'Plain English' baloney

Every year the BBC and the broadsheet newspapers pay undeserved attention to an organisation of self-publicists called the Plain English Campaign. There is nothing wrong and much good in campaigning for plain English. As George Orwell said in his famous essay on Politics and the English Language:

[T]he decadence of our language is probably curable… Silly words and expressions have often disappeared, not through any evolutionary process but owing to the conscious action of a minority.

But the Plain English Campaign ought more accurately to be named the Intellectual Obscurantism Campaign. Its 'Foot in Mouth award for a truly baffling comment' goes this year to Donald Rumsfeld for his statement:

Reports that say that something hasn’t happened are always interesting to me because, as we know, there are known knowns; there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know.

Of this, Natalie Solent observes:

Let me make this very clear. The Plain English Campaign says that Rumsfeld talks gobbledegook. He got an award for talking gobbledegook. But the things he said to get the award weren't gobbledegook. His comments made sense. They were also funny. They were meant to be funny. If the Plain English Campaign can't see this then the Plain English Campaign are being stupid. That would not surprise me. It is not the first time that they have said that something was gobbledegook when it was not gobbledegook, just difficult.

Exactly. Last year the award was given to the actor Richard Gere for this remark:

I know who I am. No one else knows who I am. If I was a giraffe and somebody said I was a snake, I'd think 'No, actually I am a giraffe.'

The idea Gere expresses is certainly odd, but there's nothing wrong with his syntax, grammar or clarity. A purist would have used the subjunctive in the third sentence ("If I were a giraffe…"), but Gere's statement is a permissible colloquialism in spoken English. In pronouncing the statement baffling, the Plain English Campaign is making no point whatever about English usage, which is supposed to be its interest; all it's doing is advertising its inability to understand ideas.

I'm confirmed in this judgement by the campaign's having made the award in 1994 to Gordon Brown, then Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer:

He covered 'ideas which stress the growing importance of international co-operation and new theories of economic sovereignty across a wide range of areas, macro-economics, trade, the environment, the growth of post neo-classical endogenous growth theory and the symbiotic relationships between government and investment in people and infrastructures - a new understanding of how labour markets really work and constructive debate over the meaning and implications of competitiveness at the level of individuals, the firm or the nation and the role of government in fashioning modern industrial policies which focus on nurturing competitiveness.'

Unlike Gere's statement, this one is indeed badly expressed, with numerous stale phrases ('growing importance', 'wide range of ideas', 'constructive debate' and so on). But it is not baffling. The campaign's objection is, apparently, to the phrase 'post neo-classical endogenous growth theory' – yet this is not gobbledegook but a recognised and important branch of economic theory, which was the subject of Brown's speech. All academic disciplines have their technical terms, and endogenous growth theory is an example of technical economics jargon, just as one statistician would talk naturally and intelligibly to another about multicolinearity among the explanatory variables in a multiple regression. Moreover, once you know what 'endogenous' means, you can make an intelligent guess about what endogenous growth theory is about. The Plain English Campaign is the equivalent of the expensively undereducated debutante who thinks it's an amusing idiosyncrasy not to be able to do mental arithmetic.

Incidentally, three years ago the BBC regurgitated the Campaign's press release at the same time of year this way:

[A statement by Alicia Silverstone] won her the Foot in Mouth prize for what is described as "the most baffling verbal statement of the year".

John Lister, spokesman for the Plain English Campaign, said: "That quote left us all scratching our heads and that's exactly what the Foot in Mouth award is all about."

On reading this I wrote to Lister to point out that a campaign presenting itself as a guardian of English clarity ought to know the difference between a verbal and an oral statement. He responded with the feeble defence known to everyone who has tried to correct the misuse of such words as 'disinterested' (impartial), 'fortuitous' (by chance) and 'discomfiture' (rout): "But it's in the dictionary …." The notion that dictionaries merely record usage rather than prescribe it was clearly new to the spokesman for the Plain English Campaign.

If you're reading this, Mr Lister (and I shall send you the link), kindly also note – for I omitted to tell you at the time - that on this side of the Atlantic 'quote' is a verb only (hence there is no Oxford Dictionary of Quotes), while 'scratching our heads' and 'exactly what it's all about' are cliches.

