Writing a summary

Introducing Plain Language Principles to Business Communication Students

Rachelle R. Greer1,2 Abstract

Business Communication Quarterly 75(2) 136–152 © 2012 by the Association for Business Communication Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/1080569912441967 http://bcq.sagepub.com

In response to current federal mandates requiring selected businesses and government agencies to use plain language (PL) when reporting information to the public, this article advocates the introduction of PL principles into current business communication curricula. Despite recent PL mandates and advances, many current business textbooks and curricula omit PL principles. Students must become familiar with PL principles in their business communication courses in order to apply PL effectively in the workplace. To accomplish this goal, the author focuses on defining PL, outlining the history and recent developments of PL, and listing the resources and exercises instructors can use to incorporate PL principles into business communication courses.

Keywords

plain language, business writing, pedagogy introduction

The following hypothetical passage describing the newly enacted Plain Writing Act of 2010 serves as an example of gobbledygook that the federal government is trying to avoid, yet could be found in a public sector organization.

Hereafter, not withstanding, and from this time forth, public officials and the public are seeking future transactions to citizens developed by both the private and public sector to be comprised of plain language due to the fact and in accor- dance with the passage of Plain Writing Act of 2010 which was hereby signed

1Northern State University, USA 2Kaplan University, USA

Corresponding Author:

Rachelle R. Greer, 5590 Doubletree Road, Rapid City, SD 57702, USA Email: [email protected]

Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com by guest on August 29, 2016

Greer 137

by the President of the United States as well as survey reports from the public requesting actions to be implemented and taken in order to put to the end exces- sively hard to understand or even incomprehensible language in public docu- ments with the exception of regulations in order to make information to the public accessible.

Here’s a plain language (PL) version of the gobbledygook above: Current appeals from politicians and the public have led to increased demand for the use of PL in pub- lic documents developed by both businesses and government agencies (in hopes of avoiding passages like the gobbledygook above). Specifically, President Obama signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009, which mandates all credit card statements and forms to be in PL. President Obama also signed into law the Plain Writing Act of 2010, requiring federal agencies to “improve the effectiveness and accountability of Federal agencies to the public by promoting clear government communication that the public can understand and use” (sec. 2.)

Despite the recent PL mandates and advances, many current business communica- tion textbooks and curricula omit or briefly mention PL principles (e.g., Bovée & Thill, 2011; Guffey & Loewy, 2010; Locker & Kienzler, 2010). Although these edu- cational resources provide valuable writing and visual design strategies, PL principles need to be addressed directly in order to address the current needs of employers, employees, and students. Several communication scholars have published articles on PL (Barnes, 2006; Byrne, 2008; Campbell, 1999; Kimble, 1995, 2000; Mazur, 2000); however, these studies focus on clarifying PL, debunking PL myths, and countering opposition to the PL movement but overlook the essential link between business com- munication pedagogy and PL.

Business instructors can assist in linking PL and business communication curricula by introducing PL to students. To accomplish this goal, I focus on defining and outlin- ing the history and recent developments of PL, and describing exercises that instruc- tors can integrate into business communication courses. By identifying the disconnect between PL requirements in the workplace and the lack of PL instruction in business communication courses, as well as providing an overview of PL and classroom exer- cises, this article seeks to redress the current deficit in PL instruction.

Defining Plain Language

Public sector agencies, businesses, and legal communities use the terms plain lan- guage, plain writing, and plain English interchangeably to represent improved com- munication from organizations to the public. For the purposes of this article, I will use the most commonly used term, plain language, although I recognize that plain writing is the term used in the most recent legislation.

What is PL? The definition varies in relation to the rhetorical situation, specifically, the audience, purpose, and context. “Plain Language has to do with clear and effective communication—nothing more or less. It does, though signify a new attitude and a

Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com by guest on August 29, 2016

138 Business Communication Quarterly 75(2)

fundamental change from past practices” (Kimble, 1995, p. 52). PL incorporates both textual and visual design elements, as most current PL resources include document and web design guidelines to contribute to the usability of documents and websites. The legal definition of PL, as Banoff and Lipton (2010) predict, may eventually be connected to Justice Potter Stewart’s comment on defining “pornography” in his con- curring opinion in Jacobellis v. Ohio (1964), “I know it when I see it” (p. 381). In contrast, Schriver, Cheek, and Mercer (2010) call for the following standard defini- tion, “if your readers can find the material they need, understand it the first time they read it, and use that information to perform their task (or the task you want them to perform), it’s plain language” (p. 26).

