Jill Campbell: “Reconsidering the Role of Plain Style in Technical Writing”
April 6, 2005
(Source: Orange: A Student Journal of Technical Communication Online, University of
Washington, Seattle. http://orange.eserver.org/issues/3-1/campbell.html)
According to the technical writing textbook used in the Introductory to Technical
Writing class I teach, there are two purposes and at least five audiences of technical
documents. Yet students are taught only one style of writing to satisfy all writing
situations: the plain style. This essay examines the history and current state of plain
style's role in technical writing. It further discusses plain style's relation to rhetorical and
instrumental approaches to technical communication, and finally offers writing teachers a
new approach to plain style and instrumental language in technical writing.
The first page of the textbook for the Introduction to Technical Writing class that
I teach says, "technical writing has only two purposes: (1) to inform and (2) to argue"
(Pearsall 3). The book further identifies five types of audiences that students should
consider when writing, all of which may have varying characteristics (Pearsall 6). Despite
the wide variety of purposes and audiences a technical writer may have, the book
presents only one style of writing--clear, precise writing, often referred to as the plain
style of writing. While the goal of plain style--known interchangeably as "plain English"
or "plain language"—is to reduce turgid, abstruse language in writing, this "one size fits
all" approach seems to disregard the fact that writing clearly and precisely may not
always be useful in all contexts. In some circumstances—particularly when writing to
argue or persuade—rhetorical devices may be preferred over the plain style of writing. In
class, however, writing clearly and precisely is emphasized, while writing persuasively,
1
for example, is never addressed. The plain English style dominates the curriculum of this
class.
While my personal interest in plain style is its role in technical writing classes,
plain English's reach goes far beyond the classroom. On June 1, 1998, President Clinton
released a memo stating government agencies must use the plain language style in their
writing and communications. The order states that use of plain language will "make the
Government more responsive, accessible, and understandable in its communications with
the public" (Clinton, par. 1) and will "save the Government and the private sector time,
effort, and money" (Clinton, par. 2). Subsequently, under Vice President Gore, a Plain
Language Action Network was established to promote this plain style of writing. As in
my technical writing class, the plain English style dominates government writing—or at
least, that is the government's aim.
George Orwell warned against political uses of language in his 1946 essay
"Politics and the English Language." Although Orwell himself promoted the use of a
plain style of writing and would likely support Clinton's plain language dictum, Orwell's
critical analysis of language should be applied to all styles of language—particularly a
style that now seems to dominate our classrooms and our government. In this paper I will
examine the debates surrounding the styles of writing taught in technical writing classes,
with the intention of determining which styles are most appropriate for teaching
undergraduate technical writing students. First I will define and examine the history of
the style most frequently taught in my class: plain language. Then I will examine the
theoretical debates and empirical research surrounding the use of both plain language and
2
rhetoric in technical writing. This debate about style will reveal a larger issue of
pedagogy in the field of technical communication.
In his 1998 memo, President Clinton stated that plain language uses "common,
everyday words, except for necessary technical terms; ‘you’ and other pronouns; the
active voice; and short sentences" (par. 3). The Elements of Technical Writing, the
introductory technical writing text used in my class, echoes the president's statements
almost exactly, though does not refer to this plain style as such: "prefer the active voice,"
"use personal pronouns," "use action verbs," "use a reasonable sentence length" (Pearsall
24-31). These imperatives are also reflected in Orwell's list of rules (8) in "Politics and
the English Language," written a half-century earlier.
These prescriptive rules of plain style are more commonly known than the
descriptive characteristics. That is, the grammar rules are well known and easy to learn;
however, the changes to the language that tend to occur as a result of the use of plain
style are less well known. For example, the "common, everyday" vocabulary that the
former president and others recommend tends to prefer Germanic vocabulary to Latinate
terms (e.g., "use" instead of "utilize") and phrasal verbs over the "one-word, usually
Latinate, synonyms" (e.g., "fill in" instead of "complete") (Thrush 293). One researcher
notes that "the 100 most-used words in English are all Germanic in origin" (Thrush 292).
In addition, the subject, verb, and object in a plain-style sentence are kept in close
proximity, while extraneous modifiers are kept to a minimum (Tebeaux 128). Knowing
both the prescriptive and descriptive characteristics is helpful in the later discussion of
plain style's benefits and weaknesses in technical writing.
3
A Brief History of Plain Style
Although plain language has now been instituted by our government, it has not
always been the preferred style for scientific writing. Most theorists today consider
Francis Bacon the progenitor of the plain language movement in scientific writing.[1]
Before Bacon, "what passed for science rested not on experimentation but rather on the
authority of the ancients" and rhetorical debates (Rutter 140). Although Bacon did
include "rhetoric among the strong branches of human knowledge," he criticized these
"followers of Cicero, who, he says, “‘hunt more after words than matter'" (Zappen 244).
