Plain Language Around Plain Language
The Local Government Association has issued a list of 200 words and phrases banned from communications. Here’s the BBC story. And the full list of banned words is here.
While I doubt that any of us will miss predictors of beaconicity, I do wonder at a few of the selections. “Advocate”, for example – what are we going to use instead. “Ask for” does not lend the same weight.
Already I feel myself wandering down the path trod by colleagues during a plain language course I took a few years ago. (Insert your favourite “lawyers and plain language” joke here). Agreed, there are times when community engagement is impeded by the use of bafflegab, but there are words here that may serve a purpose from time to time.
How can government operate without the word priority? Take the word away, you risk losing the concept, do you not? Welcome made the list. Don’t get that at all. Frankly, I’d like to hear it a little more frequently from government!
I agree that some of the words or phrases on the list are a lot more objectionable than others. Some sound to me as if they have just been overused to the point that they have become meaningless to the people who compiled the list. A number of others are probably listed because they are used to exaggerate the benefits of the activities with which they are associated. If you claim you are enhancing consumer confidence often enough, you stop meaning anything useful.
It would have been helpful to have a couple of choice examples of the misuse of some of the terms, though some are obvious. OTOH I don’t know what predictors of beaconicity are, so an example would help there too. But I am unlikely to fall into using the phrase, either.
A lot can be gained from proper application of plain language principles, and in a way it’s a shame to give lawyers (especially) an excuse not to take them seriously, as this list does.
Back in the late 80’s when I was in a totally different field (social services) in the UK, I helped rewrite a brochure aimed at the local populace that purported to describe what our little section of social services did.
The original brochure had tied itself up in linguistic knots thanks to the inevitable departmental jargon (what is a “domiciliary carer” anyway?) and the attempt to use non-offensive language, which involved replacing well-understood, if outdated – and therefore defacto offensive – descriptions (like “client”) with obscure jargon (“user”) that merely served to hide the meaning and confuse our intended clients, uh, I mean users.
I cautiously welcome this reconfigured iteration of our paradigm for engaging users. Championing citizen empowerment and incentivising dialogue can only enhance community engagement and facilitate our core message. Going forward, we must leverage these good practice guidelines to promulgate a streamlined, participatory, evidence based, and transformational functionality. By thinking outside the box and normalising more multidisciplinary synergies, we can enable meaningful consultation mechanisms and partnerships to level the playing field and procure our strategic priorities. Proactive, sustainable governance should be our overarching priority, with the customer as the benchmark and fulcrum of best practices. That’s both visionary and value-added.
Nicely put, Alex. But will we have better outcomes in predicting beaconicity, is what I want to know.
Beaconicity? I thought it was baconicity. Well, then, nevermind.