A Study of Plain English Vocabulary and International Audiences

APPLIED RESEARCH SUMMARY ᭜ Investigates the use of phrasal verbs and the choice of more “common” English vocabulary, usually Germanic in derivation ᭜ Finds that non-native speakers may not acquire idiomatic meanings of phrasal verbs and that French speakers preferred Latinate vocabulary Plain English? A Study of Plain English Vocabulary and International Audiences EMILY A. THRUSH n 1989, a China Airlines flight, flying in zero visibility, THE PROBLEM crashed into the side of a mountain shortly after take- Recent publications on technical and business writing con- off. On the voice recorder, the last words of the tain a number of articles about international and multicul- IChinese pilot to the co-pilot were, “What does pull up tural issues. This is an area of increasing interest in the field mean?” When I first heard this story, I wondered why a as more business is conducted internationally and as the pilot, presumably trained in the international English used workforce in businesses worldwide becomes more multi- for aviation, would not understand a command from the cultural. Growing concern with this topic is the impetus tower. On investigation, I learned that the official term used behind at least two publications: The May 1999 special in “control tower” talk is climb. However, the warning issue of Technical communication titled “Global issues, system built in to U.S.-made planes issues the message local concerns” edited by Nancy Hoft and Global contexts: “Pull up!” when altitude drops or an object looms ahead. Case studies in international technical communication,a As a former teacher of English as a Second Language, book of case studies in international communication edited I knew that expressions such as pull up—phrasal verbs or by Deborah Bosley, published in 2000 as part of the ATTW two-word verbs—are often very difficult for non-native series by Allyn and Bacon. speakers of English because they are idiomatic; that is, their Even in Memphis, TN, where I live and teach, which meanings cannot be derived by knowledge of the individ- has long been isolated from the volume of international ual words. Pull up once corresponded to the physical business conducted on the coasts of the U.S., local busi- action of a pilot in pulling the control lever that adjusted nesses such as FedEx and International Paper have hired the degree of ascent or descent of the plane. Now, how- the graduates of our program in professional/technical ever, most controls in a modern jetliner consist of dials and writing to prepare documents that will be read by non- buttons—there’s no “pulling” involved. So it is understand- native speakers of English and translated into other lan- able that someone not familiar with the term pull up would guages. In 1999, I attended a conference on technical not be able to derive an accurate meaning for it. writing in Europe at which most of the speakers were However, as a current teacher of technical writing, I concerned with product documentation. It was clear from introduce my students to the principles of Plain English, the discussion there that writers and editors were applying advocating the use of “everyday” English terms, including those principles of writing typically taught in technical phrasal verbs such as pull up. I began to wonder if Plain English is, in fact, Obscure English—for those not brought up in an English-speaking environment. That is what led to Manuscript received 21 April 2000; revised 6 September 2000; the study that follows. accepted 9 October 2000. Volume 48, Number 3, August 2001 • TechnicalCOMMUNICATION 289 APPLIED RESEARCH Plain English Vocabulary and International Audiences Thrush writing programs today and advocated by the Plain English movement in the U.S., the U.K., and Australia. We cannot talk about audience Most of these “principles of clear writing” were devel- oped through research conducted with native speakers of these days without including the American English. The influential work of Joseph Williams interpreted research results from the fields of psychology significant problems involved in and reading for writers and teachers of workplace English. However, I have been able to find little evidence of the writing for non-native speakers effects of these principles on readers whose native language is something other than English and whose English of English may be less than completely fluent. For example, none of the companies represented at the different usages of the present progressive versus sim- the international conference I attended (including IBM and ple present and the present perfect versus simple past verb Nokia) had done any usability testing with non-native forms (Hall 1998). The emphasis in current writing instruc- speakers of English reading in English or using the trans- tion to eliminate passive verb forms seems to have little lated versions of their manuals. Most of the companies effect on comprehensibility for speakers of German and expressed a preference for using native speakers of English Germanic languages. to produce the original version of the documentation (even when the product was produced in Germany or the Neth- WRITING FOR INTERNATIONAL AUDIENCES erlands, for example), and then having native speakers of We know that much of today’s business and technical the target languages do the translation. This preference writing is done for international audiences, either to be seemed to be based on the accuracy of the language translated or to be read in English by native speakers of produced by the original writer, not necessarily by the other languages. I have documented this in several places quality or effectiveness of the writing. (Thrush 1993, 1997) as have other authors such as Weiss To begin to answer these questions about the universal (1992) and Boiarsky (1995). In addition, the sight of the clarity of Plain English, we need to study two areas: booths of translation services lining the exhibit area at the 1. Whether the principles advocated by proponents STC Annual Conference makes it plain that many compa- of Plain English make documents more readable for peo- nies view international communication as a major area of ple whose native language is not English concern and as a significant expenditure. We cannot talk 2. Whether the kinds of “simplification” that writers about audience these days without including the significant do for English speaking audiences are the appropriate problems involved in writing for non-native speakers of ones for international audiences English. Attempts to address these problems, as well as the I was particularly interested in exploring relative readability relatively low literacy rate of English speakers in some lines for speakers of French and German (as well as other Ger- of work, have included the development of systems called manic languages) because of linguistic differences in these Plain English, Simplified English, and Controlled Language. languages that I believe may affect the readability of different styles in English. Plain English, Simplified English, French is a Romance language based on Latin. Since Plain and Controlled Language systems English guidelines usually include the reduction of the num- Plain English, Simplified English, and Controlled Language ber of Latin-based words in favor of Anglo-Saxon equivalents, are three terms used to describe attempts to produce En- Plain English may actually pose greater lexical comprehen- glish that is easily readable, accessible, and usable. sion problems for speakers of Romance languages. This con- While usage of these terms is not necessarily standard- cern was suggested by Spyridakis and others (1997) as one of ized, Controlled Language systems tend to be designed and the reasons that translating documents written in a Simplified used to make both machine and human translation faster English form into Spanish was more difficult and time con- and more accurate, and to improve the clarity of commu- suming than it was for the translators working with Germanic nication among professionals in the same line of work. languages (Simplified English was created to improve the Simplified English is the term used by the European Asso- international comprehensibility of documentation in the aero- ciation of Aerospace Industries (AECMA) for its own controlled space industry and focuses on vocabulary and usage specific version of the language specific to aircraft maintenance. The to that area, but the effect on vocabulary usage is similar to AECMA (1998) says this about its Simplified English system: that of Plain English). German speakers, on the other hand, have identified AECMA Simplified English (SE) consists of a limited that the most problematic aspects of English for them are vocabulary and a set of rules intended to increase the 290 TechnicalCOMMUNICATION • Volume 48, Number 3, August 2001 APPLIED RESEARCH Thrush Plain English Vocabulary and International Audiences readability of technical texts. It is called a “controlled effects on ability to perform a task. If the Simplified English language” because these rules impose on writers: versions were not necessarily translated any more accurately than the non-Simplified versions, the implication is ᭜ simple syntax that the “simplifications” did not aid the non-native speak- ᭜ a limited number of words ers of English in comprehending the texts accurately. ᭜ a limited number of clearly defined meanings for these words—in general, each word has only one Syntax and comprehension meaning While many of us have written about cultural factors affecting ᭜ a limited number of parts of speech for the words—in the comprehension of text and about the problems facing general, each word has only one part of speech translators in general (Maylath 1997; Hoft 1995), few studies have actually examined the specific elements of English that Plain English, on the other hand, is intended to be used interfere with comprehension by non-native speakers. A for a variety of documents, settings, and purposes, and, as study by Strother and Ulijn (1987) suggested that eliminating such, allows the writer much more latitude in language use.

Load more