Most if not all plain English books are aimed at native speakers. I find that teaching plain English principles such as avoiding nominalisation and passive voice are useful from FCE level onwards.
I actually use "The Complete Plain Words" by Martin Cutts in some of my CAE classes.
We need to think more about plain English in the EFL classroom. What do you think?
Plain English in the EFL classroom
Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
-
Metamorfose
- Posts: 345
- Joined: Mon Jul 21, 2003 2:21 pm
- Location: Brazil
One area where we could certainly improve our act is metalanguage. For example, why talk about "singular" and "plural" when you can say "one" and "more than one"? Why talk about "first, second and third person" when you can say "I, you, he/she/it"? I'm not advocating that we remove metalanguage completely here, but that we keep it to an absolute minimum.
Excuse my ignorance, Andrew, but what does "avoiding nominalisation mean? As for avoiding passives "from FCE onwards", I've thought that, if anything, it was the other way around i.e. "up to FCE". Advanced students should be able to cope with someone using the passive; if they can't, they're in the wrong class.
Excuse my ignorance, Andrew, but what does "avoiding nominalisation mean? As for avoiding passives "from FCE onwards", I've thought that, if anything, it was the other way around i.e. "up to FCE". Advanced students should be able to cope with someone using the passive; if they can't, they're in the wrong class.
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
See this website for what plain English is:
http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/guides.html
Basically, Plain English is about avoiding pomposity and making your message as clear as possible.
I've taught enough FCE students to know that they are capable of pomposity, and that is the level where pomposity usually starts.
There are 5 circumstances where the passive should be used, otherwise, it is better to use the active voice. I'm afraid I've got to go to work soon, so I can't list them now, but I will later.
Nominalisation is where you turn a verb into a noun. As a general principle, if a noun can be a verb, it should be a verb.
"I received your letter," is preferable to "I am in receipt of your letter."
Andrew Patterson.
http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/guides.html
Basically, Plain English is about avoiding pomposity and making your message as clear as possible.
I've taught enough FCE students to know that they are capable of pomposity, and that is the level where pomposity usually starts.
There are 5 circumstances where the passive should be used, otherwise, it is better to use the active voice. I'm afraid I've got to go to work soon, so I can't list them now, but I will later.
Nominalisation is where you turn a verb into a noun. As a general principle, if a noun can be a verb, it should be a verb.
"I received your letter," is preferable to "I am in receipt of your letter."
Andrew Patterson.
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
As promised, here are the five occasions when you should use the passive voice:
1 To defuse hostility, actives can sometimes be too direct and blunt.
2 To avoid mentioning who did the action because the doer is irrelevent, obvious or unknown.
3 To focus attention on the receiver of the action by putting it first.
4 To spread or evade responsibility.
5 To position old or known information at the start of a sentence or clause so that new information can go at the end.
Andrew Patterson
1 To defuse hostility, actives can sometimes be too direct and blunt.
2 To avoid mentioning who did the action because the doer is irrelevent, obvious or unknown.
3 To focus attention on the receiver of the action by putting it first.
4 To spread or evade responsibility.
5 To position old or known information at the start of a sentence or clause so that new information can go at the end.
Andrew Patterson
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
I encourage this by asking, "So what did [subject] do?"Avoiding nominalisation is a good beginning for seekers of plain English. If you can use a verb instead of a noun plus a verb, then try the verb only.
Be, have and make often introduce nominalisations, by the way.
This site also seems good for plain English.
http://europa.eu.int/comm/translation/e ... et/fog.pdf
This might be suitible for advanced business classes as it has exercises:
http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/reportguide.pdf
Give us some examples Roger.Just look at the comic constructs the PC lingo is foisting on us (though that's not necessarily about choosing verbs over nouns)
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
I think that "-challenged" probably started as a way of making euphemisms to avoid causing offense, however, I think it's use tends to be more scarcastic these days. I think this is because this particular form lends itself to slightly absurd imagery. Vertically-challenged instead of "short" to describe a person sounds very scarcastic indeed.
Other PC uses are less silly, however. It seems more sensible to refer to a fire-fighter than to a fireman because it is more descriptive of what the person doing the job actually does.
Other PC uses are less silly, however. It seems more sensible to refer to a fire-fighter than to a fireman because it is more descriptive of what the person doing the job actually does.
The ability to navigate input is also important
Andrew
If you teach only Plain English, how do you expect them to navigate a world of "complex" English? Too many teachers only think of that which will come out of the students mouths and not enough of what goes in there ears.
The question with the passive form is not one of avoidance but of knowing when to use it:
"The earth was formed millions of years ago."
The passive is actually used more frequently and is mostly preferred when the agent is unknown.
