Site information
Site navigation
tab tips roll overs for main navigation
Who we are and what we do
Information about our services and programmes of work
The latest good practice we’ve gathered from the sector.
Online discussion forums and communities of practice
You are here
Accessibility options
Contrast:
Site second level navigation
The state of the language
David Crystal is Honorary Professor of Linguistics at Bangor University. Last July he gave evidence to the Public Administration Committee on the ‘Use and abuse of official language’. On this page he answers some of our questions on the history, the future and the present challenges of using plain English. Add your comments in the box at the end.
When you gave evidence to the Public Administration Committee, you pointed out that there were debates of this kind going on in the 18th and 19th centuries. Please could you tell us a little more about them?
They were part of the arguments surrounding the development of dictionaries, grammars, pronunciation guides and manuals of usage which took off in the middle decades of the 18th century. Famous names include Dr Johnson, Bishop Lowth, John Walker and Lindley Murray.
Writing in an era where notions of politeness and manners were paramount, they developed a doctrine of correctness of usage, which at its best promoted uncontentious ideals of clarity and precision in speech and writing, but at its worst introduced artificial rules which everyone was supposed to follow – such as avoiding split infinitives or never ending sentences with a preposition.
The notion of clarity became obscured, as a result. And several writers of the time condemned the prescriptive approach, pointing out that it was a distraction from the real issues. Unfortunately, the prescriptive approach dominated English teaching for some 200 years, and its attitudes are still present in the minds of senior managers who had that system instilled into them in school.
We have had two generations of people in the UK who were never taught systematically about language in school. And many of them are in senior government positions now.
How do you think local government compares with central government when it comes to communicating in plain English?
My impression is that local government is somewhat better – but then its task is easier. Local authorities can receive local feedback more directly, and can react to criticisms more quickly. There's also the point that language devised to meet local needs tends to be more intelligible because the writers share an awareness of the local context with the readers.
Communications from central government are either context-neutral, and thus very general in their use of language, or context-sensitive, which leads to many qualifying statements. Either way, there is a likelihood of greater distance or complexity being introduced into the communication.
To what extent do you think central government policy and legislation forces gobbledygook on local government?
'Gobbledygook' is an emotive media expression which begs all kinds of questions. The main problem with it is that it assumes the writer is always to blame, when communication fails, whereas sometimes it is the reader who is at fault. There is a responsibility on everyone to read things carefully. If you don't look both ways before crossing the road, and you get knocked down, whose fault is it? People can be very lazy or careless in the way they read – or listen – and one of the aims of a good language education in school is to train kids to be better listeners and readers.
The next point is to recognise that there's nothing wrong with technical or specialised vocabulary, per se. The problem is when people use this vocabulary to an audience that doesn't share their background. That is when the words are criticised as 'jargon', and rightly so. What is needed is a 'translation' exercise, with people rephrasing their material to suit the perceived audience need.
So, to get to your question, I've no idea what happens, in relation to the notion of 'forcing'. All I can say is that it should be routine practice for local government to think carefully about whether central directives need to be given a local 'translation'. It isn't easy, as language simplification or rephrasing can lead to a loss of legal precision, but people need to be aware that the problem is there, and requires solution.
The Public Administration Committee discussed Orwell’s essay, 'Politics and the English Language', and the connection between the way people communicate and the way they think. What do you think comes first: the muddled thinking or the opaque language?
Orwell's essay has done a great deal of harm to the plain English movement because of its oversimplified recommendations. He didn't even follow his own recommendations himself. 'Never use the passive' he says at one point, but the very opening sentence of his essay contains one! The issues are better debated without reference to that essay.
The answer is: both. If I am unclear in what I want to say, then my language is going to be unclear. On the other hand, many people find that it is only by writing their thoughts down in the first place that they can see whether they are clear or not.
I certainly find this. Most of the sentences you are reading now are the result of reworking. This takes motivation, time, expertise, and awareness of audience – attributes which are essential if communication is to be clear.
