Plain language: It's not just a good idea...

If the members of the U.S. Senate join their colleagues in the House of Representatives, plain language may soon become the law of the land. The House recently passed H.R. 3548, the Plain Language in Government Communications Act, which would require Federal agencies to use plain language in new or revised documents (letters, publications, forms, notices, or instructions) intended for public consumption.

Congressman Bruce Braley made the following comments about H.R. 3548 on the floor of the House of Representatives:

Anyone who’s done their own taxes knows the headache of trying to understand pages and pages of confusing forms and instructions.  There is no reason why the federal government can’t write tax documents and other public documents in language we can all understand.

Writing government documents in plain language will increase government accountability and will save Americans time and money.  Plain, straightforward language makes it easy for taxpayers to understand what the federal government is doing and what services it is offering.

What a concept: Government documents that are easy to understand.

I guess it made sense in Congress.  H.R. 3548 passed 376 to 1. (I wonder who voted against it, and why?)

A companion bill, S. 2291, has gone to the full Senate for a vote. Contact your senators and encourage them to support this bill.

Comments

[Sylvia]

Well, the obvious issue with plain language is ambiguity - part of the point of legal speak is to make sure that intention is absolutely clear. So the person who voted against might have been worried about confusion and future law suits based on current attempts to use "plain" language.

I have to admit I don't like the tone, which implies that the government (and the tax office) are purposely using language to impede comprehension. It's possible but it doesn't seem likely that it's intentional.

[Ray Ward]

The lone nay vote was cast by Rick Renzi (R-Ariz.). Follow this link:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2008-185

I did some digging and found the text of both bills. I've posted links on my blog (with hat tip to this one, of course).

[Ray Ward]

Oops. I confused "no vote" with "nay." The lone nay was cast by Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.).

[Roy Jacobsen]

Sylvia,
Your concerns about ambiguity are understandable. However, "Plain English" does not necessarily mean "less precise." (And precision doesn't matter much if the text is so clouded with jargon and impenetrable prose as to be incomprehensible.)

When you evaluate most "legalese," you find that most of the words and phrases they use can be replaced with plain English without losing precision. Joseph Kimble, a law professor who has studied plain English versus legalese, argues that lawyers and judges use the gobbledygook they do not because it's more precise and less ambiguous, but because it's habit (and a bad one, at that). (You can read an interview I did with Kimble here.)

The same is usually true of "bureaucratese." People working for government agencies write the way they do because that's how people who work for government agencies write. Seriously. (See my article "Plain Language in the Federal Government.") It's not purposeful, it's habitual.