuals—like astrophysicists or professional athletes—how can plain language be applied to a text intended to reach everyone in the United States, or even internationally? And in doing so, how can this use of plain language create a more inclusive environment with a focus on social equity and human rights?
The Basics of Writing in Plain Language
In his book, Cutts provides his readers with step-by-step instructions on how to effectively adopt plain language into their vocabulary and style. To summarize these 30 guidelines, there are two central areas to note: word choice and sentence structure.
I. Word Choice
The words in a text can make or break an audience’s understanding of the content. If a reader stumbles across a word or phrase they are unfamiliar with, chances are that entire idea is lost, and they are left scrambling to decipher context clues or—if possible—completely stop reading to research the word’s definition. One of the main points Cutts makes about this issue pertains to pitching one’s writing at the correct level:
“Remember the population’s average reading age is about 13” (Cutts 118).
This is especially important to note when writing for such broad audiences—if the average person reads at the same level as a 13-year-old, incorporating words that someone at this age would not understand instantly makes the text unclear.
Cutts also dedicates a section to “preferring plain words,” which further expounds this idea and reminds writers to “use words your readers are likely to understand” (Cutts 11). There are other sections in the Oxford Guide to Plain English that discuss word choice, concerning areas like favoring active-voice verbs or relying on non-sexist language, and they all tie back to the purpose of writing in such a manner so that a broader audience may benefit from it.
II. Sentence Structure
In terms of sentence structure, Cutts really homes in on the point of “writing short sentences and clear paragraphs,” explaining how the average sentence length should only be 15–20 words (Cutts 1). Longer sentences can demand too much of the reader, and their short-term memory may not be able to fully process what was discussed at the start of the sentence upon reaching the end.
There is also the matter of “writing tight,” which involves only using “as many words as you need” (Cutts 55). Adding a bunch of “fluff” or nonsense text to one’s writing makes it difficult for the reader to untangle what the text is actually trying to say and what arguments are being made. With both these points on sentence structure, there is not only an emphasis on the reader’s comprehension as a whole, but also the ease at which the content is understood.
All-in-all, when implementing plain language into one’s style, it is essential to recognize that not everyone who interacts with the text is going to be at the same comprehension level; therefore, aiming a bit lower and keeping in mind these guidelines will allow the writing to be understood by a wider audience.
Why Writing in Plain Language is Important
When discussing the significance of writing in plain language, not only is it essential to consider the basics of why altering one’s style to adopt this is beneficial from a universal perspective, but to also examine it in real-world scenarios of specific fields.
To review this further, Joseph Kimble’s Writing for Dollars, Writing to Please: The Case for Plain Language in Business, Government, and Law perfectly exemplifies these situations and the impact translating their corresponding text into plain language has on the individuals interacting with them. In this book, the benefits are divided into two sections—“Saving Time and Money” and “Pleasing and Persuading Readers”—and due to the scope of this paper, examples from the latter will be selected as they directly pertain to the reader rather than the writer’s company or agency.
I. Medical-Consent Forms, Carnegie Mellon University
One of these studies focuses on medical-consent forms and how many patients do not fully understand the forms that they are signing. This was developed by Carnegie Mellon University with the goal of combating this serious issue, and in the study, model consent forms were created and tested.
In these models, the researchers “removed unnecessary information, replaced technical language with more common terms, referred to the patient as ‘I’ or ‘my,’ and used simple action words and shorter sentences” (Kimble 159). As a result, this revised version read at an eleventh-grade level whereas the original read at a nineteenth-grade, or doctorate, level.
To test this, 50 college students were selected, and half received the revised version while the other half read the original. They were then asked five questions pertaining to the form they read.
The study found that participants who were given the revised version answered 4.52 questions correctly and those with the original only averaged at 2.36 correct answers. It also took those with the original version longer to answer the questions, averaging at 2.64 minutes as opposed to 1.64 for those with the revised form.
Medical consent forms are connected to an individual’s bodily autonomy, and if someone were to misunderstand the language in these forms, they could accidentally agree to something they would not have if they understood the text, subsequently signing away their rights.
II. Ballot Instructions, National Institue of Standards and Technology
Kimble also discusses the study from the National Institute of Standards and Technology that pertains to ballot instructions. Here, 45 voters in Georgia, Maryland, and Michigan volunteered to test the specific language used in these instructions by completing tasks from two different ballots: Ballot A, which includes traditional instructions, and Ballot B written in plain language. The tasks were virtually the same—the only difference being their language—and the study took note of both the participants’ performance and preference.
