User:Npaulino/sandbox

This will be the shared Sandbox for the article (Plain English)

Tdemeola
I moved my work on the United States section and my revised United Kingdom section to the mainspace. Feel free to use (or leave out if you feel it's unrelated!) that paragraph I posted under my Week 12 posting for the Etymology section as well.

It was great working with you on this assignment! Tdemeola (talk) 14:57, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Npaulino
I added the Criticism and Example sections as well as adding in the edit to the Etymology section. I used the paragraph for the example section, I feel as though it fits there.

Likewise, thanks for all your help! Npaulino (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments
I think that with that added information, it would be a good idea to leave the Etymology section alone as it feels much more complete now. I have also rearranged and reworded the United Kingdom section (mainly to remove unnecessary language and put some events in chronological order).

"We could possibly add this information about writing in Plain English to the etymology section (or maybe the examples section, I'm not entirely sure) in order to outline the attributes of a text written in Plain English."

Etymology
The movement towards writing in Plain English has prompted some to create guidelines. Law professor, Joseph Kimble, wrote a set of guidelines in October 2002 in order to explain the elements of a text written in Plain English. Some of these elements include omitting unnecessary details, using examples when appropriate or needed, minimizing cross-references, using more familiar words, preferring short sentence structure and utilizing active voice rather than passive voice.

"I also think that the United Kingdom section needed a little cleaning up and should be rewritten without the unnecessary language."

United Kingdom
In 1946, writer George Orwell wrote an essay entitled "Politics and the English Language", where he criticized the dangers of "ugly and inaccurate" contemporary written English. The essay focuses particularly on politics where pacification can be used to mean, "...defenceless villages are bombarded from the air, the inhabitants driven out into the countryside, the cattle machine-gunned, the huts set on fire with incendiary bullets...".

In 1948, HM Treasury asked Sir Ernest Gowers to provide a guide to officials on avoiding pompous and over-elaborate writing. He wrote, "writing is an instrument for conveying ideas from one mind to another; the writer's job is to make his reader apprehend his meaning readily and precisely."


 * This next paragraph is pretty irrelevant that talks about the publication of his books so I think that should be removed totally.**

Gowers argued that legal English was a special case, saying that legal drafting:

"...is a science, not an art; it lies in the province of mathematics rather than of literature, and its practice needs long apprenticeship. It is prudently left to a specialised legal branch of the Service. The only concern of the ordinary official is to learn to understand it, to act as interpreter of it to ordinary people, and to be careful not to let his own style of writing be tainted by it..."

There is a trend toward plainer language in legal documents. Plain English Campaign has been campaigning since 1979 "against gobbledygook, jargon and misleading public information. The campaign has helped many government departments and other official organisations with their documents, reports and publications. They believe that everyone should have access to clear and concise information." The 1999 "Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts" regulations mandate "plain and intelligible" language.

An inquiry into the 2005 London bombings recommended that emergency services should always use plain English. It found that verbosity can lead to misunderstandings that could cost lives.

Tdemeola (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Comments
I agree with the idea to leave the etymology section now that with the new information it is much more complete. As for the new addition while I like it I'm unsure if it belongs in etymology since it's not purely defining the origins of a word or phrase's meaning, so I will try putting it in the examples section

Examples
The movement towards writing in Plain English has prompted some to create guidelines. Law professor, Joseph Kimble, wrote a set of guidelines in October 2002 in order to explain the elements of a text written in Plain English. Some of these elements include omitting unnecessary details, using examples when appropriate or needed, minimizing cross-references, using more familiar words, preferring short sentence structure and utilizing active voice rather than passive voice. Examples of some of these changes are provided on the Plain English Campaign's website of text before and after being converted into Plain English: "After this of course would be the extended etymology section"

Etymology
The term derives from the 16th-century idiom "in plain English", meaning "in clear, straightforward language".(link to source 1 in article) Another name for the term, layman's terms is derived from the idiom "in Layman's terms" which refers to language phrased simply enough that a Layman, or common person, can understand.(wiktionary pages)"lastly of course is just to finish up making the criticism section"

Criticism
In her 1992 publication for the Australian Journal of Communication titled, "Plain English: wrong solution to an important problem", Dr. Robyn Penman discusses a lack of empirical evidence to suggest that the use of Plain English aids in reading comprehension and provides a viewpoint contrary to many proponents actively spreading information. Penman also continues on to cite counter evidence towards the Plain English movement, mainly her findings from doing research at the Communication Research Institute of Australia that concluded a use of Plain English and word change does not help comprehension, but an overall reorganization of documents has proved effective. She considers the idea of simplifying English to be too basic of a movement and thinks that it would do more harm then good because it applies language too systematically. This perspective also prefers a reconstruction of how language is used over abandoning the potential of the language by simplifying it to be easier to understand.