Comments

[Jimmy Doyle]

"The Plain English Campaign is the equivalent of the expensively undereducated debutante who thinks it's an amusing idiosyncrasy not to be able to do mental arithmetic."

I wish I'd said that.

[spacetoast]

I hate defending Rumsfeld, but, paralleling the statistics case (I guess), "known knowns," "known unknowns," and "unknown unknowns" are policy terms of art comprising a broad taxonomy of risk categories. They are easy to understand to begin with, but, even so, Rumsfeld takes the trouble of unpacking each one after he uses it here. These people got a free micro-lesson in policy analysis. They look like arrogant idiots for not taking the trouble to see what was going on.

"correct the misuse of such words as 'disinterested' (impartial), 'fortuitous' (by chance) and 'discomfiture' (rout)"

Nonsense. Meaning supervenes on usage. The language community is the only authority on these issues, and if a once deviant meaning gains currency, then that meaning is no longer deviant...no matter what some dusty old style manual says. You have a legitimate complaint if the context doesn't make clear which of distinct meanings is intended, but "misuse" is relative to the language community, not to the OED or whatever, and the language community widely accepts the alternatives to your parenthetical definitions.

[Patrick]

Yes, the language community does widely accept alternative meanings for the words mentioned, but should it? Wouldn't it be better to try our best to keep the established distinctions going, rather than just throw our hands in the air, say it can't be helped, and let the language be impoverished?
Not that I'd advocate enforcing rules on this or any other aspect of language: but as a copyeditor I get very tired of dealing with people who not only can't distinguish between, for instance, "the United Kingdom" and "Great Britain", but can't see why anyone would.
I'd always assumed that something called the Plain English Campaign would be concerned about such matters, but it turns out that it's not. That's a pity: in the absence of an Academie angalise, who is campaigning, not for "correct" usage (always a mirage), but for richer, more varied and more expressive usage?

[bobbie]

Obviously we have misinterpreted the meaning of "Plain English".

They're not interested in things that make sense, simply in castrating the language to the point where it becomes boring, bland and - finally - plain.

[Paul Richards]

The key fact about the Plain English Campaign is that they are a commercial organisation which takes money from (mostly public sector) organisations in return for their 'crystal mark', which means someone at the PEC has checked documents for spelling, grammar and punctuation.

Often, in my experience, their editing style removes meaning, loses nuance, and makes things harder to comprehend.

They are a sort of linguistic protection racket, preying on people who lack the confidence to edit their own material.

[Nick the Pedant]

A rare slip by OK! 'Verbal' and 'oral' are synonyms: both mean 'spoken', neither should be used to mean 'written'.

[Oliver Kamm]

No, they're not synonyms, I didn't suggest that either should be used to mean 'written', and 'verbal' doesn't mean 'spoken'. That's my point.

A 'verbal' statement is one that consists of words (as opposed to, say, gestures), and thus may be either written or spoken. The Plain English Campaign's use of 'verbal' when it means 'oral' is incompetent and illiterate.

[Joe Geoghegan]

Paul, when you say the "editing style...loses nuance," do you mean that the editing style loses nuance that it once possessed, or that the editing style eliminates the nuance of the edited material?

Just kidding! Saved by context!

[spacetoast]

Patrick-

"Wouldn't it be better to try our best to keep the established distinctions going, rather than just throw our hands in the air, say it can't be helped, and let the language be impoverished?"

Eh, that's the complaint smarty-pants pedants have always made against creoles and "dialects"...that they're somehow logically inferior to or lack the expressive repertoire of whatever the standard is. I agree about prizing clear expression and all that, but then let's distinguish between that and snobbish clucking over where to put the salad fork.

[David Gillies]

I've already been very boring on this topic over at Stephen Pollard's and Tim Blair's sites (mea culpa), but a more apposite capsule description of the challenges of intelligence work I have yet to see. 'Unknown unknowns,' indeed. To move such things into the 'known unknowns' column is the ne plus ultra of the intelligence officer's (or scientist's) career.

[bobbie]

well, Oliver, though verbal does refer to words rather than gestures, another meaning of 'verbal' is "spoken rather than written". So the Plain English person isn't exactly wrong, though he's not being as clear as he could be.