The Plain Writing Act of 2010 defines PL as “writing that is clear, concise, well- organized, and follows other best practices appropriate to the subject or field and intended audience” (Sec. 3, 3). Byrne (2008, pp. 90-92) identified several tangible benefits of PL:

· Users understand and find information easier.

· Users prefer PL.

· Users locate information faster if the communication is in PL.

· PL documents are easier to update.

· PL principles can be used to train employees to write more clearly and con-

cisely.

· PL documents are more cost-effective.

Although many positive reasons can be cited for adopting PL principles, PL man- dates have been criticized for lacking a clear definition, being too difficult for agen- cies to adopt, missing the ability to be enforced, not applying to regulations drafted by Congress, and being too costly to put into practice (Baldwin, 1998; Banoff & Lipton, 2010; Byrne, 2008; Mazur, 2000; Scott, 2010).

Hagge and Kostelnick (1989) also clarify that writers may violate PL principles for “good reasons” (p. 313). In particular, Hagge and Kostelnick discovered while con- ducting a textual analysis study that a bureaucratic organization they refer to as “The Firm” continually violated accepted business communication principles “for a reason: in response to the complex demands of delicate interactional situations” (p. 313). Specifically, auditors in “The Firm” continually avoided the use of nominalizations, used passive verbs that impersonalized it by deleting agents of action, hedged phrases, and violated many other principles in an effort to “minimize potential impositions on clients by playing down ‘The Firm’s recommendations” (p. 317). In other words, Hagge and Kostelnick explain that in violating the principles, the writers were actually using linguistic politeness strategies to avoid unnecessary confrontations with their client.

Other reasons can also contribute to why writers may choose to break PL princi- ples. For example, Banoff and Lipton (2010) contend that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) may not comply with the Plain Writing Act for four reasons. First, IRS writers

Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com by guest on August 29, 2016

Greer 139

may not be able to write the tax code in plain language, based on the acknowledgement of the courts that the “Code is incomprehensive without the assistance of a qualified expert in tax law” (p. 382). Second, IRS writers may be able to use a loophole in that the law that requires documents to be written to “the intended audience” since the “the intended audience” of tax returns may be tax advisors and tax return preparer, not the public. Finally, the act may not be enforceable since there will be no judicial review of compliance or noncompliance with any provision of the Act, nor an opportunity for administrative or judicial action (Banoff & Lipton, 2010). In summary, the Plain Writing Act may be difficult, if not impossible, to apply in some documents and/or organizations.

The introduction and application of communication principles can also present challenges to the effected organizations. As Suchan (2006) explains, “efforts to get workers to change significantly their communication practices often fail” (p. 5). According to Suchan, this failure is a direct result of consultants and internal commu- nication specialists viewing the new communication strategies and principles as sim- ply new communication skills rather than “altering the way workers habitually think and talk about communication” (p. 5). Despite the challenges of implementing PL, educators should take the lead in educating current and future employees by introduc- ing students to terms and principles of PL. However, before PL principles can be integrated into the business communication curriculum, instructors and students should become familiar with the history of the PL movement.

History of Plain Language

A brief overview of the contemporary interest in PL and the recent scope of PL initia- tives can create a foundation for understanding current PL principles. In this section, I trace the history of PL in United States, recent mandates, and developments in busi- nesses and scholar support.

Principles

Communication scholars have traced contemporary interest in PL to former U.S. Representative Maury Maverick when he wrote a memorandum dated March 24, 1944, as Chairman of the Smaller War Plants Corporation to everyone in the corpora- tion requesting that lengthy memoranda and “gobbledygook” be replaced by short and clear memoranda (Maverick, 1944, para. 1). Specifically, Maverick requested that, employees “stay off gobbledygook language. It only fouls people up” (para. 3). In an effort to emphasize his point, Maverick coined the term gobbledygook from “thinking of the old bearded turkey gobbler back in Texas who was always gobbled-gobbling and strutting with ridiculous pomposity. At the end of his gobble there was a sort of gook” (Rawson, 1989, p. 174). On March 30, 1944, Kluttz (1944) published an edito- rial in The Washington Post declaring the memorandum Maverick (1944) wrote as the “most refreshing—and effective, I predict—memo ever written in the Federal service”

Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com by guest on August 29, 2016

140 Business Communication Quarterly 75(2)

and stating that the “President would be wise if he took Maury’s memo and issued it as an order to all federal agencies” (p. 3). Despite the appeal, President Roosevelt did not take any actions regarding the memo.