If you teach only Plain English, how do you expect them to navigate a world of "complex" English? Too many teachers only think of that which will come out of the students mouths and not enough of what goes in there ears.
The question with the passive form is not one of avoidance but of knowing when to use it:
"The earth was formed millions of years ago."
The passive is actually used more frequently and is mostly preferred when the agent is unknown.
Hi,
Lolwhites is right saying that we should try to avoid using metalanguage. With students it's better not to use things like 'repetitive grammar pattern', as one of my friends once did during a lesson.Language must be meaningful to students, otherwise they get discouraged and simply won't understand.
I agree, that nominalistation should be avoided in many cases. But shouldn't good speakers of English be able to understand sentences like "I am in receipt of your letter."? Even though to me it sounds really odd and I doubt if I have ever seen or heard anyone saying this. Well, that sentence is really strange, so shouldn't be used. But what about these two sentences:
'The number of smokers is increasing rapidly...' vs. 'The rapid increase in the number of smokers....' Should we opt for the first one? At schools in Poland they teach both versions and nobody has ever told me that the 1st sentence is better. I am a teacher trainee and now I don't know if I should tell Ss about that or not. That might be a bit confusing. Moreover, I think that most Ss(from intermediate onwards) know that
both sentences are correct, and if I tell them that they should not use the second one they might be puzzled.
I guess there's not good solution to this problem.In my opinion. we should teach Ss everything but make them aware that some of the structures or words are 'dead' in English and rarely used. Let me know what you think.
Warm greetings,
Maciek
P.S.
Where do you teach Andrew?
Lolwhites is right saying that we should try to avoid using metalanguage. With students it's better not to use things like 'repetitive grammar pattern', as one of my friends once did during a lesson.Language must be meaningful to students, otherwise they get discouraged and simply won't understand.
I agree, that nominalistation should be avoided in many cases. But shouldn't good speakers of English be able to understand sentences like "I am in receipt of your letter."? Even though to me it sounds really odd and I doubt if I have ever seen or heard anyone saying this. Well, that sentence is really strange, so shouldn't be used. But what about these two sentences:
'The number of smokers is increasing rapidly...' vs. 'The rapid increase in the number of smokers....' Should we opt for the first one? At schools in Poland they teach both versions and nobody has ever told me that the 1st sentence is better. I am a teacher trainee and now I don't know if I should tell Ss about that or not. That might be a bit confusing. Moreover, I think that most Ss(from intermediate onwards) know that
both sentences are correct, and if I tell them that they should not use the second one they might be puzzled.
I guess there's not good solution to this problem.In my opinion. we should teach Ss everything but make them aware that some of the structures or words are 'dead' in English and rarely used. Let me know what you think.
Warm greetings,
Maciek
P.S.
Where do you teach Andrew?
-
My Dingaling
- Posts: 25
- Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:34 am
- Location: China
Teachers do not need to think more about plain English in the EFL classroom and pompousness in EFL students is not a major trend or crisis happening in EFL/ESL. Furthermore, any such campaign to overhaul our language that subversively reduces and mutes the choices available to express ourselves should be immediately and thoroughly checked.
According to Andrew Patterson's case, pomposity is certainly rooted in the supposedly inefficiencies of the passive voice and nominalisation, otherwise he and his plain English campaigners would not want us to abstain from using these English language forms. In keeping with Andrew Patterson's line of thinking, this sentence:
'Plain English is making a cult of the English language'
is less pompous than saying
'Cultification of the English language is the hidden aim of the Plain English Campaign'
Perhaps using plain English does make the objectives of the plain English campaign achievable, but are these goals and gains worth the cost, and where is it stated in the goals of the Plain English Campaign that it has an ethical struggle to reduce the pompousness of the language user. The website mentioned in an earlier posting and available on http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/plainenglishguide.html, details the Plain English Campaign's goals, which are:
*its faster to read
*its faster to write
*less time
Certainly pomposity is an absurd pretext for a linguistic overhaul of the English language. Additionally, the marginal advantage to communicative speed and ease that plain English might deliver come not only at the expense of the passive voice and nominalisation, but also at the expense of devaluing accurate, articulate and interesting communication. On the plain English site their list of abstinences grows even more severe and sinister than just the passive voice and nominalisation, with an even longer list of words to sacrifice on their altar of speed:
"Try to use the alternatives we suggest in brackets.
additional (extra)
advise (tell)
applicant (you)
commence (start)
complete (fill in)
comply with (keep to)
consequently (so)
ensure (make sure)
forward (send)
in accordance with (under, keeping to)
in excess of (more than)
in respect of (for)
in the event of (if)
on receipt (when we/you get)
on request (if you ask)
particulars (details)
per annum (a year)
persons (people)
prior to (before)
purchase (buy)
regarding (about)
should you wish (if you wish)
terminate (end)
whilst (while) "
Definitely, abstaining from using these words will not make anyones writing more articulate, interesting or even faster to read. Furthermore, there is neither equal focus or force to the plain English words they suggest using for substitutes, nor do the substitutes reduce the attitude of pompousness. Instead, substituting these words in some cases not only is more pompous, but conveys a demeanour of rudeness and obnoxiousness. For a plain example of this, substitute the word 'tell' in place of the word 'advise':
I'm advising you not to smoke.