The expertise comes in knowing the strengths and weaknesses of language. A great deal of poor communication arises out of people not realising that a particular usage is ambiguous, vague, offensive or whatever. They are so used to a particular way of speaking or writing that they forget that others might have difficulty with it.
This can be an institutional disease, of course, with an entire hierarchy within an organisation accepting each other's speech or writing without criticism, forgetting that outsiders might be flummoxed by it.
The solution, once again, is to make use of outsiders as part of the exercise, and keep one's linguistic habits always under review.
The current generation of school children are now taught grammar. How do you think this might influence the future of business clichés, corporate-speak and the appetite for unnecessary jargon that currently exists?
One of the big themes in language education these days is the focus on appropriateness in language use. The importance of audience is a part of this, and that, as I've already mentioned, is crucial.
Having talked to many schools and inservice teacher courses over the past decade, I've seen at first-hand the way notions – such as cliche, jargon, and all the other issues of language effectiveness – are being put under the microscope as part of the curriculum. How far this experience will influence society as a whole, it's impossible to say.
One problem is that this kind of awareness is not widely present in, for example, schools in the USA, so that international corporations which have a base in the USA will doubtless continue with their present linguistic practices. But the situation is slowly changing there too.
How do you think the internet will influence the way we use language in our working lives in the future?
It's bound to have a major effect. It already has, after all – for example, in the use of email and online form filling. Once again, the issue is how to manage it. The properties of each medium – web, chat, blog, texting, instant messaging, and so on – need to be explored, so that the linguistic consequences can be evaluated.
To take a single example, in relation to the theme of this interview: what is the optimal width of line or length of paragraph to foster easy reading on screen? We only have to see a badly laid-out screen, with the lines too long and the paragraphs too dense, to know that there is both good and bad practice here. Here, as with other areas touched on in this exchange, there needs to be research and training.
Are you optimistic about the future of language in the public sector?
I think the fact that people are beginning to discuss these issues at a high level – as illustrated by the Select Committee report in 2009 – is a ground for optimism. I would be more optimistic if the different kinds of problem were more clearly differentiated. For example, the issues that are raised in relation to politicians' statements are totally different from those affecting civil service documentation.
And I would be really optimistic if practical measures were implemented which would enable progress to be made. Clear communication saves immense amounts of time and money. It isn't just common or political sense, it is also economic sense for governments and companies to invest in ensuring that their language is understood by the people to whom they are speaking and writing. I find it reassuring that some organisations are already aware of the issues and are beginning to do something about them. And the fact that conversations like this one are now taking place is definitely a good sign!
Bad Language: The use and abuse of official language – on the website of the Houses of Parliament
Minutes of evidence on official language to Public Administration Committee – on the website of the Houses of Parliament
Page published January 2010.
Your comments
-
I agreee about the passive. It is very useful where the action is important, not who performs it.
The reader has the option of forgetting about the performer, or of mentally casting a relevant person in that role.
Replacing the passive with a specified person unknown does nothing for clarity and prevents improving comprehension by subconscious appropriate casting of the performer.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
In writing, thoughts have to be presented linearly, but we do not think in one dimension.
It is quite possible to have very clear thoughts in two there or four dimensions, which are very difficult to express in one dimensional prose.
A simple two dimensional diagram can be worth 1000 words!
It is a pity both that more processes in LG are not described using flow diagrams, graphs or mathematical expressions; and that when diagrams are used they are so often incompletely labelled.
Steve Bolter on 20 Jan 2010
-
An excellent article, containing nothing to which I would object strongly. I was, however, fascinated to read the interviewer's statement that "The current generation of school children are now taught grammar." Would this include simple verb agreements?
Chris on 20 Jan 2010
-
Professor Crystal is a bit unfair on Orwell. Orwell openly admits "Look back through this essay, and for certain you will find that I have again and again committed the very faults I am protesting against". And his Rule No. 6 was "Break any of these rules sooner than say anything outright barbarous".
