Selected Chronology
of the Plain English Movement in the United States

1974 - U.S. Pension Reform Act required all material to be in plain language.

1974 - Congress established commission on Federal Paperwork. One of the findings was that the government should rewrite documents into clear language and formats.

1975 - Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act required all warranties to be in plain language.

1975 - Citibank in New York simplified all forms, beginning with promissory notes.

1975 - Industry Advisory Committee on Auto Policy Form Simplification drafted guidelines for simplified policies. St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company became one of the first large insurers to simplify policies. (Thirty-four states in 1999 have Plain English Laws for clear language in insurance policies.)

1977 - New York became first state to require business contracts written in plain language.

1978 - President Carter signed Executive Order (EO) 12044, "Improving Government Regulations."

1978 – The National Institute of Education, Department of Education, began the Document Design Project for research, training, and practical assistance for documents.

1978 - Hawaii amended State Constitution to include that "all government writing" intended for the public should be clear.

1979 - President Carter signed Executive Order 12174, which required agencies to reduce forms and to keep them as simple as possible.

1980 - New York Executive Order was issued for all state agencies to write in plain language.

1981 - President Reagan signed Executive Order 12291, which rescinded both EO 12044 and EO 12174. This was a step backward for the plain English movement.

1983 - California mandated all state documents to be written in plain language.

1998 - Securities and Exchange Commission adopted the Plain English Rule (Securities Act Rule 421 [d]) which required cover pages, summaries, and risk factors sections of prospectuses to be in plain English, beginning October 1, 1998.

1998 - President Clinton signed Executive Memorandum requiring plain language in all new government documents by October 1,

1998. By January 1, 1999, all rulemakings to be printed in Federal Register were required to be in plain language.

PLAIN LANGUAGE ACTION NETWORK (PLAN)

This group is part of the National Partnership for Reinventing Government,Vice-president Gore's movement to streamline government. Its slogan is "Practical Guidance on Clarity of the Written Word." The website has many links, including the following:

• Current news about PLAN and related PE activities
• Text of Executive Memorandum, dated June 1, 1998, Directing the use of PE in government documents
• Vice-President Gore's choices for awards for employees who have eliminated gobbledygook from government documents
• Reference library Guidelines for "Writing User-Friendly Documents," that can be downloaded and distributed to classe

NATIONAL PARTNERSHIP FOR REINVENTING GOVERNMENT

This site allows people to learn more about the changes made in government agencies. Its annual report, Businesslike Government: Lessons Learned from America's Best Companies, documents the changes in government agencies, including the SEC, based on practices in business. Contact www.orders4,gpo.gov to purchase a copy.

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION (SEC)

This site has links to the following documents:

• Complete text of final rules for the Plain English Disclosure
• A Plain English Handbook that contains all the guidelines given to all companies for the writing of all disclosure documents in PE. Since this is not copyrighted, it can be copied and distributed to classes.

The SEC has published a large volume of sample documents written by the companies in the pilot program. These include some written before and some after the plain English requirements. Contact Division of Corporation Finance, SEC (1998). Plain English pilot programs: selected plain English samples. Bowne.ISBN: 1-886100-1 I-X

PLAIN ENGLISH CAMPAIGN
P. 0. Box 3
New Mills
High Peak
SK22 4QP
UK

This organization, founded in 1979, has had the support of former prime ministers Thatcher and Major, and also the support of HRH Prince Charles. It hosts international conferences, awards trophies for clear writing, and gives out booby prizes for baffling writing. It also gives its seal of approval, the Crystal Mark, for documents that are written as clearly as possible. It has aided businesses and governments around the world to communicate clearly.

The website has links to the following information:

• The history of the Campaign
• Examples of PE
• List of publications
• Excerpts from speeches at Campaign conferences
• List of Crystal Mark holders.

CLARITY

Begun as "a movement to simplify legal language," Clarity now has 905 members in many different fields in 26 countries. There are two issues of its journal and two newsletters yearly. Guest editors from various countries present the status of PE worldwide.