I'm telling you not to smoke.
The sentence does not become less pompous, on the contrary, it becomes rude, tactless and bossy.
Even more ridiculous is the suggestion by posters in this thread that EFL teachers should pay attention to this silly campaign in their classrooms. Of course EFL students must learn simple English before they can go on to more sophisticated forms, so essentially the point being made in this thread is that students should be taught to bias their usage in favour of plain English because of the patently absurd assertion that more articulate, interesting and sophistocated expression by language learners will make the students communication in English protracted and pompous.
Warmest regards,
My Dingaling
According to Andrew Patterson's case, pomposity is certainly rooted in the supposedly inefficiencies of the passive voice and nominalisation, otherwise he and his plain English campaigners would not want us to abstain from using these English language forms. In keeping with Andrew Patterson's line of thinking, this sentence:
'Plain English is making a cult of the English language'
is less pompous than saying
'Cultification of the English language is the hidden aim of the Plain English Campaign'
Perhaps using plain English does make the objectives of the plain English campaign achievable, but are these goals and gains worth the cost, and where is it stated in the goals of the Plain English Campaign that it has an ethical struggle to reduce the pompousness of the language user. The website mentioned in an earlier posting and available on http://www.plainenglish.co.uk/plainenglishguide.html, details the Plain English Campaign's goals, which are:
*its faster to read
*its faster to write
*less time
Certainly pomposity is an absurd pretext for a linguistic overhaul of the English language. Additionally, the marginal advantage to communicative speed and ease that plain English might deliver come not only at the expense of the passive voice and nominalisation, but also at the expense of devaluing accurate, articulate and interesting communication. On the plain English site their list of abstinences grows even more severe and sinister than just the passive voice and nominalisation, with an even longer list of words to sacrifice on their altar of speed:
"Try to use the alternatives we suggest in brackets.
additional (extra)
advise (tell)
applicant (you)
commence (start)
complete (fill in)
comply with (keep to)
consequently (so)
ensure (make sure)
forward (send)
in accordance with (under, keeping to)
in excess of (more than)
in respect of (for)
in the event of (if)
on receipt (when we/you get)
on request (if you ask)
particulars (details)
per annum (a year)
persons (people)
prior to (before)
purchase (buy)
regarding (about)
should you wish (if you wish)
terminate (end)
whilst (while) "
Definitely, abstaining from using these words will not make anyones writing more articulate, interesting or even faster to read. Furthermore, there is neither equal focus or force to the plain English words they suggest using for substitutes, nor do the substitutes reduce the attitude of pompousness. Instead, substituting these words in some cases not only is more pompous, but conveys a demeanour of rudeness and obnoxiousness. For a plain example of this, substitute the word 'tell' in place of the word 'advise':
I'm advising you not to smoke.
I'm telling you not to smoke.
The sentence does not become less pompous, on the contrary, it becomes rude, tactless and bossy.
Even more ridiculous is the suggestion by posters in this thread that EFL teachers should pay attention to this silly campaign in their classrooms. Of course EFL students must learn simple English before they can go on to more sophisticated forms, so essentially the point being made in this thread is that students should be taught to bias their usage in favour of plain English because of the patently absurd assertion that more articulate, interesting and sophistocated expression by language learners will make the students communication in English protracted and pompous.
Warmest regards,
My Dingaling
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
I couldn't agree more. That would be extremly rude. If I remember correctly, that list advises you to think about using the alternative word, sometimes it won't be appropiate.For a plain example of this, substitute the word 'tell' in place of the word 'advise':
I'm advising you not to smoke.
I'm telling you not to smoke.
The sentence does not become less pompous, on the contrary, it becomes rude, tactless and bossy.
But asking someone else to tell you something is more polite than telling someone else to do something. "Tell" is also common in reported speech.
Plain English is an approach to Language, not a method. Personally, I think some of the schools called the x,y or z "method" are indeed cults.
I think too, that the plain English campain has to be warned from time to time if it becomes too dogmatic.
True students need to be exposed to complex English. Why not do exercises to get students to simplify pompose language?