And I'm not sure I agree with. Smarty pants pedants don't necessarily rail against creoles because they are inferior or lack expression. In fact dialects and suchlike are often seen as more expressive and superior in describing certain, particular issues. But the problem with such minority usages are that they are in the minority; not widely used, and therefore not easily understood.

Anyway, the Plain English Campaign can shove it up their Plain English Bottoms. Normalising words to iron out their differences seems like the worst form of dumbing down the vibrancy and evolution of language.

[john b]

Given that (some scarily large percentage that I can't be bothered to look up) of the British population read at primary school level, it seems sensible to encourage banks, utilities and government agencies to use the simplest, clearest - and indeed, plainest - possible language on official documents.

However, if the CPE people can't actually distinguish between helping this to happen (which is their job), and criticising complicated statements used by literate people to communicate with other literate people, this is a little disturbing.

[scott]

It always bothers me when someone endeavors to appear more likable/harmless/friendly/funny/whatever by feigning bafflement at something they in fact understand perfectly well.

Thank you for posting this.

[Patrick]

spacetoast: I'm glad that you've alerted me to the ambiguity in what I wrote above. I certainly wouldn't want it to be misread as favouring snobbery, and I agree with you that we need to distinguish between "prizing clear expression" and "snobbish clucking over where to put the salad fork".
I used "impoverished" (which may have been an unfortunate choice of term) not to disparage creoles or dialects, which can indeed be more expressive than "standard" forms, but to refer to the kind of language I come across all too often when editing academic, legal and business writing. "Constipated" might have been more appropriate. I mean the language of technocrats and managerialists, who seem to slot chunks of language together without much thought for meaning at all, let alone readability.
Then again, perhaps I shouldn't complain too much: the more changes I have to make in their piles of stereotyped verbiage, the more I get paid ...

[Anticipatory Retaliation]

john b --

I hope that the entire British public reads at primary school level - and a great deal higher. Do you mean to say that a scarily large portion of the British population read at no higher than primary school level?

Best,

BRD

[john b]

Sorry. I thought the "and no higher" was implicit, but evidently not... no CPE Crystal Mark for me.

[Inna]

Well, while the BBC has been correcting Rumsfeld's and everyone else's English we, Americans, have been engaged in far more enjoyable pursuits. We have been seeking new English words.

"Also sought was a word for the befuddlement that sets in as teachers grade papers....

And taking top honors here is Tom Dorman, of Sedro-Woolley, Washington, who wrote, "As a high school teacher, I can sympathize. My ninth-graders have recently convinced me that the Norman Conquest took place in 1951, that Samson and Goliath had a torrid affair (don't tell the school board), and that car pedium means 'seize your movement.' Correct tests like this late into the night to meet your grade deadline and you, too, will feel doubt-witted by your students."

http://www.theatlantic.com/issues/2003/12/wallraff.htm

Regards,

Inna

[Dave F]

I approve of the idea of the Plain English Campaign, which started out to try to remove esoteric jargon and technobabble from public communications (no one cares about its practitioners using it among themselves).

Now it has apparently been commandeered by the PR types who think it's about talking weird and are also trying to suck up to popular notions.

Rumsfeld's exposition of the known and unknown struck me as remarkably sensible and interesting. The real reason they single it out is that it was something said by Rumsfeld, a current hate figure.

If Gordon Brown was speaking for public consumption, he was wasting his breath. I have no idea if this was the context, though.

[Squander Two]

Dave,

You're absolutely right.

It's O'Sullivan's Law yet again, isn't it?

[Joe Geoghegan]

The Economist takes your position in this business, Oliver. The December 6th edition contains a short piece titled "Rumspeak." (I'd link to it, but it's only available to subscribers.)

[Jonas]

"We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know."

Although I think that the Rumsfeld statement is clear, it would be more accurately put, "...that is to say there are some things we know that we do not know." Out of context, his version is too general to be specific to known unknowns. It is therefore only clear to those who understand the concept anyway, making it superfluous. Mr. Rumsfeld corrects this in his next sentence, which by analogy should clarify the concept to anyone who might be confused but is paying close attention, as the members of the Plain English Campaign are supposed to be.