No further events regarding PL occurred until 1953 when Stuart Chase (an American economist and engineer) attempted to continue the PL campaign when he wrote The Power of Words, which included a chapter dedicated to gobbledygook (Redish, 1985; Schriver, 1991). In that chapter, Chase detailed Maverick’s campaign to end gobbledygook, highlighted examples of gobbledygook, and provided sugges- tions to reduce the “gobble.” Despite Chase’s efforts, scholarly reviewers in linguistics and science overlooked the gobbledygook chapter (Birdwhistell, 1955; Hoijer, 1954). No reported changes took place in business or government writing as a result of Chase’s book.

An official call for PL did not gain momentum until the 1970s, when President Nixon required that the Federal Register be written in “layman’s terms” (Dorney, 1988). Congress passed several acts and regulations that required warranties, leases, and banking transfers to be clear and readable. Specific legislation included the Magnuson-Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Act (1973), the Consumer Leasing Act (1976), and the Electronic Fund Transfer Act (1978). One federal agency, the Federal Communications Commission, issued regulations for Citizens Band Radios in PL (Locke, 2004).

PL initiatives continued in 1978 when President Carter issued an executive order requiring government agencies to reduce the costs and burdens of federal paperwork by making “regulations as clear and simple as possible” (Executive Order No. 12,044, 1978, para. 1). In 1979, Carter issued a second executive order that required agencies to keep forms “as short as possible [while] elicit[ing] information in a simple, straightfor- ward fashion” (Executive Order 12,174, 1979, para. 2). However, only a few agencies responded to these orders. In 1981 both orders were rescinded when President Reagan signed Executive Order 12,291 in an effort to reduce government regulation. Nevertheless, some agencies continued to simplify their documents, and eight state governments passed statutes requiring state documents to be written in PL (Schriver, 1991).

A small group of federal employees from various agencies and backgrounds orga- nized the Plain English Network in 1994, which later was renamed the Plain Language Action and Information Network (PLAIN). Recently, PLAIN explained that it origi- nally formed in order to promote the use of “clear communication in government writ- ing” in order to “save federal agencies time and money and provide better service to the American public” (PLAIN, n.d., para. 1). PLAIN’s activities include conducting monthly meetings and creating a website with PL guidelines (Haller, 2006).

However, PL efforts were not formally restarted until 1998 when President Clinton issued an official memorandum addressed to heads of executive departments insisting that federal agencies use PL in government communications. The purpose of this memorandum was to “make the Government more responsive, accessible, and under- standable in its communications with the public” (para. 1). As explained by Clinton in the memorandum, PL uses “common, everyday words, except for necessary business

Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com by guest on August 29, 2016

Greer 141

terms; ‘you’ and other pronouns; the active voice; and short sentences” (para. 3). A guidance memorandum issued by the National Partnership for Reinventing Government, which accompanied Clinton’s memorandum, further explained the basic principles of PL. Today, communicators in businesses and government agencies con- tinue to use this resource and others to develop PL documents. Educators and students can also use these resources (see Table 1).

Recent Mandates

In 2008, then-Senator Barack Obama introduced the Plain Language in Government Communications Act of 2008, House of Representatives Bill 3548, which continued the drive for PL principles. Essentially, the bill formalized Clinton’s 1998 memo and tried “to enhance citizen access to government information and services by establish- ing PL as the standard style for government documents issued to the public, and for other purposes” (H.R., 3548, 2008, para.1). This bill passed the House, but it stalled in the Senate; consequently, it died at the end of the 110th Congress in January 2009. Two more PL bills were introduced in 2009 and 2010—specifically, the Plain Writing Act of 2009, Senate Bill 574, requiring the use of “plain communication in every document issued to the public, including documents and other text released in elec- tronic form”; and House of Representative Bill 946, Plain Language Act of 2010, requiring clearly written documents issued to the public. (S. 574 never became law.)

On March 11, H.R. 946 passed through the House by a vote of 386:33 and conse- quently was placed on the Senate calendar. On September 28, 2010, H.R. 946 passed the Senate by unanimous consent. Finally, on October 13, 2010, President Obama signed the bill into law. Generally, the new law requires agencies to (a) appoint an official to oversee the use of PL, (b) explain and train employees in PL, (c) oversee compliance, (d) “create and maintain a plain writing section of the agency’s website that is accessible from its home page,” and (e) respond to public input on the agency’s use of PL (Plain Writing Act of 2010, sec. 4, e).

However, the Plain Writing Act of 2010 does have critics. Wyoming Republican Representative Cynthia Lummis (personal communication, November 8, 2010), wrote in an email:

Current policy already requires government agencies to write in language that is easily understandable to readers. H.R. 946 needlessly duplicates existing practices of the federal government and uses taxpayers’ hard-earned dollars to do so. Our nation’s fiscal situation has forced many individuals, families and businesses to make sacrifices and cut back on their budgets. Washington should learn from their example. The federal government’s continued and wasteful spending will only add to our nation’s economic troubles. This is why I voted against H.R. 946 when it came to the House floor for a vote.

Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com by guest on August 29, 2016

142 Business Communication Quarterly 75(2) Table 1. List of Current Plain Language (PL) Websites and Resources

Resources:Websites and Agencies

Plain Language Action and Information Network (http://www.plainlanguage. gov)

Content

• Tips on writing and designing documents • PL definitions • Federal PL principles • Current PL initiative updates

• Guidelines and tips for using PL in documents • Hyperlink list of two free online training opportunities • List of additional resources, including journal articles,

books, and other websites that may provide valuable

information about PL principles • Hyperlink list of federal agencies that have PL program

websites • Examples of documents before and after the use of PL

principles • Additional references, guidelines, and dictionaries

• Tips on making government and business documents clear and understandable

• Current news articles on PL • Definitions of PL • Guidelines for creating PL materials • Approaches to starting PL initiatives in organizations • List of winners of the ClearMark Award • List of winners of the WonderMark Award • Highlights best and worst examples of written

Center for Plain Language (http:// centerforplainlanguage.org)

Federal agency resources Environmental Protection

Agency Federal Aviation

Administration Fish and Wildlife Services Health Resources and

Services Administration National Archives National Institutes of

Health Office of the Federal

Register

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

communication • Definitions of PL

• PL guidelines for each federal agency • Examples of documents for each agency

Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com by guest on August 29, 2016

(continued)

Greer

143

Table 1. (continued)

Resources:Websites and Agencies

Howto.gov http://www. • howto.gov

Security Exchange • Commission (http://www. sec.gov/pdf/handbook.pdf) •

• •

•

• • • •

• State plain language resources • • • • Usability.gov (http://usability. •

Content

Website assistance in the following

gov)

WebContent.gov (http:// www.usa.gov)

Federal web requirements and policies Technical assistance in computing, applications, and data and web infrastructure tips Online citizen interactions through social media and open government Web content management, usability, and design

Tips on creating clear Security Exchange Commission documents Comprehensive handbook Definition of plain English

Guidelines detailing the importance of knowing one’s audience Tips explaining why the writer needs to understand the message being conveyed

Descriptions on how to reorganize a document Instructions on how to design a document Tips on how to save time in designing documents Details on how to use readability formulas and style checkers

Tips on evaluating documents Summaries of individual State regulations and policies Definitions of PL PL principles for each state, if applicable Examples of documents for each state agency Definitions of usability and PL Research-based web design and usability guidelines Step-by-step visual map to guide viewers through the user-centered design process Blog where website managers can interact with other users Website templates List of government initiatives requiring usability efforts Examples of websites before and after applying usability and PL principles List of requirements and “best practices” for the web Tips for content management List of usability and web design principles Blog forum where web managers can share information and learn about “best practices” of web design Information on improving websites

Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com by guest on August 29, 2016

144 Business Communication Quarterly 75(2)

Lummis’ voice represents the 33 Congress members who voted against the Plain Writing Act of 2010. Specifically, Lummis argues that the US$5 million price tag and requirements of each agency to designate a PL coordinator, establish agency Internet pages related to the use of PL, review its compliance with the legislation, train employ- ees to use PL, and prepare reports to Congress on compliance with the legislation place an undue hardship on agencies and taxpayers. Despite the concerns of the repre- sentatives opposing this bill, the bill passed.

President Obama has introduced additional PL initiatives. For example, on his first full day in office, he issued a memorandum outlining principles for “transparency and open government” (Obama, 2009a). Specifically, he called for government agencies to work with the public “to disclose information rapidly in forms that the public can read- ily find and use” (Obama, 2009a, para. 2). In other words, Obama was mandating that government documents be in PL so the public can easily find what they need, under- stand what they find, and use what they find to meet their needs. In addition, the presi- dent requested government agencies to “solicit public feedback to identify information of greatest use to the public” (para. 2). Hence, the president opened the door of com- munication between the government and the public by advocating the creation of read- able and usable documents and requesting agencies to solicit and evaluate feedback on the information being provided.

Developments in Businesses and Scholar Support

The political call for PL has been extended to businesses. For example, Obama signed the Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009 on May 22, 2009, which requires all credit card statements and forms to be in PL. This Act states that creditors must “give consumers clear disclosures of account terms before consumers open an account, and clear statements of the activity on consumers’ accounts afterwards” (Office of the Press Secretary, 2009, para. 16). Additionally, in a speech outlining economic reform efforts, the president encouraged corporations to be “open and transparent, and to speak in plain language investors can understand” (Obama, 2009b, para. 1).