Concerning nominalisation, you should remember that most idioms in English can only be understood if you remember that there is a metaphore of movement (read verbs) running through English. That's why we say things like "come up against a problem". You couldn't understand this without that metaphore. It's also why Polish student say, "I was in Krakow" instead of "I went to Krakow."
Encourage the use of active verbs and you encourage the use of the metaphore of movement.
Andrew Patterson.
-
Andrew Patterson
- Posts: 922
- Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
- Location: Poland
- Contact:
Metal wrote:
I agree, and I never said you should not use the passive. This is one of the five reasons for using the passive that I posted earlier on. If the sentence doesn't fulfill one of those reasons, then you should probably not be using the passive.
If you were writing this as I was posting, I appologise.
P.S. As far as I can see there are only five reasons to use the passive (apart from shear bloody-mindedness that is.)
Does anyone know of any others?
Andrew
If you teach only Plain English, how do you expect them to navigate a world of "complex" English? Too many teachers only think of that which will come out of the students mouths and not enough of what goes in there ears.
The question with the passive form is not one of avoidance but of knowing when to use it:
"The earth was formed millions of years ago."
The passive is actually used more frequently and is mostly preferred when the agent is unknown.
I agree, and I never said you should not use the passive. This is one of the five reasons for using the passive that I posted earlier on. If the sentence doesn't fulfill one of those reasons, then you should probably not be using the passive.
If you were writing this as I was posting, I appologise.
P.S. As far as I can see there are only five reasons to use the passive (apart from shear bloody-mindedness that is.)
Does anyone know of any others?
-
Norm Ryder
- Posts: 118
- Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:10 pm
- Location: Canberra, Australia
"Plain English"
Hi folks
In any language there are often a variety of expressions with a similar use, and I often suggest to learners that they choose one for their own use, but become familiar with the others because that's what they'll be hearing. I think similar advice could apply to the use of plain English. If there's a plain (not a rude) English way of saying something, I'd like to use it myself; but I must be able to appreciate the meanings of those who don't use it (otherwise how could I enjoy Thackeray or Milton).
Here in Australia insurance policies (and especially the booklets that explain them) strive for 'plain English' usage. And twenty years ago one State government put out a manual for writing legislation in plain English, with examples of laws so written. Subsequent conservative governments considered it a waste of time; but many people have come to believe that such language could be even more precise than the former legalese, and so save a lot of money. Hence the plain English insurance policies.
One of the main changes we made to traditional legal writing was to avoid initial "if" clauses such as "If you have changed any details in your policy, or if you changed the occupancy of your home, or if your home has fallen into disrepair .... then you must advise your insurer immediately".
This has become: "You need to write to us at the above address if (i)...(ii).. (iii)... etc."
Plain English tends to press the principle that English is a "subject, verb, object" language, unlike say Turkish or Japanese; but especially unlike Latin with its periodic forms that left the verb till the end and which provided the model for much of our legal language and for many writers from the 16 to the 18th centuries. It also accepts the US principle that time is money, so the quicker you come to the point the better. (Yet it avoids the US love of latinate words!)
An Italian friend once told me "There will never be a movement for 'Plain Italian' for the same reason that Italians rebel against fast food!"
Happy verballing.
Norm
In any language there are often a variety of expressions with a similar use, and I often suggest to learners that they choose one for their own use, but become familiar with the others because that's what they'll be hearing. I think similar advice could apply to the use of plain English. If there's a plain (not a rude) English way of saying something, I'd like to use it myself; but I must be able to appreciate the meanings of those who don't use it (otherwise how could I enjoy Thackeray or Milton).
Here in Australia insurance policies (and especially the booklets that explain them) strive for 'plain English' usage. And twenty years ago one State government put out a manual for writing legislation in plain English, with examples of laws so written. Subsequent conservative governments considered it a waste of time; but many people have come to believe that such language could be even more precise than the former legalese, and so save a lot of money. Hence the plain English insurance policies.
One of the main changes we made to traditional legal writing was to avoid initial "if" clauses such as "If you have changed any details in your policy, or if you changed the occupancy of your home, or if your home has fallen into disrepair .... then you must advise your insurer immediately".
This has become: "You need to write to us at the above address if (i)...(ii).. (iii)... etc."
Plain English tends to press the principle that English is a "subject, verb, object" language, unlike say Turkish or Japanese; but especially unlike Latin with its periodic forms that left the verb till the end and which provided the model for much of our legal language and for many writers from the 16 to the 18th centuries. It also accepts the US principle that time is money, so the quicker you come to the point the better. (Yet it avoids the US love of latinate words!)
An Italian friend once told me "There will never be a movement for 'Plain Italian' for the same reason that Italians rebel against fast food!"
Happy verballing.
Norm