Orwell was really making a call to action and setting down principles. He was not deeply interested in rules, and he would have condemned the tendency of all large organisations (however understandable) to reduce everything to rules, including their own use of language....Mark O'Sullivan on 20 Jan 2010
-
A very well-balanced piece that explodes some of the myths around plain English - including this arbitrary fear of the passive. It is often the perceived plain English rules which, when inflexibly adhered to, themselves lead to confusion and lack of clarity. The thread which runs throughout this piece - and throughout good writing generally - is to consider the needs of the intended audience. People resent being "talked down to" as much as they resent being confused with jargon - we all have a responsibility to write (and speak) to people on the terms that are right for them.
Nick Lamper on 20 Jan 2010
-
It was good to read about the optimal width of line and length of paragraph but could hard copy text be in a larger point size? Perhaps 12 pt.? The 'state of the language' article thoughtfully provides a facility for increasing the point size but many printed documents do not.
Adrian Dean on 20 Jan 2010
-
I completely agree with Professor Crystal. I am pleased to learn that the use of passive language is fine. It is important to think of content of a message and the receiver - the audience. People want you to speak to them not 'talk down to'.
Loretta Mordi on 21 Jan 2010
-
While I agree that wherever possible you should try to use language that you know your audience will understand, sometimes it is not always easy to know your audience's understanding of a particular issue. This is particularly relevant for correspondence with the general public, but may also apply for communications between two unrelated council departments. While some council staff may be hesitent about appearing to "talk down" to people, surely it is better to use langauge that most of your audience will understand, rather than catering only for those that may have a good understanding of the subject. I think in local government we often assume that people are much more aware of issues and the jargon that goes with it than they actually are.
Andrew Ballingall on 21 Jan 2010
-
I'd like to comment how people in local government use passives. I agree that it's fine to use them, but not if you use them in every sentence in a paragraph or on a page.
We have some examples of overusing the passive in the Common Pitfalls section of this website. You can copy and paste this url into your browser to get straight there:
http://www.idea.gov.uk/idk/core/page.do?pageId=8302488
I think it is a question of balance and, as others have pointed out here, making sure that the reader can understand your message.Juno Baker on 21 Jan 2010
-
A couple of comments on the comments.
Chris: on 'generation...are'. Yes, this would be taken as an example of notional concord, as opposed to the grammatical concord that you seem to have in mind. Prescriptive grammarians tried to eliminate the former, which has been used throughout the history of English, but without success. There are many examples where concord depends on the meaning required, such as unitary vs collective meaning in 'committee is' vs 'committee are', and so on. 'Generation' follows that pattern.
Mark: If people remembered Orwell's final 'rule', I would be happier. Unfortunately, they usually don't - which is the point I had in mind. And when they do recall Rule 6, they remember it as a 'do whatever you like' kind of recommendation, which can also be harmful. And really, what are we to make of someone who blithely says 'I break my own rules', without any attempt at explaining why. Explanation is everything, as the discussion about the passive on this site suggests. When is the passive useful, appropriate, effective...? The whole of grammar needs to be seen from this semantic and pragmatic point of view, That's been the big shift in grammar in recent years.David Crystal on 21 Jan 2010
-
One reason that people write (and speak) unclearly is that they don't put themselves in the shoes of the reader/listener. They don't realise that the words they use are not transparent to the other person, particularly when they use jargon. It's not education in grammar they need, it's imagination - or perhaps simply intelligence.
Chris Holloway on 21 Jan 2010
-
Cool.
Bren Cook on 22 Jan 2010
-
I'm pleased to add that Norfolk County Council had a recent awareness campaign about using language more sensitively. Jargon is a daily part of my work culture and probably here to stay.
However, giving a clear message to people is very important for the local services we provide.
Reminders and refresher training can be helpful to everyone. Our staff learning site now offers language tips and training routinely on-line.