According to Bacon, Cicero separated logic from rhetoric and in doing so "rhetoric
became an empty and verbal art" (qtd. in Zappen 246). Thus, Bacon discouraged the use
of such empty rhetoric in scientific writing, supporting a clear, concise style instead.
Bacon's support for a plain style of writing in scientific documents was adopted
by the Royal Society, Britain's academy of science, in the seventeenth century. Plain style
supporters of the time "were attracted to the idea of creating a language that would
represent the world of nature as directly as mathematical signs represent the universe of
mathematics" (Rutter 141). This idea of language as a means of reflecting reality has
been referred to by some as the "windowpane theory of language" (Miller 611) and is
often associated with a positivist view of science—that truth can be known only through
observation. Since the seventeenth century, this positivist view and the plain style of
writing have reigned in scientific and technical communities.
Plain Language, Rhetoric, and Technical Writing
Since the late twentieth century these positivist notions and the predominance of
the plain style in scientific and technical writing have been questioned. The debate has
4
been waged on both theoretical and empirical research fronts. Although many theorists
have commented on the role of rhetoric and plain style in technical writing, two theorists
in particular exemplify the extremes of this disagreement: Carolyn R. Miller and Patrick
Moore. Miller and supporting theorists John Frederick Reynolds, Russell Rutter, and Jack
Bushnell argue that all writing is rhetorical and should be taught as such to technical
writing students. In contrast, Patrick Moore and supporting theorist John Hagge suggest
that students ought to be taught how to write to succeed on the job, which typically
involves promoting instrumental uses of language and focusing on the plain style of
writing. In addition, empirical researcher Emily A. Thrush offers her research-supported
opinion about the usefulness of the plain style of writing. A closer look at all these
opinions is warranted.
In 1979, Miller wrote the seminal "A Humanistic Rationale for Technical
Writing," in which she argues for the teaching of rhetorical devices in technical writing
classes and against "the common opinion that the undergraduate technical writing course
is a ‘skills' course" (610) that teaches "recipes" for writing (614). In this essay, Miller
also argues for replacing the generally accepted positivist notion of science with
relativism: "a new epistemology has challenged the positivist conception of knowledge.
This new epistemology makes human knowledge thoroughly relative and science
fundamentally rhetorical" (615). In Miller's view, because truth is relative, writing is
rhetorical; and therefore, the windowpane theory of writing--in which clear, concise text
acts as a window to reality—clearly is faulty.
Other theorists echo Miller's support for the teaching of rhetoric rather than
"recipes." John Frederick Reynolds not only calls for the teaching of rhetorical devices
5
but believes that all of classical rhetoric provides a solid foundation for technical
communication students. In "Classical Rhetoric and the Teaching of Technical Writing,"
Reynolds details the usefulness of rhetoric and dialectic; ethos, pathos, and logos; and the
five cannons for technical writing, arguing that "Classical rhetoric can offer a coherent
theory, a systematic framework, and a useful vocabulary for the teaching of technical
writing" (71).
Russell Rutter supports this use of classical rhetoric in technical writing classes
and, in his 1991 article "History, Rhetoric, and Humanism: Toward a More
Comprehensive Definition of Technical Communication," takes this approach to
education one step further. Rutter believes that "technical communication needs to
associate itself with that heightened form of conversation called liberal education. It
needs to associate itself more closely with the traditions of rhetoric and humane learning"
(135). Thus, technical writing students ought to study classical rhetoric in the course of a
liberal arts education as a whole. In Rutter's opinion, technical writers need to "be
educated as human beings, not just users of systems" (135).
Technical writing Professor Jack Bushnell holds a similar view. In "A Contrary
View of the Technical Writing Classroom: Notes Toward Future Discussion," Bushnell
argues for a technical writing program that teaches students how to think critically about
what they and others write. Because he believes the role of the university is to enlighten
students, not simply train them, he argues for a program that teaches students how to be
thinkers, not just doers (175). In Bushnell's theory, teaching students writing skills and
the plain style would be teaching them only how to write well, not necessarily how to
think well. Bushnell comments that from his own professional career he "learned that
6
there is no such thing as a neutral, merely informative document; all writing is
‘positioning'" (176). Bushnell describes how he teaches his students that when they write,
they are not merely transmitters of information; they are the creators of information:
"they are writing themselves, they are writing company policy, and they are writing
future decisions" (176).