For memberships ($25.00) in the US, contact

Prof. Joseph Kimble
Thomas M. Cooley Law School
Box 13038
Lansing, MI 48901-13038
Ph: 517-371-5140

For memberships in other countries, see the website for subscription rates and addresses.

KLEIMANN COMMUNICATION GROUP

Links to Plain English (PE) include the following:

• Regulations written in PE
• Articles about PE
• PLAN website

PLAIN LANGUAGE NETWORK

Links to PE include the following:

• Plain Language Consultants Network
• Plain Language Online Center
• International Literacy Day Press Release and additional comments

PLAIN LANGUAGE ONLINE

This site is an associated page of the access to the Justice Network (Canada). Links include the following:

• Plain Legal Language
• Plain Language Online Training Program: the Plain Train
• Plain Language Consultants Network News
• Upcoming events
• Plain Language Resource Centre (Heritage Canada and National Literacy Secretariat)

RAPPORT

Links include the following:

• Programs from previous Plain Language conferences
• Texts from some presentations

Alciere, R.M. (1993). Avoiding governmentspeak. Technical Communication 40.2, 26265. Practical advice on how to switch to plain English by giving it a higher priority.

Bailey, E. P. (1990). Ae plain English approach to business writing. New York: Oxford University Press. Clear guidelines to principles of style, layout, organization, and revision.

Crow, P. (1998). Plain English: what counts besides readability? Journal of Business Communication 40.2, 87-95. Contends that we should look at more characteristics of PE than just results of readability tests.

Felker, D. B., Pickering, F., Charrow, V. R., Holland, V. M., & Redish, J. C. (198 1). Guidelines for document designers. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research. Collection of 25 principles to make documents easier to read, including examples and research for each guideline.

Law Reform Commission of Victoria. (1987). Plain English and the law. Melbourne, Australia. Appendix I is a drafting manual with guidelines and examples.

O'Hayre, J. (1980). Gobbledygook has gotta go. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office. Guide to making government writing clearer and more usable, includes cartoons and humor.

Redish, J. (1984). Beyond readability: how to write and design understandable life insurance policies. American Council of Life Insurance. Guidelines include more than readability formulas.

Following are selected textbooks that refer to PE and /or PEL.

Beck, C. E. (1999). Managerial communication: bridging theory and practice. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bovee, C. L. & Thill, J. V. (1998). Business communication today. 5th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Krizan, A. C. Merrier, P., Jones, C. L., & Harcourt, J. (1999). Business communication. Cincinnati: South-Western.

Locker, K. 0. (1995). Business and administrative communication. 3rd ed. Chicago: Irwin.

Duffy, T., & Waller, R. (Eds.) (1985) Designing usable text. NY: Academic Press. Includes chapters of readability, reading-to-learn and reading-to-do, and research on usability of military manuals.

Duin, A. H., & Hansen, C. J. (Eds.) (1996). Nonacademic writing: social theory and technology. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Although these essays do not mention PE, they focus on research on writing in the workplace.

Greenbaum, S. (Ed.) (1985). The English language today. New York: Pergamon Institute of English. Thorough study of the modern English language, including an essay on the PE movement.

Harty, K. J. (Ed.) (1999). Strategies for business and technical writing. 4th ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. Unit on "Problems with Language" includes articles by Siegel and Zinsser, and also the classic essay on "gobbledygook" by Chase.

Kogen, M. (Ed.) (1989). Writing in the business professions. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Includes section on guidelines for clear documents.

O'Dell, L. & Goswami, D. (Eds.) (1985). Writing in Nonacademic Settings. New York: Guilford Press. Classic collection includes a review of surveys of nonacademic writing and essays on conducting research--and on research needed--in the workplace.

Reynolds, J. F., Matalene, C. B., Magnotto, J. N., Samson, D. C., & Sadler, L. V. (1995). Professional writing in context: lessons from teaching and consulting in worlds of work. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Essays based on experiences in federal and state government agencies and high tech companies.

Spilka, R. ( Ed.). (1993). Writing in the workplace: new research perspectives. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press. Essays divided into research studies of writing in the workplace and the implications of the current research.

