Plain Language Resistance: Is “Plain” the Problem?

As a writer and editor who also teaches academic and business writing, I get asked a lot of language questions; it’s a regular and expected part of the job. One recent question, though, caught me by surprise: “How can I justify using plain language to my boss, who’s resistant to it?”

The persistence of resistance

“Plain language” has become a shorthand term for the overarching principles that lead to clear, concise written language. I’ve been using and teaching these principles for many years, probably due to teaching learners whose first language is not English early in my career. I don’t think consciously about it anymore; I rarely label it “plain language” —  it’s just language to me. As a result, the idea that anyone would resist plain language puzzles me. 

When that student asked how to justify plain language to her resistant boss, I explained that it’s “a tool for accessibility and inclusivity.” But her question pushed me to ponder why some writers persist in their resistance to it even though language is evolving in that direction generally and has been for a while. 

If plain language is “so clear that the intended readers can easily find what they need, understand what they find, and use that information,” what’s problematic about that? Aren’t these the primary goals of writing?

Perhaps “plain” is the problem

The problem, I think, lies not in what plain language is but in what some writers mistakenly believe it is. The issue stems in part from these common misconceptions about the “plain” in plain language:

• Plain language is boring, uninteresting and lacks spice.
• Plain language is overly simplistic, generalized and lacks nuance.
• Plain language is not professional or academic enough for this context (legal, medical, political, academic, etc.).
• Plain language doesn’t sound elevated or make me look smart.

Plain language proponents know these views are misguided, but writers who hold these negative beliefs, either singly or in combination, are less likely to use the approach and perhaps to actively resist it.

Plain language by any other name 

The term “plain language” and the writing approach it describes are increasingly accepted worldwide, and many organizations such as the International Plain Language Federation and the Plain Language Association International (PLAIN) have it as their objective and in their names. Because of the increasingly common adoption of this approach and the term, I doubt we’ll see a wholesale terminology change anytime soon, nor do I think we need one. But I do think that if more people thought of and discussed this kind of writing as “clear, concise language” instead of “plain,” the shift might eventually reduce the resistance some writers currently have to this approach. 

Where we go from here 

Change takes time. Plain language has gained momentum in recent years. My hope is that it will continue to do so and that language professionals can find ways to change the minds of those who still resist the idea. For my part, I plan to continue to teach plain language principles with discussion of why it’s important and to encourage learners to develop and practice it for those reasons. 

I’d love to hear your ideas about how you think we can break down resistance to plain language — or what else we could call it that might be less difficult for some to accept than the word “plain.” 

Previous post from Tracey Anderson: Plain Language is Not “Dumbing Down” Writing

The Editors’ Weekly is the official blog of Editors Canada. Contact us.

___