In support of this critical thinking approach to teaching technical writing, Rutter
provides additional, though anecdotal, evidence from industry. In talking to a project
manager, Rutter discovered the manager was dissatisfied with the education of recent
graduates. The problem wasn't with the graduates' writing competency, for that he found
satisfactory; rather, he said the graduates were lacking problem-solving skills and an
ability to work with others (133). Rutter also cites studies about the Challenger disaster
that suggest "there is more to technical communication than proficiency in writing, more
even than knowing facts" (134). Rutter states that "application without theory at best
wastes time, resources, and psychic energy" (138). The liberal arts education that Rutter
promotes and the critical thinking approach that Bushnell promotes would help resolve
this problem.
In his article "Rhetorical vs. Instrumental Approaches to Teaching Technical
Communication," Patrick Moore also cites anecdotal evidence to support his theory.
Interestingly, however, his anecdotal evidence is in direct opposition to Rutter's. Moore
describes an industry panel, hosted by the STC, that argued that technical communication
graduates do not write as well as graduates in other fields (164). Moore then suggests, in
stark contrast to the above theorists, that the problem with technical communication
today is not a lack of a liberal arts education or the lack of training in classical rhetoric.
7
Rather, Moore suggests that technical communication programs today are actually
teaching too much theory at the expense of teaching useable, instrumental writing skills,
which clearly and concisely relate technical information to readers.
Because, according to Moore, "classical rhetoric has little to do with many kinds
of present-day communication" (164), students ought to be taught task-oriented writing
skills instead of persuasion-oriented writing skills. Although Moore does not mention the
plain style specifically, it is generally accepted that instrumental discourse, which "shows
a user how to perform an action" (166) without confusion or supporting arguments, often
uses plain style to achieve these ends. Unfortunately, rather than emphasize the benefits
of instrumental discourse and the plain style, Moore fills his discourse with
condemnations of rhetoric. In addition, Moore contends that rhetoric is emphasized by
academics simply because "one's chances of publishing anything about technical
communication will be increased if a person mentions the importance of rhetoric and
argumentation in technical communication" (164). Moore has turned a theoretical debate
into what seems a personal vendetta, which, one could argue, damages considerably his
ethos and thus the validity of his argument.
Although he is extremely outspoken and at times brash, Moore is not alone in his
support for instrumental uses of language. In his commentary on the Moore-Miller
debate, John Hagge supports Moore's instrumental approach to technical writing. Like
Moore, Hagge discourages the teaching of rhetoric in favor of teaching instrumental
forms of writing; in addition, he says believing that all writing is rhetorical can actually
have "harmful consequences" (463). Instead, Hagge supports, what he calls, a "realist"
view of language, stating that technical writers have an ethical responsibility "to remain
8
true to the facts of the external reality that underpins their uses of language" (470).
Although Hagge prefers the term modified scientific realism to positivism, his theory
nevertheless seems to imply a positivist notion of reality—that an external reality exists
and can be transmitted to others through clear, concise language. Perhaps Hagge uses the
new term to avoid allying himself with oft-despised positivists in a world of theory
dominated by relativists. No matter what term Hagge uses to describe his theory, his
support of Moore's instrumental writing approach to technical writing is certain.
While the theoretical debates surrounding the uses of language in technical
writing abound, empirical researchers also have weighed in on this style debate.
Numerous texts, and even our government, have declared that plain language allows
readers to understand texts on the first reading (Plain Language Action Network par. 2;
Mazur 205; Tebeaux 127); however, some research has proven otherwise. For example,
Emily A. Thrush's "A Study of Plain English Vocabulary and International Audiences"
concludes that plain language may not be the most suitable writing style for all audiences,
particularly speakers of English as a second language. Thrush's study of French and
German speakers show that the French speakers, whose language has Latin roots, had
increased difficulty in understanding phrasal verbs and Germanic words, which are
common replacements for Latinate vocabulary in plain English (292-3). This study shows
that "there may be features of Plain English that are less applicable when the intended
audience consists of nonnative speakers of English or speakers of other dialects of
English" (295). Although many theorists promote plain style as a way to provide a clear
"window" to reality, Thrush's study strongly suggests this is not always the case.
9
A "Progressive" Approach
Technical communication writing styles and classroom curricula—particularly as
exemplified by Moore and Miller's theories—have been debated for nearly a quarter of a
century seemingly to no avail. Moore supporters to this day still are defending Moore's
instrumental theory; Miller supporters to this day still are defending Miller's rhetorical
approach to technical communication. I propose that it is now time to put this debate, and
the corresponding vitriolic remarks between parties, to rest. Despite the differences in the
underlying philosophical notions of reality and theories of education, I believe, as
technical writing teachers, we can find both theories useful in our classrooms. I propose
to view Moore and Miller's theories of technical writing as a progression rather than a
dichotomy--steps in a chronology of learning rather than a choice between two extremes.