Alison Haines - Emergency Planning Unit, Norfolk.Alison Haines on 22 Jan 2010
-
I would like to comment about the new wave of grammar that seams to be coming into local authorities. It now seams to be the norm that you don’t put a th or a st after the numbers of a date. When I have asked why all I get told is its just the new way local authorities don’t do this anymore. Surely we are here to set the standards? Suffering with Dyslexia it was hard enough getting the first bit right.
Mat on 22 Jan 2010
-
I wouldn't argue with the article either - and the historical references were interesting.
The passive voice still appears a lot in local government documents - some of us who work in communications have the job of changing much of it before it goes out to the public. The over-use of the passive may be partly an institutional habit, though of course it's also a handy way of gently blurring what has to be said - not making too many firm promises in case things change!
Central government is partly to blame for setting up vague terms like 'the transformation agenda' which then get handed down until they lose any meaning they might have had.
However, when our communications team applies plain English to jargon-filled documents, the writers are often very pleased with the results. We recognise that we have to try to write for everyone in the community, whatever their level of reading skill or knowledge of the inner workings of our department.Janet McCarter on 22 Jan 2010
-
Government at all levels fears directness because of the fear of saying anything that might later be proved wrong.
I sometimes wonder whether 'inappropriate language' can be defined as
'a statement from which any meaning can be discerned whatsoever'Dan Hudson on 22 Jan 2010
-
Regarding Mat's comment about "th" or "st" after date numbers we didn't at the Welsh authoirty I worked for because, it was said, of the translation issue. My experince of English authorities before and after is that they did and still do.
Mark on 22 Jan 2010
-
An interesting article. It's sad that the learned professor has to resort to using a phrase from that long dead language, Latin, though. One would hope that a plain English phrase would be more appropriate.
Paul Robinson on 22 Jan 2010
-
Just to pick up on a couple of the points above...
I don't think the cessation of the practice of putting "th" or "st" after dates has anything to do with local government. It serves no purpose (why use a hybrid of number and word when one or the other is fine?) and I thought it had largely died out decades ago. I certainly stopped doing it some time in the late seventies or early eighties. It looks really archaic now - a bit like underlining. If anything, local government tends to hang on to such practices longer than society in general (with possibly only the legal profession hanging on longer).
As for the passive, I've always thought it was quite straight forward: use the active to emphasise who is doing something, or the passive to emphasise the thing that is being done. As ever, it's about doing what is right under the circumstances rather than having a set of inflexible and unhelpful rules.Nick Lamper on 22 Jan 2010
-
I suspect the disappearance of "th" and "st" has something to do with the electronic medium and its tendency to standardise and simplify. For example, if you go into Microsoft Word and click on 'Insert - Date and Time', you get 15 formatting options - none of which includes number suffixes. Most offical letters and documents nowadays are written on computers, and dates are often inserted automatically from databases.
From a design point-of-view, a simple number takes up less space, and is easier for most people to scan visually.
A quick glance at some of the UK's biggest websites - Times, Guardian, BBC, Directgov and most government sites - show that they all tend to favour the simple number format. It's certainly not something that's unique to English councils.Paul Ireland on 22 Jan 2010
-
There is a tendency to commit to the lowest common denominator in use of language, in this age where text messaging is becoming a ubiquitous form of communication. I agree that the use of jargon or overly complicated and convoluted sentence structure can be used as a means of establishing or maintaining barriers and reinforcing a sense of superiority. On the other hand I can see nothing wrong in preserving some basic rules of syntax. I find it natural for me to avoid splitting infinitive, use apostrophes correctly and to enjoy the richness of language for it's own sake. Therefore my question would be, "is there a place in the middle of the linguistic road where people can meet without running the risk of being run over by the juggernaut of plain language political correctness?"
Mary Thomson on 25 Jan 2010
-
Mary's sense of irony is clearly well-developed - to introduce a misplaced apostrophe into her very sentence promoting the correct use of apostrophes!
Nick Lamper on 27 Jan 2010
Bookmark with: