Tony Davis

Simple-Talk Editor
News, views and good brews

A Plea for Plain English

Published Friday, February 05, 2010 10:54 AM

The English language has, within a lifetime, emerged as the ubiquitous 'international language' of scientific, political and technical communication. On the one hand, learning a single, common language, International English, has made it much easier to participate in and adopt new technologies; on the other hand it must be exasperating to have to use English at international conferences, or on community sites, when your own language has a long tradition of scientific and technical usage. It is also hard to master the subtleties of using a foreign language to explain advanced ideas.

This requires English speakers to be more considerate in their writing. Even if you’re used to speaking English, you may be brought up short by this sort of verbiage…

"Business Intelligence delivering actionable insights is becoming more critical in the enterprise, and these insights require large data volumes for trending and forecasting"

It takes some imagination to appreciate the added hassle in working out what it means, when English is a language you only use at work. Try, just to get a vague feel for it, using Google Translate to translate it from English to Chinese and back again.

"Providing actionable business intelligence point of view is becoming more and more and more business critical, and requires that these insights and projected trends in large amounts of data"

Not easy eh? If you normally use a different language, you will need to pause for thought before finally working out that it really means …

"Every Business Intelligence solution must be able to help companies to make decisions. In order to detect current trends, and accurately predict future ones, we need to analyze large volumes of data"

Surely, it is simple politeness for English speakers to stop peppering their writing with a twisted vocabulary that renders it inaccessible to everyone else.

It isn’t just the problem of writers who use long words to give added dignity to their prose. It is the use of Colloquial English. This changes and evolves at a dizzying rate, adding new terms and idioms almost daily; it is almost a new and separate language. By contrast, ‘International English', is gradually evolving separately, at its own, more sedate, pace. As such, all native English speakers need to make an effort to learn, and use it, switching from casual colloquial patter into a simpler form of communication that can be widely understood by different cultures, even if it gives you less credibility on the street.

Simple-Talk is based, at least in part, on the idea that technical articles can be written simply and clearly in a form of English that can be easily understood internationally, and that they can be written, with a little editorial help, by anyone, and read by anyone, regardless of their native language.

Cheers,

Tony.

Comments

 

hugosheb said:

Yes, I can see your point - and am wondering if this is inspired by Govt.s Plain English Initiative?  Certainly the Data Protection Act or it's easy to read version, enforced by the UK's ICO, is showing a good example, as dicussed here in my post about the EU Data Retention Directive : http://www.sqlservercentral.com/blogs/hugo/archive/2010/01/10/house-of-commons-justice-committee-related-to-the-european-union-s-data-protection-retention-directives.aspx  Question is however, at what expense of eloquence do we have to aim in achieving this 'easier to read English'?  Perhaps simply re-iteration of the main points in both simplistic and eloquent (verbose) language would satify a wider range of readers.
February 7, 2010 7:24 PM
 

Jimbabwe said:

First to Tony: This is a problem that is not limited to technology, but to all branches of science. Unfortunately, it is compounded by two factors. The first is the use of a specific discipline's jargon by people who are under-schooled in English to begin with. It makes it laughable, when it isn't pathetic, to see the sentences they come up with, thinking they are being sophisticated. The second factor is the promotion of such jargon by the various specialties, when it does nothing at all to enhance the meaning of what is being described. Just as an example, what's the point of a doctor telling a patient they have seborrheic dermatitis, when he really means "you have bad dandruff?"

Secondly, to hugosheb: Verbosity does not equal eloquence. There is nothing eloquent about stringing together a long sentence that is difficult to understand. That is especially true when the sentence is broken down to its simplest meaning, and you discover that it doesn't really have a meaning. That is neither helpful nor insightful nor eloquent. Using big words and jargon, or frequently even misusing them is just another way of demonstrating that one is clueless about the intent and use of language as a way of sharing ideas. Eloquence is being able to say what you mean in the clearest of terms. It involves syntax plus cultural, technical, and human understanding, as well as a rich vocabulary. That allows one to select the most accurate words needed to convey complex ideas in the simplest ways. At least, that's the way I see it. And I'm usually more verbose than eloquent!

February 7, 2010 11:08 PM
 

pjones said:

The problem is the failure of the education system to teach the Queen's english and the correct grammar and use of the language. Our language is constantly abused and mis-used and mis-pronounced in all walks of life. The invention of verbs from nouns, such as "trending" in the example above, is a common fault of those attempting to impress and obfuscate with words. For those for whom english is not the first language this must be a nightmare as no dictionary will contain that verb.
In speech even a simple word such as library is mis-pronounced lie bree and affect and effect are constantly mis-used.
Many of those who have learned english as a second language understand and use our grammar better than native english speakers. This formal education needs to return to British schools instead of allowing more and more pupils to leave unable to communicate other than in gutter text speak.
And don't get me started on the abuse of the apostrophe!
February 8, 2010 3:12 AM
 

David K Allen said:

Thank you for this article. Simple writing is not only good for non-native speakers, it helps native speakers as well. Some of my most valuable collaborators are people whose native language is German, Russian, French, etc... I WANT them to be able to understand my points easily.

One source of bad English is marketing literature. Markteters are not merely careless. They deliberately choose pompous words to inflate the sophistication of the products they sell. And they invent new words every month.  I do not know why they do that. I would be more eager to buy if they told me the benefits in simpler language.
February 8, 2010 7:51 AM
 

Arles said:

At least we can all agree with the simplicity and universality of:

 SELECT * FROM MyTable

A T-SQL is worth a thousand words...
February 8, 2010 2:49 PM
 

timothyawiseman@gmail.com said:

Tony, as always you make some beautiful points.  Some people deliberately use obtuse and obscure phrases in an attempt to make themselves sound more intelligent, or at times even to deliberately confuse the conversation and intentionally obscure their meaning.  Such usage is is counterproductive.

However, there are times when jargon is appropriate and helpful.  For instance, I would not expect most people outside of the database world to have any clue what "third normal form" was (much less 3NF).  And yet there simply is no other simple phrase I can substitute for it with as much evocative power.  If I were to try to avoid that bit of jargon with another database professional I would at best make the conversation take much longer and could actually obscure, rather than clarify, my comments.  When I must avoid it with a non-technical person, I say something like "structure the data in a way that avoids certain errors and can make it smaller" which is both much longer and much less precise than "3NF".

One must always consider your audience when having a conversation and consider careful whether the jargon will help or hinder the conversation.
February 8, 2010 2:54 PM
 

timothyawiseman@gmail.com said:

Pjones, I am a major fan of the use or proper grammar and pronunciation, but one very large obstacle towards that is deciding what is proper.  You hint at this with your very choice of words "Queen's english."  What is proper in Britain is not always considered proper in the USA or Australia.  (I have to teach every spellchecker I deal with here that I really do intend to spell colour with a u.)  In fact, what is considered proper pronunciation in one part of the US can be considered wrong in another, or at least mark you as being from a different region.  

Moreover, English is constantly evolving, and unlike say French, we do not have one single authority that can define what is correct and what is not.  So what is incorrect yesterday may be accepted tomorrow.

None of this excuses being wrong out of laziness, but it does mean that things are complicated when you try to be right, and even studious people make mistakes from time to time.

Ironically though, entertainment seems to be helping with this.  It seems to be very slowly homogenizing English as each country exports their movies, books, tv shows, etc causing people to come into regular contact with the other dialects of English that they would only have rarely seen in times with less facile communication networks.

February 8, 2010 3:05 PM
 

puzsol said:

One of the eternal problems with English is that it can be such an imprecise language for communicating meaning.  I know that in legal circles they have developed a particular manner of expression that while difficult to understand for most of us, it is VERY careful with what it actually does say.  Of course in this field it is very important to make it impossible for anyone to interpret it in a way other than intended.  For example have you read any license agreements recently?  Easy to understand?  I don't think so.  Can you argue for a different interpretation of the points?  Again, I doubt it.  

I think the problem you are describing comes from this intention of conveying exact meaning in scientific circles as well... and where this is hard we invent terms that do convey an EXACT meaning for all who understand it.  Unfortunately this is probably necessary to some extent.  But hey, if everything we talk about can be expressed as a SQL query or mathematical equation, we won't have any confusion... or should that be
select * from conversation where sql = 1 or math = 1 having confusion = 0
February 8, 2010 6:28 PM
 

randyvol said:

Tony -

Well said.  Enough said.

Randyvol
February 9, 2010 7:12 AM
 

Alex_Kuznetsov said:

I liked this, but this contradicts some of advice from one the previous articles on this site:

http://www.simple-talk.com/sql/t-sql-programming/laying-out-sql-code/

like this: "the use of a collective name for the entities within a table is best".

Even native speakers get confused whether a collective for employees is Team or Party. What is the collective for bikes - Gang or Team? Table School in scentific context - is it for fish or for universities? Not to mention that collective names complicate code generation.
February 9, 2010 10:49 AM
 

Phil Factor said:

I think I'm the guilty party of Alex's post.  Actually, database naming is a good example where clarity of language is very important, but it is a different issue to scientific communication, because Database names are, I think, better in the dominant language of the country that the database is to be used in.
Samuel Johnson famously said 'I take my shoes from the shoemaker, my coat from the tailor, and my religion from the priest.' In the same way, if a standards authority comes up with a recommendation, I tend to follow it obediently!
February 9, 2010 2:22 PM
 

Alex_Kuznetsov said:

Phil,

Following your analogy, if your shoes fit you well enough, then surely use them. Unfortunately, thoise shoes do not fit our teams very well. The standards based on 30 years old research done in NASA or some Defense Department might not be relevant today. A typical team today incorporates people from many different countries. Some in their native languages write from top to bottom, some are used to writing from right to left. Have those old standards been verified against a modern multicultural team?

A typical modern workstation has at least two monitors, many have two or more 30-inch ones. Also when we hover the cursor over an object's name, its definition pops up. All this relaxes and changes the requirements for programming style.

Not to mention that programming style in general has dramatically changed during the last decade, and T-SQL coding style should catch up with the rest of the world.
February 11, 2010 2:30 PM
 

Links for the Week – 2010.02.12 | Jeremiah Peschka, SQL Server Developer said:

February 13, 2010 6:09 PM
 

mjswart said:

George Orwell wrote an amazing essay called Politics and the English Language. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_and_the_English_Language

At the risk of getting him wrong, his thesis is that when language gets sloppy, thinking gets sloppy. When a person is plain-spoken then it's easier to see the merits or disadvantages of what they're saying.

Those intrigued by Tony's article would also enjoy reading George Orwell's essay in full.
February 16, 2010 8:39 AM
 

Tony Davis said:

Why are so many blogs about IT so difficult to read? Over at SQLServerCentral.com, we do a special subscription-only...
March 19, 2010 5:53 AM
You need to sign in to comment on this blog


















<February 2010>
SuMoTuWeThFrSa
31123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
28123456
78910111213
Raw Materials: Command-Line Nostalgia
 Arthur finds philosophy deep in a dialog box. Read more...

Increasing Email Size Limits for your High Profile Users in Exchange 2010
 If you ever need to set up fine-grained rules to control the maximum size of messages a subset of your... Read more...

Product Review: Schema Compare for Oracle
 One of the more important tasks in the process of rolling out incremental developments to a... Read more...

Implementing the OUTPUT Clause in SQL Server 2008
 In retrospect, it was probably the inclusion of the OUTPUT clause in the MERGE statement that gave... Read more...

SQL Source Control: The Development Story
 Often, there is a huge difference between software being easy to use, and easy to develop. When your... Read more...