In other words, the writing skills students learn in Moore's theory provide the foundation
students need in order to discuss writing on a more theoretical, critical level, as suggested
in Miller's theory. Students cannot thoughtfully analyze writing until they have
established basic writing skills.
Moore and Hagge's instrumental, skills-based approach, however, undeniably
implies a theory of education that encourages job training rather than critical thinking.
Many educators find this view of education distasteful, preferring a more liberal-arts
approach to education; and yet, few will deny that today many students attend college
solely for job training. (A quick scan of the numbers of business majors compared to
philosophy majors at any major university provides evidence alone. The rise in popularity
of job-training universities like the University of Phoenix, however, provides additional
evidence.) Therefore, for a university to thrive, it must respond to this demand for job
10
training. However, responsible educators will go beyond job training and foster the
critical thinking skills that distinguish a college graduate from a high school graduate.
Moore notes that instrumental writing can be just as humanistic as rhetorical
writing, if not more so, citing medical and other life-or-death instructions as examples
("Instrumental Discourse" 112-13). A student trained in instrumental writing in Moore's
classroom no doubt will be able to write such instructions clearly and precisely.
However, a student trained in both instrumental writing and critical analysis in the
classroom I propose will be able to not only write the instructions clearly but also notice
if the instructions and the logic behind them are faulty or require a different style of
writing, which is where plain style re-enters our discussion. A student trained solely in
instrumental writing may not have the critical thinking skills or rhetorical training
necessary to recognize that some of the plain English words he or she has used in
instructions are not well understood by, say, an ESL speaker. A student trained in writing
skills and critical thinking, on the other hand, will likely be able to notice such an error.
I believe an instrumental approach to language and the plain style of writing do
have benefits for introductory technical writing students. They teach students basic
writing skills that they may not otherwise have. However, along with teaching these skills
and the plain style of writing, students need to be exposed to other styles of writing,
theories of writing, and what they mean to technical communicators. Perhaps as technical
writing teachers, we can finally find solace in reconciling the worlds of Moore and Miller
with this "progressive" approach to teaching technical writing. More importantly, we can
feel confident that our students will leave our classrooms with a full understanding of the
impact their writing can have.
11
Works Cited
Clinton, William J. Presidential memorandum on Plain Language. 1 June 1998.
<http://www.plainlanguage.gov/cites/memo.htm>.
Hagge, John. "Ethics, Words, and the World in Moore's and Miller's Accounts of
Scientific and Technical Discourse." Journal of Business and Technical
Communication 10.4 (1996): 461-75.
Mazur, Beth. "Revisiting Plain Language." Technical Communication 47.2 (2000): 20511.
Miller, Carolyn R. "A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing." College English 40
(1979): 610-17.
Moore, Patrick. "Instrumental Discourse Is as Humanistic as Rhetoric." Journal of
Business and Technical Communication 10.1 (1996): 100-18.
------. "Rhetorical vs. Instrumental Approaches to Teaching Technical Communication."
Technical Communication 44.2 (1997): 163-73.
Orwell, George [Eric Blair]. "Politics and the English Language." EServer.
http://eserver.org/langs/politics-english-language.txt (1946).
Pearsall, Thomas E. The Elements of Technical Writing. 2nd ed. Boston: Allyn & Bacon,
2001.
Plain Language Action Network. About Us. 1 August 2001.
<http://www.plainlanguage.gov/plain.htm>
Reynolds, John Frederick. "Classical Rhetoric and the Teaching of Technical Writing."
Technical Communication Quarterly 1.2 (1992): 63-76.
Rutter, Russell. "History, Rhetoric, and Humanism: Toward a More Comprehensive
Definition of Technical Communication." Journal of Technical Writing and
Communication 21.2 (1991): 133-53.
Tebeaux, Elizabeth. "The Voices of English Women Technical Writers, 1641-1700:
Imprints in the Evolution of Modern English Prose Style." Technical
Communication Quarterly (1998): 125-52.
Thrush, Emily A. "Plain English? A Study of Plain English Vocabulary and International
Audiences." Technical Communication 48.3 (2001): 289-96.
Zappen, James P. "Francis Bacon and the Rhetoric of Science." College Composition and
Communication 26.3 (1975): 244-47.
12
[1] Elizabeth Tebeaux is one theorist who would dispute Bacon's role as the father of
plain style in technical writing. In "The Voices of English Women Technical Writers,
1641-1700: Imprints in the Evolution of Modern English Prose," Tebeaux suggests that
many female writers before Bacon wrote using the plain style for instructional purposes;
later, Bacon merely "articulated the value of plain style" (148).
13