Business administrators are joining in the efforts to use PL without mandates. Examples of PL in the private sector can be found in revised instruction manuals, updated websites, improved billing statements, and other readable documents. The Center for Plain Language (CPL) recognizes businesses such as Healthwise, Aetna, Health Dialog, Periscope United Health Group, and First Choice Power for success- fully using PL in websites and documents to the public (Center for Plain Language, 2010a). Yet some businesses can still improve their communication as identified by CPL’s Wondermark awards. These awards are given to organizations that present to the public the “least usable documents. The sort of documents that make us shake our heads and say: ‘We wonder what they meant. We wonder what they were thinking’” (Center for Plain Language, 2010c, para.1). For example, Microsoft Software’s

Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com by guest on August 29, 2016

Greer 145

licensing terms document received recognition as a finalist in the 2011 award cere- mony. This document details in depth the licensing terms for Microsoft Office com- patibility pack for Word, Excel, and PowerPoint 2001 file formats (see Center for Plain Language WonderMark Awards website at http://centerforplainlanguage.org/awards/ wondermark2011/ to view document).

Consumers desire “clarity and transparency” in business “in order to make informed decisions,” according to a Siegel+Gale (2009) Simplicity Survey (p. 3). The survey reported that 84% of the consumers questioned were “more likely to trust a company that uses jargon-free, plain English in communications” (p. 3). As a result, many busi- nesses are turning to organizations such as Siegel+Gale to assist in revising documents in PL.

Communication scholars continue to support PL (Barnes, 2006; Byrne, 2008; Campbell, 1999; Kimble, 2000; Mazur, 2000). Most recently, Williams and James (2009) found that when organizational documentation such as training material, inspection procedures, and correspondence to the public are written in PL, the public becomes involved in enforcing the compliance with regulations.

Moreover, as business communication scholars, politicians, agency administrators, and the public continue to advocate for PL in public documents, educators will need to introduce PL into business communication courses. The following section provides PL resources and classroom exercises that educators can use to supplement current business communication curricula.

Plain Language Resources and Exercises

Currently, PLAIN encourages businesses and government agencies to follow PL prin- ciples. To assist writers in creating usable PL documents and websites, PLAIN devel- oped a public website. Other available resources include the CPL website, various federal agency websites, and an online handbook published by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (http://www.sec.gov/pdf/handbook.pdf). To assist instructors in choosing resources for business communication courses, I compiled a list of selected websites and the resources instructors can access at virtually no cost (Table 1).

I also developed the following exercises instructors can adapt, modify, and/or develop further to supplement business communication textbooks and course materi- als. These are exercises in making important connections between PL and basic gram- mar and in document revisions and visual rhetoric principles.

Definitions

Instructors can assist students in defining PL by reviewing the definitions provided by the Plain Writing Act of 2010, Federal Plain Language Guidelines, and other resources. By examining these definitions and positive examples of PL documents, students can begin to clarify PL for themselves and their future employment organiza- tions. As the CPL (2010b) explains, “the problem isn’t that we don’t know how to

Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com by guest on August 29, 2016

146 Business Communication Quarterly 75(2)

write in plain language, but that we don’t follow our own good advice. These ‘rules’ aren’t hard to understand. But, it will take effort to change bad writing habits” (2010b, sec. 2, para. 3). Business communication instructors can assist in breaking these “bad writing habits” by giving students an opportunity to write and revise their own docu- ments in the classroom before they get to the workplace.

Although the top business communication textbooks address writing and basic grammar elements in the beginning chapters (Bovée & Thill, 2011; Guffey & Loewy, 2010; Locker & Kienzler, 2010), these textbooks do not connect valuable business communication principles to PL. Therefore, students entering into the workplace may not realize that they have been equipped with the essential foundation to successful meet the PL expectations of employers and customers.

Instructors can assist in connecting PL to business communication principles by introducing students to the definition of PL. After discussing with the students the various definitions of PL expressed by Shriver et al. (2010) and Banoff and Lipton (2010), ask students to develop their own definitions of PL for their current or future employer. Then, compare the students’ definitions to those provided on the various websites listed in Table 1. Finally, develop a class definition of PL that could be used in the workplace.

Before and After: Document Revision

Revision is a vital element to achieving PL and business communication principles. Instructors typically address the revision process in the beginning of class and include revision requirements in their syllabus. However, in my experience, when students are asked to revise an assignment, they tend to edit a few sentences and perceive revising as a class activity that does not relate to actual workplace writing. By introducing exercises that illustrate the revision process in the workplace, stu- dents may gain a clearer understanding of the definition of revision and a realization that revising is not just a class activity but a valuable approach to successfully achieving PL.

Therefore, instructors should begin by exploring a definition of the revision pro- cess. In developing a definition, consider Faigley and Witte’s (1981) statement that a “successful revision results not from the number of changes a writer makes but from the degree to which revision changes bring a text closer to fitting the demands of the situation” (p. 411). Using this definition, provide students some before examples of written documents from PLAIN and the CPL websites. Then, ask the students to revise the documents as they focus on the audience of the document. Once the students have revised the before example, show them the after example. Finally, hold a class discus- sion about the results and/or ask students write an analysis of how their revision differs from the organizational revision, answering the following questions:

1. How closely does your revision meet PL standards, compared to the organi- zational version?

Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com by guest on August 29, 2016

Greer 147

2. How do audience, purpose, and context need to be considered in revising for PL?

3. What are the most difficult steps in revising a passage in PL?

If some students’ revisions demonstrate significant improvement over the organi- zationally revised correspondence, consider having the students email the revision directly to the agency, including a short message explaining the changes and citing PL guidelines.

Audience

Professional communicators “don’t just create information for information’s sake; they design and present information to people to be used” (Redish, 2000, p. 163). In other words, successful writers adapt their messages to the audience (Bovée & Thill, 2011; Guffey & Loewy, 2010; Locker & Kienzler, 2010). To give students an oppor- tunity to write and design to an audience, introduce this exercise to the class. Begin by asking students to bring to class a local business advertisement, brochure, posters, or document around their school and/or workplace that needs to be revised into PL. After reviewing the guidelines developed by PLAIN, ask students to revise the docu- ments. Then, request students to share their findings with the class. Once the docu- ments are revised, ask students to write a memo to the manager of the business that describes the changes made to the original document and persuades the manager to use the new document.

Ask student to share the revised document with the original creator(s) of the docu- ments to create collaboration with local businesses and your class. When students and professionals begin conversations, both parties can benefit from the results. Specifically, business administrators are given the opportunity to discover what stu- dents are being taught in business communication courses while also receiving assis- tance in revising current documents. Students benefit by meeting professionals and becoming acquainted with current business writing practices. Ultimately, both professionals and students are being given an opportunity to network and create new working relationships.

Visual Rhetoric

As the top business communication textbooks discuss and illustrate, good communi- cation goes beyond writing texts (Bovée & Thill, 2011; Guffey & Loewy, 2010; Locker & Kienzler, 2010). Students need to become aware of the importance of visual rhetoric or the process of using images to create meaning or construct an argument using three elements—audience, purpose, and context (Kostelnick & Roberts, 1998). To facilitate students’ awareness of using visual rhetoric effectively to achieve PL, students can review the award-winning websites and documentaries at the CPL web- site (http://www.centerforplainlanguage.org). After the class has reviewed the samples,

Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com by guest on August 29, 2016

148 Business Communication Quarterly 75(2)

find a passage that has been revised, using visual rhetoric at http://www.plainlanguage. gov/examples/before_after/index.cfm. Provide students with example before the revi- sion. Ask students to use visual rhetoric to clarify the message. Once the students have drawn their solution, compare and contrast the students’ drawing to the after example on the website.

Personal Checklist (Course Review)

Many current business communication curricula and textbooks include the primary principles covered by PLs, such as style, organization, audience, visual rhetoric, revi- sion, and research, without the label of PL (e.g., Bovée & Thill, 2011; Guffey & Loewy, 2011; Locker & Kienzler, 2010). By introducing PL resources separately from the textbook and set curriculum, instructors can provide students with an addi- tional opportunity to review and understand the importance of key business commu- nication principles. For example, instructors can emphasize the importance of visual rhetoric concepts by introducing PL examples and illustrating how these concepts are incorporated in workplace documents. Alternatively, instructors can use these prin- ciples and resources to emphasize the importance of revising documents before deliv- ering gobbledygook information to the public.

In a final effort to reinforce the connection between PL and business communica- tion principles reviewed throughout the semester, ask students to review the checklist provided at http://www.plainlanguage.gov and create a personal list of PL guidelines. Students can develop this personal list by examining their course textbook, PL guide- lines, and supplemental resources used throughout the semester. After students have compiled a list, ask them to share their personal list of guidelines with a small group. More significantly, this list can be used in future courses and workplaces. The assign- ment can be extended by asking students to interview practitioners in their chosen field in order to determine the principles they will use in their chosen career field.

