If words fall into disrepair

[aster_dw]

The Guardian published Tony Jund's essay on language and articulacy today, which I thought deserved at least a cursory reading. It hardly needs to be accepted as gospel truth - in fact, in some places it reads like a verbose, self-indulgent rant - but it invites reflection on a number of issues which I have long seen as important on both personal

Comments

[arda_unmarred]

Thanks for that, it's a favourite topic of mine as well

[aster_dw]

The Plain Language Commission is a generally useful organisation, which campaigns for the use of clear, plain English in official communications. To some extent they are fighting against the meaningless managerial jargon that you mentioned in your comment. Funnily enough, Orwell's Six Rules for Writers seem to be a part of the inspiration for the campaign.

In general, PLC does a lot of useful and reasonable things, but their principles become a parody of themselves when taken too far (as they often are). In those cases you get the horrifying destruction of the words that I had described. Although the main problem in many workplaces isn't even the PLC's sermons, but just the plain fact that you spend most of your waking hours talking and writing about a very narrow range of issues and concepts, which slowly erases most of one's wider vocabulary.

[the_marquis]

Thanks for that. The Plain English thing stopping people sneakily abusing customers by having arcane paperwork with overly long words, sub-clauses etc for any product or service information is great; actively bullying people into dumbing down isn't. Education should be about stretching people's abilities not about reinforcing laziness by only offering the easiest option.

I also take issue with the suggested replacement of "alternative" with "other" if, 'you can do this, that, or the other' then you have three alternative choices; other though implies only one of two. Although maybe I'm in the wrong having had a very muddled education in my native language.

[aster_dw]

Education should be about stretching people's abilities not about reinforcing laziness by only offering the easiest option.

Precisely.

I've actually removed the "alternative" and "other" examples, because Kleo asked me what the difference was, and I couldn't explain it properly. To me an "alternative" implies some sort of suitability or endorsement, whereas "other" is more neutral. For example, one could fly from London to Beijing directly. Taking a flight to Beijing via Canberra is among the other ways to get there, but it seems like it would only be an "alternative" if one was really pressed for other reasonable options.

I am a misguided pedant, I guess.

[dishwasherness]

What was the Plain Language Commission designed for? For public-access documents, organisation-only documents, reinforcing house style

[aster_dw]

PLC? I think they were originally designed to campaign against horrific jargon in public-access documents, but since then have widened their scope to all business and public communications.

I agree with you that in many cases using "fluffy" language in documents can make them even less transparent. In fact, the loss of precision was the main reason why our team basically rebelled when the course presenter gave us this list of recommended substitutions.
By the way, banking terms? Pah! Imagine having law being written in this waffly way. It would leave so many holes and wiggle-room that no contracts would ever be enforced.

As for the article, this guy was writing while feeling his (presumably impressible and treasured) command of the language slowly slipping away. It must have a horrible experience, so I'm inclined to overlook some of the whininess and self-indulgence. And you guys seem to agree on the main point: the importance of being taught well in school.

[dishwasherness]

Whoops, completely missed the part about the neurological disorder. (Thanks, skim reading skills).

Either way, he was blaming social networking sites and the internet, and generally mourning the state of communication at the moment.

The reason I didn't mention law was precisely because I thought it would be impossible. Do you think there might be danger of the language police creeping into the legal sphere?

Command of the language for forming opinions doesn't have to slip away if immersed in a fluffy, it's-the-idea-that-counts environment, as long as one is able to escape and read other stuff or meet other people.

I'm not even sure why organisations think that it's necessary to make their company documents 'accessible' in this fluffy way. Who wants it? Equating 'allocate' with 'share' is beyond ridiculous...