Plain English in the EFL classroom

<b>Forum for the discussion of Applied Linguistics </b>

Moderators: Dimitris, maneki neko2, Lorikeet, Enrico Palazzo, superpeach, cecil2, Mr. Kalgukshi2

My Dingaling
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:34 am
Location: China

Re: Plain English

Post by My Dingaling » Thu Mar 11, 2004 2:47 am

Andrew Patterson wrote:
To go back to your question on who is the clearest writer, ironically October and My Dingaling seem to write as clearly as everyone else.

They say they don't write in plain English, but they do.
Of course my Dingaling writes using some plain English, but my Dingaling is not launching or advocating a pompous campaign that English users should give preference to the terms that my Dingaling particularly uses to express itself. A poetic analogy might due the trick then, my Dingaling particularly enjoys the morning sun, but it does not launch a campaign that the morning sun rays are preferable to those at any other time of day, although of course the sun shines on us all. If my Dingaling wanted to use sunglasses all day in order to make everything look like the twilight of dawn, it would filter out many shades of brilliant colours, and eventually do damage to my Dingaling's eyes as gradually the ability to see these shades through the sunglasses, or even when the sunglasses are taken away, is lost. Similarly, using plain English and rephrasing everything into its simplistic style will eventually do more harm than good to one's intellect. In the end, the intellect will loose the flexibility to adapt and comprehend different levels of complexity and meaning.

Warmest Regards,


My Dingaling

Duncan Powrie
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm

Post by Duncan Powrie » Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:07 am

Fluffy analogy, My Dingdong, I like! (it) :P

Stephen Jones
Posts: 1421
Joined: Sun May 18, 2003 5:25 pm

Post by Stephen Jones » Thu Mar 11, 2004 11:25 pm

Dear My Dingaling,
Just as many people know 'fail to comply' as ' disobey', maybe more
This is nonsense.

Incidentally, are your frequent mistakes in grammar part of a wind-up, or are you not even aware of them?

My Dingaling
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:34 am
Location: China

Post by My Dingaling » Fri Mar 12, 2004 6:11 am

Stephen Jones wrote:Dear My Dingaling,
Just as many people know 'fail to comply' as ' disobey', maybe more
This is nonsense.
:roll:
Last edited by My Dingaling on Tue Mar 16, 2004 8:17 am, edited 1 time in total.

Norm Ryder
Posts: 118
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2003 9:10 pm
Location: Canberra, Australia

plain english

Post by Norm Ryder » Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:20 pm

I've just been reading My Dingaling's posts on the Audio-lingual Approach. His style there is so different that I think that here he's taking us all for a bit of a ride - unless it's feeling subjected to an ideological campaign that's rendered his prose here apoplectic :twisted: .

Cheers
Norm

Duncan Powrie
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:33 pm

Post by Duncan Powrie » Sun Mar 14, 2004 11:52 pm

Ya reckon, Norm? :shock: (me looking very very very very very sjhhocked at MyDingy's behaviour)

Andrew Patterson
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: Poland
Contact:

Post by Andrew Patterson » Mon Mar 15, 2004 11:44 pm

Maybe My Dingaling is playing.

My Dingaling
Posts: 25
Joined: Tue Feb 24, 2004 11:34 am
Location: China

Re: plain english

Post by My Dingaling » Tue Mar 16, 2004 3:30 pm

Norm Ryder wrote:I've just been reading My Dingaling's posts on the Audio-lingual Approach. His style there is so different that I think that here he's taking us all for a bit of a ride - unless it's feeling subjected to an ideological campaign that's rendered his prose here apoplectic :twisted: .

Cheers
Norm
Certainly the ideological campaign and its severely restrictive ideas contibute to the bumpy ride, but the chicanery and highjackery involved in its implementation is sure to throw one right out of one's seat. :shock:

Al
Posts: 42
Joined: Wed Jul 16, 2003 1:59 pm
Location: Sussex, UK

Post by Al » Tue Mar 16, 2004 6:33 pm

Andrew

You mention nominalisation and passivisation in particular.

A fair point in Polish learners, but not necessarily one that translates as plausibly beyond Slavic languages as to allow a universal point to be made about plain english.