Week 11 Assignment
We can consider adding this to the United States subsection:

United States
Linguist and law school professor, Peter Tiersma, wrote an article titled Instructions to jurors: Redrafting California’s jury instructions in The Routledge Handbook of Forensic Linguistics in 2010. He outlines the history of legal trials and how pattern jury instructions were developed in order to create an atmosphere in which jurors are given pertinent information to a case in order to determine factual evidence and guilt of an accused individual. Throughout the 1930's and 1940's in California, a panel comprised of judges and lawyers drafted pattern jury instructions.

These standardized jury instructions were problematic, as they were written using technical language rather than in Plain English. In the late 1970's, Robert and Veda Charrow studied jury instructions for comprehensibility, where individuals were asked to verbally summarize pattern jury instructions. The participants accounted for only one-third of pertinent information given in the jury instructions. The Charrows further identified linguistic features of these instructions that made instructions given to member of a jury difficult to understand. After revising the instructions to include more a more recognized vocabulary, comprehension rose 47%. (include Charrow and Charrow 1979 citation?)

Tiersma provides examples of jury instructions in both Legal English and Plain English. In the Book of Approved Jury Instructions, or BAJI, (include Committee on Standard Jury Instructions, Civil, 2004 citation?) instructions regarding the care of motorists when operating a motor vehicle read:

"BAJI 5.50. Duty of Motorists and Pedestrians Using Public Highway Every person using a public street or highway, whether as a pedestrian or as a driver of a vehicle, has a duty to exercise ordinary care at all times to avoid placing himself or others in danger and to use like care to avoid an accident from which an injury might result. A “vehicle” is a device by which any person or property may be propelled, moved, or drawn upon a highway. A “pedestrian” is any person who is afoot or who is using a means of conveyance propelled by human power other than a bicycle. The word “pedestrian” also includes any person who is operating a self-propelled wheelchair, invalid tricycle, or motorized quadrangle and, by reason of physical disability, is otherwise unable to move about as a pedestrian, as earlier defined."

Tiersma points out several confusing terms and formal jargon used in this definition that would be difficult for jury participants to understand. He highlights "to use like care" as being overly formal and "pedestrian" as being atypically defined including individuals using wheelchairs and "motorized quadrangles." The California Jury Instructions: Criminal or CACI, (include Committee on Standard Jury Instructions, Criminal, 2003 citation?) rework these instructions and read:

"CACI 700. Basic Standard of Care A person must use reasonable care in driving a vehicle. Drivers must keep a lookout for pedestrians, obstacles, and other vehicles. They must also control the speed and movement of their vehicles. The failure to use reasonable care in driving a vehicle is negligence."

The CACI instructions are in common language and are more direct. Jury instructions that are more direct have been criticized, saying that utilizing a more recognizable vocabulary would make the instructions less precise in a legal atmosphere.

Comments
I'm not sure if I have to include citations for specific page numbers of the quotes in Tiersma's article, or if one citation for the entire journal entry would suffice. Also, I am not sure if I should include citations for BAJI and CACI as well as for the Charrows' studies, but when I have the answer I will add those in.

I think adding the counter-argument to Plain English is necessary to provide an unbiased overview of the topic, so I agree that that should be put in as well.

Also, as far as the etymology section goes, I think we can move it to the introduction section and also add more information using those Wikitionary pages you linked to.