Steinberg, E. R. (Ed.). (199 1). Plain language: principles and practice. Detroit: Wayne State University Press. Essays on PEL and PE activity in other countries, plus aids to help writers.

Altom, T. (1993). Why we use big words: a historical perspective. Technical Communication 40.3, 456-58. Examines the preference for Latinate words and how to eliminate them in technical writing.

Brodsky, A. (1984). The simple-language bill isn't quite so simple. ABCA Bulletin 47.2, 9-10. Argument against the Pennsylvania PEL, based on the problems in the 18 tests a contract must pass.

Dayananda, J. T. (1986, January). Plain English in the United States. English Today 5, 13-16. Thorough history of the PE movement and of PEL.

Dorney, J. (1988). The plain English movement. English Journal 77.1,49-51. Provides an overview of how the PE movement is affecting different areas of life, such as federal and state legislation, and education.

Flesch, R. (198 1) How to write plain English. New York: Harper. Narrative on beginning of PE movement and guidelines to clear writing.

McArthur,T. (1993). The pedigree of plain English. The Linguist 32.6, 182-85. Extended version of address to first international PE conference held in Cambridge, England, that follows the PE movement since 1604.

Plain English in a complex society. (1990, April). Papers for a conference sponsored by the Poynter Center, Indiana University. Three papers on language, including one that discusses whether PE should be legislated. An attached bibliography was prepared for a conference, Indianapolis-Marion County Library, October 13, 1979, entitled "Plain English in a Complex Society."

Scheibal, W. J. (1986). The effectiveness of plain English laws: a legal perspective. Journal of Business Communication 23.3, 57-63. Discussion of the definition of PE in some of the laws and how enforceable these sanctions are.

Timm, P. R., & Oswald, D. (1985). Plain English laws: symbolic or real? Journal of Business Communication 22.2, 31-38. Discussion of the beginning of PEL, a study of their place in business communication classrooms, and an argument for their being worthwhile.

Gale, F. G. (1996). Teaching legal writing, doing legal writing. Journal of Business and Technical Writing 10.2. Special issue on teaching and writing legal documents.

Golen, S., Lynch, D., & Clipson, T. (1986). How to teach legal concerns in a basic business communication class. Bulletin of the Association for Business Communication 49.4, 4-8. List of the laws that could be included in a legal writing unit. Annotated bibliography of works that emphasize simplifying legal writing.

Hall, S., & Tiggeman, T. (1995). Getting the big picture: writing to learn in a finance class. Business Communication Quarterly 58.1, 12-15. Does not mention PE, but gives examples of ways to include writing in finance classes.

Rutter, R. (1985). Resources for teaching legal writing. In M.G.Moran & D. Journet (Eds). Research in technical communication: a bibliographic sourcebook (pp. 407-426). Westport: Greenwood. Exhaustive coverage of resources and of the PEL.

Charrow, V. R., & Erhardt, M. K. (1986). Clear and effective legal writing. Boston: Little, Brown. Law school textbook written by a linguist and a lawyer who are plain language specialists.

Eagleson, R. D. (1990). Writing in plain English. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service. Includes examples of legal documents written in PE.

Felsenfeld, C., & Siegel, A. (198 1). Writing contracts in plain English. St. Paul, MN: West. Authors collaborated on some of the first contracts written in PE and use real documents as examples.

Garner, B. A. (199 1). The elements of style. New York: Oxford. Handbook to aid writer in developing an effective legal style, including conciseness, clarity, revision, and tone.

Goldstein, T., & Liebermann, J. K. (1989). The lawyer's guide to writing well. New York: McGraw-l-Ell. Covers reasons for poor legal writing, ten steps in the writing process, and thorough examples of editing.

Krongold, S. (1992). Writing laws: making them easier to understand. Ottawa Law Review/Revue de Droit d'Ottawa 24.2, 495-581. Monograph by a legal drafting specialist, including sections on format and testing.

Till, P. H., & Gargiulo, A. F. (1979). Contracts: the move to plain language. American Management Association. Discusses the PE concept in general and with specific examples of rewritten documents.