Polish uses nominalisation (imieslowa) with to our ears excessive regularity, even in informal speech - true passivisation doesn't occur in Polish anything like as often as English - it's just the only way in English to achieve the kind of topic-fronting polish does courtesy of its relatively free word-order.

I did notice the same thing oddly enough in my polish days - that post-FCE learners were wanting to say much more complex stuff, went back to L1 and ended up gilding the lily rather. Seems to have been more widespread than i'd assumed.

regards, Al

Andrew Patterson
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: Poland
Contact:

Post by Andrew Patterson » Fri Jul 22, 2005 10:22 pm

I don't know what has happened to the poster "Mydingaling" but he certainly didn't like the plain English movement, and it has to be said that the British Plain English campaign is not the best advertisement for plain English.

Some of the other posters still regularly visit this forum, though. I think Duncan Powrie now goes under the name of Fluffyhamster, correct me if I'm wrong. I came across an article in which the author argues that viewing plain English as a movement is actually harmful to the adoption of the principles of plain English. This is very much in line with my own views.

http://www.plainlanguage.gov/whatisPL/d ... .cfm#Intro

Sections 1, 4 and 5 are particularly relevent.

The Plain English movement is dead! Long live plain English!

woodcutter
Posts: 1303
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
Location: London

Post by woodcutter » Sat Jul 23, 2005 1:28 am

Andy, you seem to dislike specialized legal terminology, good for you. It does make me wonder, though, why you are so very enamoured of specialized linguistic terminology.

Use of huge numbers of words such as "catenatives" is also an excluding thing. Shouldn't we try and use more self-explanatory terms where possible?

Andrew Patterson
Posts: 922
Joined: Mon Feb 02, 2004 7:59 pm
Location: Poland
Contact:

Post by Andrew Patterson » Sat Jul 23, 2005 12:04 pm

Woodcutter wrote:
Andy, you seem to dislike specialized legal terminology, good for you. It does make me wonder, though, why you are so very enamoured of specialized linguistic terminology.

Use of huge numbers of words such as "catenatives" is also an excluding thing. Shouldn't we try and use more self-explanatory terms where possible?
Actually, I never said I disliked specialist legal vocabulary, in fact, I wrote that some specialist vocabulary is essential. These are the so-called "words of art" ie words and phrases that have specially defined meanings in law such as "invitation to treat", it is debatable whether we should translate latin words of art, "mens rea" could be "criminal intent".

What I object to is pompose legalistic language. ie using obscure and archaic expressions that mearly smell of the law where plainer alternatives would make the message clearer. "Ergo" instead if "therefore", for instance. Also legalistic padding such as "hereby" and "duly" which can usually just be left out.

The word "catenative" is a grammatical word of art which comes from the Latin "catena" which means "chain". I suppose I could use the expression "chain verb". Some people think that modals are not verbs although they are included in this class of words. The term "chain verb" might upset such people.

Please tell me what you think.

woodcutter
Posts: 1303
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
Location: London

Post by woodcutter » Sat Jul 23, 2005 9:23 pm

I suspect that languages which do not have such things usually translate the word as "chain-verb", so why not make our own language as clear cut?

coffeedecafe
Posts: 73
Joined: Fri Sep 17, 2004 10:17 am
Location: michigan

Post by coffeedecafe » Tue Aug 02, 2005 8:13 am

look out, everyone. woodcutter has a chain verb.

plain english is spoken communication in epic form
plain english is talking as a child would talk.

while using fewer words precisely, it is still possible to listen to the pompous or profuse with understanding. after all, you are not required to correct the grammar of a person you are listening to. your aim is to just understand what they are saying.

example: i love the morning sun. it is as bright as any time of day without the heat of noon. i do not have to wear sunglasses to enjoy it.

let me hedge a little on this one; this poor letter makes me confused. they seem not to like my hedge. i would hedge a guess it will cost me money if i do nothing. so i think i will dig it out and plant it on their lot. if they want to take care of it, i will make it easy for them.

woodcutter
Posts: 1303
Joined: Sat Jun 19, 2004 6:14 am
Location: London

Post by woodcutter » Wed Aug 03, 2005 10:59 pm

If the "plain English campaign" take power, some residents of Michigan will be summarily executed.

Post Reply