In adding my examples above, I think they should go under the United States headline, as they speak about specific examples and definitions regarding US law, but some examples from the Plain English Campaign's website should definitely be added in a separate Example section. Tdemeola (talk) 16:51, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Week 11 Assignment
"Firstly I'm going to suggest based on your feedback an updated intro section with the etymology added"

Plain English
Plain English (or layman's terms) is language that is clear and concise. It avoids complex vocabulary. It is free of clichés and needless technical jargon, and should be appropriate to the audience's developmental or educational level and their familiarity with the topic. The term is commonly used when discussing government or business communication and derives from the 16th-century idiom "in plain English", meaning "in clear, straightforward language"(citation to Ammer 1997). Another name for the term, layman's terms is derived from the idiom "in Layman's terms" which refers to language phrased simply enough that a Layman, or common person, can understand.(wiktionary pages)"The following two additions are the beginnings of the Criticism and Examples sections"

Criticism
In her 1992 publication for the Australian Journal of Communication titled, "Plain English: wrong solution to an important problem", Dr. Robyn Penman discusses a lack of empirical evidence to suggest that the use of Plain English aids in reading comprehension. Penman also continues on to cite counter evidence towards the Plain English movement, mainly her findings from doing research at the Communication Research Institute of Australia that concluded a use of Plain English and word change did not help comprehension, but an overall reorganization of documents did prove effective.

Examples
The following is a list of Examples of text before and after being converted into Plain English provided by the Plain English Campaign:

Comments
I tried to come up with an intro that had the etymology in it and still flowed in an understandable way, but it sort of feels like with adding the secondary etymology it might be better to leave it in a separate section.

I took the examples from the before and after section of the examples page, so I am wondering whether there is a need to cite that section's page as well or instead. Also I am unsure how many examples is sufficient. three to five would probably be enough.

As for the question of including citations to BAJI, CACI, and the Charrows' studies, if citations for them are included in Tiersma's article then you may not need them, but there's nothing wrong with having more citations.

Npaulino (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Week 10 Assignment: Proposed Source
In thinking back to one of the articles we read for class in Week 6: Jury Instructions, I feel as if information from the article Instructions to jurors: Redrafting California's jury instructions by Peter Tiersma would be useful in outlining the differences between Plain English and "Legalese". After reading through the live article, I noticed that there were absolutely no examples of Plain English versus Legal English mentioned at all, and the implications of such differences were not readily available to reader either. As we learned in that module, the difference between jurors receiving relevant instruction from judges based in legal terms or in more layman's terms definitely makes a difference in how the jurors perceive the case itself and sometimes perceiving the parties involved in the case. There are specific examples of situations where Plain English comes in to play (looking at the "United States section under the "History" subheading), yet there are no comparisons or between Plain and Legal English, which would allow readers to see the difference themselves and would provide more context as to how this type of language is important in the legal system of the United States. I also found another article similar to the first that includes Tiersma as an author, in which he outlines in more detail the history of the standardization of jury instructions, starting from the beginning of this effort in the 1930s. Moreover, the article's other panelists speak about the issues of this standardization and how it has affected jurors.

Also I found some of the language in the article to be flowery and unnecessary in the United Kingdom section (e.g. Sir Ernest Gowers, a distinguished civil servant; George Orwell wrote an impassioned essay). Maybe this could be revised as well.

The etymology sections seems to be fairly baron, and quite useless right at the moment. Is there anything that we can add there to make it more relevant to the article?

Tdemeola (talk) 14:35, 30 March 2019 (UTC)

Week 10 Assignment: Npaulino

 * Etymology Section and Examples

Firstly to answer your question about the etymology section, I feel as if it does not serve much of a purpose and the sentence could just be moved to the beginning after or inside of the definition. If you would rather keep that section then I would say it could be fleshed out by including the etymology behind "Layman's Terms". In which case the Wiktionary pages for the word layman and the phrase in Layman's Terms would be one of the best places to look for information on that. I also believe this section could be turned into an overview section, having etymology as a subtitle, and perhaps continuing to include some examples of plain English before moving onto its history and application, or an example section could be added. The Plain English Campaign's website actually includes some examples of plain English and they could be used to demonstrate what plain English looks like.


 * Criticism

I also believe that the article could benefit from some discussion of the criticism against plain English, especially since the history section seems to only focus on the positive sides of using it. Examples of this can be found in Australian researcher, Dr. Robyn Penman's publication Plain English: wrong solution to an important problem. She goes in detail about how there is counter-evidence to the claim that plain English is necessary, and I think it may be an interesting concept to include in the article.

I also find the language in certain sections to be unnecessary and it might be a good idea to go through and simplify them and remove some of the quotations.
 * Flowery Language

Npaulino (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2019 (UTC)