Conclusion

As this article has reported, politicians have started to pass laws and initiatives to establish PL principles in public documents. Despite these efforts, more changes are still needed to include PL in regulations, reports, and internal communication prac- tices. In addition, the public needs to be educated in developing PL principles, iden- tifying and using PL, and enforcing PL principles, since many citizens will be responsible for executing the laws. Instructors can begin educating the public and ease the adoption of PL in businesses by introducing PL into business communica- tion curricula.

Although PL signifies, “a new attitude and a fundamental change from past prac- tices” (Kimble, 1995, p. 51), instructors can cultivate these new attitudes and changes by creating an awareness of PL. For example, instructors can show students that many private and public organizations already have PL programs while students can find

Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com by guest on August 29, 2016

Greer 149

useable principles and examples in many of the resources listed in Table 1. Once stu- dents are able to discern personal preferences and definitions of PL for themselves, they will be able to transfer this knowledge to their own writing and eventually to their future workplace, thereby easing the process of adopting PL into organizations and assisting in enforcing the Plain Writing Law.

As CPL (2010b) explains, the “real enforcement” of the Plain Writing Act “will have to come from U.S. citizens demanding documents that are easy to understand” (sec. 3, para. 3). Educators can ease the process of enforcing the law by creating an awareness of PL and clarifying PL principles. Many students, instructors, and citizens are not aware of available resources and expectations for PL principles because most business communication textbooks and curricula do not include PL principles. When students are educated in using and identifying PL effectively, they will help enforce the current law by demanding that documents meet the intended principles.

In response to these requests for PL, this article provides instructors with an over- view of PL as well as a list of valuable, free, and accessible resources and exercises that can be easily introduced into current business communication curricula. Although many changes to PL resources will take place in the next year as organizations offi- cially begin to apply the new law, the current resources remain important to supporting the latest efforts to adopt PL into the workplace. Together, citizens, government, busi- nesses, instructors, and students can learn, revise, and work collectively to improve communication.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

Baldwin, C. (1998). Plain language and the document revolution. Washington, DC: Lamp Lighter Press.

Banoff, S., & Lipton, R. (2010). Can treasury and the IRS write rules in plain language? Journal of Taxation, 113, 381-383.

Barnes, J. (2006). The continuing debate about “plain language” legislation: A law reform conundrum. Statute Law Review, 27, 83-132.

Birdwhistell, R. (1955). Review of the book Power of Words by Stuart Chase. American Anthropologist, 57, 378-379. Retrieved from http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1525/ aa.1955.57.2.02a00450/pdf. doi:10.1525/aa.1955.57.2.02a00450

Bovée, C., & Thill, J. (2011). Excellence in business communication (9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com by guest on August 29, 2016

150 Business Communication Quarterly 75(2)

Byrne, D. (2008). Writing government policies and procedures in plain language. Business Communication Quarterly, 71, 88-92.

Campbell, N. (1999). How New Zealand consumers respond to plain English. Journal of Busi- ness Communication, 36, 335-361.

Center for Plain Language. (2010a). ClearMark awards. Retrieved from http://centerforplainlanguage. org/awards/clearmark2010/

Center for Plain Language. (2010b). Time for plain writing: Myths and reality. Retrieved from http://www.centerforplainlanguage.org

Center for Plain Language. (2010c). WonderMark awards. Retrieved from http:// centerforplainlanguage.org/awards/past-years/wondermark2010

Clinton, W. (1998). Memorandum for the heads of executive departments and agencies: Plain Language in government writing. Retrieved from http://govinfo.library.unt.edu/npr/library/ direct/memos/memoeng.html

Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility, and Disclosure Act of 2009, Pub. L. No. 111-24, 123 Stat. 1734 (2009).

Dorney, J. (1988). The plain English movement. English Journal, 77, 49-51. Exec. Order No. 12,044, 43 C.F.R. 12,661 (1978). Improving government regulations. Amended by E.O. 12,221 (1980) and revoked by E.O. 12,291 (1981). Retrieved from http://www.

presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=30539 Exec. Order No. 12,174, 44 C.F.R. 69,609 (1979). Federal paperwork reduction. Revoked

by E.O. 12,291, (1981). Retrieved from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.

php?pid=31759 Exec. Order No. 12,291, 3 C.F.R, 127 (1981). Retrieved from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/

ws/index.php?pid=43424&st=executive+order+12291&st1=#axzz1n3nscnhW Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication,

32, 400-414. Guffey, M., & Loewy, D. (2011). Business communication: Process and product (7th ed.).