The results found that participants performed “more accurately” on Ballot B where plain language was applied; however, the results were “just marginally statistically significant” (Kimble 157). When the participants were asked which ballot they preferred, though, 82% selected the plain-language ballot.
Similarly to medical consent forms, ballot instructions are extremely valuable and can drastically affect an individual’s life if misinterpreted. Democratic elections are one of the only ways in which the working class can voice their opinions and participate in their government’s functions, both locally and federally. If voters do not understand the instructions on their ballots, they may vote for an individual that they do not politically align with, or even accidentally void their ballot by making a simple mistake that could have been easily avoided had the instructions been clearer.
With these two cases, it grows clearer the importance of writing in plain language, and that it is not just for aesthetics or to simply prevent the reader from wasting time rereading the text. Elaborate and convoluted language can have a real impact on the lives of those who are subjected to it, ranging from their own autonomy to the ways in which they exercise their civil rights.
Plain Language as “A False Prophet”
Despite this evidence, there are arguments against the importance of plain language, as outlined in Rabeea Assy’s article “Can the Law Speak Directly to its Subjects? The Limitation of Plain Language.”
Here, Assy explains how enacting plain language alone in legal documents is not enough for those outside of this field to understand the concepts, referring to plain language as “a false prophet” of sorts (Assy 379). This relates specifically to the Plain English Movement’s (PEM) claims that legalese can be made “directly and usefully intelligible to its subjects” if translated into plain language and how this is not inherently possible (Assy 404).
Assy highlights the reasoning for this throughout the article—pointing out statistical and methodological fallacies of PEM’s reasoning, detailing the importance of legal clarity, emphasizing a need for details in this genre of writing—and at its conclusion, they have sufficiently defended their stance. They also stress the value of lawyers who can interpret legalese into “common speak” for the layperson.
This is not to say that adopting plain language in this field is completely ill advised, and Assy recognizes this too. If plain language were applied to this field, but not translated to the extent of what PEM initially desired, it could still help clarify legalese for lawyers, which subsequently improves the quality and effectiveness of their legal services. A plainer law language could also make it easier for the layperson to evaluate the services that their lawyer provides, as well as the legal system in its entirety.
Though the adoption of plain language alone may not be a catch-all solution to helping the everyday person understand this language, this article still reveals ways in which doing so can benefit those who are otherwise illiterate in this specific field.
Imagining This in a Social Justice Lens
This discussion of legalese and how plain language can be applied ties into the subject of this paper: social justice issues. To apply plain language to this concept specifically, the research article “Tools for Overcoming Oppression: Plain Language and Human-Centered Design for Social Justice” by Michela Sims highlights the ways in which plain language can be utilized to combat the persecution of minorities.
I. The USCIS’ I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal
This article in particular discusses US asylum applicants and the language in the US Citizenship and Immigration Services’ (USCIS) I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal as well as the instructions for this application. These documents are intended for a very specific audience, that being asylum applicants, and the stakes surrounding the understanding and comprehension of the information enclosed are extremely high. Those in this audience are particularly vulnerable, and they may have already suffered trauma following human rights violations and systemic abuse.
The article highlights the value of technical and professional communication (TPC), and how those in this field have an “ethical responsibility to communicate with these audiences through methods that are socially just” (Sims 11). Technical and professional communicators (TPCers) have the capacity to either strengthen the oppression that these asylum applicants have already experienced, or to help encourage them to act for their own independence and well-being, and the language that they adopt can decide which of these two occurs.
II. Plain Language & Human-Centered Design
As mentioned in previous sections, the enactment of plain language directly affects an individual’s rights—“it enables them to make important decisions and take required actions that directly impact their lives and futures”—but it also helps individuals gain more agency as they can better understand this technical and complex information (Sims 15).
This amplification of agency does not act alone, though, and writing these sorts of documents in plain language can help to identify this oppression and the root causes of it too. To surmise:
“Social justice in plain language advocates for the individual and condemns institutional oppression” (Sims 15).
Similarly to Assy’s views on plain language in law, Sims does not believe that plain language in itself can accomplish the complete annihilation of convoluted language, and that a human-centered design (HCD) as opposed to the more common user-centered design (UCD) should also be applied.
This is not to say that plain language is not helpful from a social justice perspective, but rather that for a document of this nature, to make it fully accessible to its target audience, there needs to be this additional focus on human rights and values to provide the audience with the best experience. With this, TPCers can directly see how their writing impacts the human experience, and how a “fundamentally human commitment to human values is necessary to design documents that empower individuals to act in their own best interests” (Sims 15).