Wydick, R. C. (1985). Plain English for lawyers. 2nd ed. Carolina Academic Press. Guidelines for a PE style and exercises for practice.

Allen, P. R. (1996). User attitudes toward corporate style guides: a survey. Technical Communication 43.2, 237-43. Data on the perceived benefits of using corporate style guides that allow the corporate writers to produce more professional, simpler documents in less time.

Hackos, J. T., & Winstead, J. S. (1995). Finding out what users need and giving it to them: a case-study at Federal Express. Technical Communication 42.2, 322-27. Data on productivity gains and cost savings as a result of rewriting policies and procedures manuals for Grounds Operations employees at Federal Express.

Kimble, J. (1994-95). Answering the critics of plain language. Scribes Journal of Legal Writing 5, 51-85. Defense of the use of PE in government and legal documents.

Kimble, J. (1996-97). Writing for dollars, writing to please. Scribes Journal of Legal Writing 6, 1-38. Summaries of studies of costs of poor writing in business, government, and law.

Kimble, J. (1992). Plain English: a charter for clear writing. Thomas M. Cooley Law Review 9, 1-58. Includes myths about PE, what is happening around the world, and study of judges’ preferences for documents written in PE.

U.S. Department of Commerce. (1984). How plain English works for business: twelve case studies. Washington, DC: GPO. Seven studies of businesses and five of insurance companies using PE.

Journal of Business Communication (Fall 1981). 18.4. Special issue on readability that includes articles from the Document Design Center and one about lawyers and readability.

Responses to the readability issue. (1982). Journal of Business Communication 19.2, 51-59. Responses include one by a drafter of the Connecticut PEL.

Anson, C. M., & Forsberg, L. L. (1990). Moving beyond the academic community. Written Communication 7.2, 200-3 1. Variety of tests on writing done by corporate interns on the job.

Burnett, R. (Ed.). (1994). Document testing: planning, training, and implementing.

Bulletin of the Association of Business Communication 62.4, 47-58.

Detailed discussion of testsof nonacademic writing.

Charrow, V. R., & Charrow, R. (1979). Making legal language understandable: a psycholinguistic study of jury instructions. Columbia Law Review 79, 1306-74. Study of jurors finding that linguistic analysis is more important than readability formulas in revising text.

Daniel, R. (1995). Revising letters to veterans. Technical Communication 42. 1, 69-75. Testing original and rewritten versions of one letter with archival data and interviews with Veterans Benefits Counselors.

Harr, J., & Kossack, S. (1990). Employee benefit packages: how understandable are they? Journal of Business Communication 27.2, 185-200. Testing benefits packages of Fortune 500 companies; the readability and comprehensibility levels exceeded those of the average employee.

Martindale, B. C., Koch, B. S., & Karlinsky, S. S. (1992). Tax law complexity: the impact of style. Journal o fBusiness Communication 29.4, 3 83 -400. Results of standard readability tests and suggestions for drafting tax laws.

Matchett, M., & Ray, M. L. (1989). Revising IRS publications: a case study. Technical Communications 35, 332-340. Includes readability testing.

Mendelson, M. (1987). Business prose and the nature of the plain style. Journal of Business Communication 24.2, 3-18. Argument that the definition of a plain style of business writing might be too narrow. Variety of stylistic options offered as an alternative to readability formulas.

Redish, J., & Ramey, J. A. (Eds.). (1995). Special section: measuring the value added by professional technical communicators. Technical Communication 42. 1. Articles include hypotheses for further study and a variety of methods for communicators to show how they add value.

Suchan, J. (1998). The effect of high-impact writing on decision making within a public sector bureaucracy. Journal of Business Communication 35.2, 299-327. Testing at a federal agency to see who makes better decisions: readers of high impact or low impact writing.

Suchan, J., & Colucci, R. (1989). An analysis of communication efficiency between high impact and bureaucratic written communication. Management Communication Quarterly 2.4, 454-84. Testing naval officers to learn which documents took less time to read and were easier to comprehend.

French, German, Italian, Portuguese or Spanish translation of this page