Cincinnati, OH: South-Western/Cengage Learning. Hagge, J., & Kostelnick, C. (1989). Linguistic politeness in professional prose: A discourse

analysis of auditors’ suggestion letters, with implications for business communication peda-

gogy. Written Communication, 6, 312-339. Haller, T. (2006, April/May). Information architecture success story: The development of www.

plainlanguage.gov. Retrieved from http://www.plainlanguage.gov/site/aboutArticle.cfm Hoijer, H. (1954). Review of the book Power of Words by S. Chase. Linguistics Society of

America, 30, 583-586. Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S. 184 (1964). Kimble, J. (1995). Answering the critics of plain language. Scribes Journal of Legal Commu-

nication, 5, 51-85. Kimble, J. (2000). The great myth that plain language is not precise. Scribes Journal of Legal

Communication, 7, 109-118. Kluttz, J. (1944, March 3). The federal diary: Gobbledygook language outlawed by Maverick.

The Washington Post, p. 3.

Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com by guest on August 29, 2016

Greer 151

Kostelnick, C., & Roberts, D. (1998). Designing visual language: Strategies for professional communicators. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Locke, J. (2004). A history of plain language in the United States government. Retrieved from http://www.plainlanguage.gov/whatisPL/history/locke.cfm

Locker, K. O., & Kienzler, D. (2010). Business and administrative communication (9th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill/Irwin.

Maverick, M. (1944). Gobbledygook. Public Administration Review, 4, 151-152. Mazur, B. (2000). Revisiting plain language. Technical Communication, 47, 205-211. Obama, B. (2009a, January 21). Presidential memorandum: Transparency and open govern-

ment. Federal Register, 74, 15. Obama, B. (2009b, October 9). Remarks by the President on consumer financial protection.

Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-by-the-President-

on-Consumer-Financial-Protection Office of the Press Secretary. (2009, May 22). Fact sheet: Reforms to protect American credit

card holders: President Obama signs Credit Card Accountability, Responsibility and Disclosure Act. Retrieved from http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/fact-sheet- reforms-protect-american-credit-card-holders

Plain Language Action and Information Network. (n.d.). About us. Retrieved from http://www. plainlanguage.gov/site/about.cfm

Plain Language in Government Communications Act, H.R. 3548, 110th Cong. (2008). Retrieved from http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h110-3548

Plain Writing Act of 2009, S. 574, 111th Cong. (2010). Retrieved from http://www.govtrack.us/ congress/bill.xpd?bill=s111-574

Plain Writing Act of 2010, Pub. L. No. 111-274, 124 Stat. 2861 (2010). Rawson, H. (1989). Wicked words: A treasury of cures, insults, put-downs and other formerly

unprintable terms from Anglo-Saxon times to the present. New York, NY: Crown. Redish, J. (1985). The plain English movement. In S. Greenbaum (Ed.), English language today

(pp. 125-138). Oxford, England: Pergamon Press. Redish, J. (2000). What is information design? Technical Communication, 47, 163-166. Schriver, K. (1991). Plain language through protocol-aided revision. In E. R. Steinberg (Ed.),

Plain language: Principles and practice (pp. 148-172). Detroit, MI: Wayne State Univer-

sity Press. Schriver, K., Cheek, A., & Mercer, M. (2010). The research basis of plain language techniques:

Implications for establishing standards. Clarity, 63, 26-33. Scott, P. (2010, October 8). Congress mandates plain writing (except for Congress) [Web log

comment]. Retrieved from http://www.worldwideerc.org/Blogs/MobilityLawBlog/Lists/

Posts/Post.aspx?List=c020aee5%2D48ad%2D47b2%2D8295%2Da4cf71ba9e34&ID=24 Siegel+Gale. (2009). Siegel+Gale simplicity survey: A clarion call for transparency. Retrieved

form http://www.siegelgale.com/pdf/SG_Simplicity_FINAL.pdf Suchan, J. (2006). Changing organizational communication practices and norms: A framework.

Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 20, 5-47.

Downloaded from bcq.sagepub.com by guest on August 29, 2016

152 Business Communication Quarterly 75(2)

Williams, M., & James, D. (2009). Embracing new policies, technologies, and community part- nerships: A case study of the city of Houston’s Bureau of Air Quality Control. Business Communication Quarterly, 18, 82-99.

Bio

Rachelle R. Greer received a PhD in rhetoric and professional communication from Iowa State University in 2011. She teaches English–Second Language for Northern State University and graduate business communication online courses for Kaplan University. She has also worked as a communication consultant and served as a Labor Standards Officer for Wyoming.

View publication stats