To test this hypothesis, Sims decided to analyze the I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal and its instructions that were revised in 2020 during the Trump administration. The application itself is 12 pages long, and the instructions are 14 pages and much more detailed, rendering the application useless without them. The instructions are also the only assistance that applicants receive while filling out the documents as “there is no other substantial information or support provided to the applicant by USCIS to help them through the process” (Sims 18).
Sims then performed a qualitative data analysis on the two documents to determine if the language and design strategies utilized throughout are appropriate for their intended audience of asylum applicants, specifically from an HCD perspective. To do so, Sims referred to plain language guidelines as well as HCD guiding principles to see where the application and instructions were lacking and to establish how to enact revisions to these documents to work better in a social justice lens.
III. The Failures of the I-589 Documents
The results of this test reveal the failures of the I-589 documents in achieving an appropriate language and design for its audience, specifically in areas pertaining to “poor visual appeal exacerbated by long, complex sentences and ineffective lists, imprecise headings followed by unrelated content, overuse of cross-references, and repetitive information” (Sims 20).
For instance, the instructions contain many long and wordy sentences that are difficult to follow:
“Applicants and eligible dependents in removal proceedings who fail without good cause to provide USCIS with their biometrics or their biographical information as required within the time allowed may have their applications found abandoned by the immigration judge” (Sims 25).
Not only does the length of this sentence pose a problem, but it also contains words and phrases that would be unfamiliar to the audience, especially considering that most are non-native English speakers. Some of these phrases include “fail without good cause,” “removal proceedings,” “biometrics,” and “within the time allowed.” Both the instructions and the application fail to recognize the needs of their audience—that being a smooth and quick asylum process—and are instead utilizing language that would make this already difficult process even tougher.
It is also crucial to keep in mind that this language is being used to address traumatized and vulnerable individuals fleeing their home countries, and the words the authors utilized when referencing these traumatic experiences and the applicant’s vulnerable position are “very clinical” and “understated” (Sims 22).
In the application, rather than explicitly discussing the difficult topics of oppression, persecution, and torture, the document requests that the applicant explain “‘the basis of your claim’ with details about ‘each event or action’” (Sims 22). This displays a lack of understanding of the applicant as it fails to demonstrate sensitivity to their trauma, especially when the text is clearly shying away from the realities of racism and violence that these applicants may have endured.
Though not directly related to plain language, this is where the call for a more human-centered design comes into play. Instead of effectively communicating the following information to a potentially vulnerable individual, these documents seem to be more oriented towards the government’s objective of simply acquiring accurate information from the individual for processing by any means necessary. Through this exploitation, these documents and those involved in the asylum process are not putting humanity above all else, further demonstrating why plain language as well as an HCD approach is vital when discussing social justice issues.
This is not to say that plain language should not be a fundamental part of making these documents, or any other document of this nature. Translating these documents into plain language alone will certainly increase their readability and make the content itself easier to digest; however, it does not always put the applicant first or keep their experiences in mind, and so HCD is there to fill in the gaps.
Final Thoughts…
Plain language should be at the core of all technical and professional communication, especially when handling matters of social justice issues, like the I-589 documents. These asylum applicants have already experienced unimaginable hardships, and if the first step in ensuring the safety and well-being of themselves and those they care about is too complex to fully grasp, their lives could be put forever in danger.
It is important to recognize the ways that plain language can affect all aspects of an individual’s life—bodily autonomy through medical-consent forms, exercising their right to vote in democratic elections, seeking asylum in a foreign country—and to understand the impact this can have, both positively and negatively.
Plain language is designed with comprehension at the forefront to ensure that audiences fully understand the information, and since every communicator’s goal is to spread their knowledge for others to consider, it would only make sense that plain language be enacted to accomplish this purpose.
Assy, Rabeea. “Can the Law Speak Directly to Its Subjects? The Limitation of Plain Language.” Journal of Law & Society, vol. 38, no. 3, 2011, pp. 376–404. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6478.2011.00549.x.
Cutts, Martin. Oxford Guide to Plain English. 4th ed., Oxford University Press, 2013.
Kimble, Joseph. Writing for Dollars, Writing to Please: The Case for Plain Language in Business, Government, and Law. Carolina Academic Press, 2012.
Sims, Michela. “Tools for Overcoming Oppression: Plain Language and Human-Centered Design for Social Justice.” IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, vol. 65, no. 1, 2022, pp. 11-33. https://doi.org/10.1109/TPC.2022.3150236.