The international definition of plain language

A communication is in plain language if its wording, structure, and design are so clear that the intended readers can easily find what they need, understand what they find, and use that information.

At the 2014 Clarity conference in Antwerp, the international plain language community formally endorsed a standard definition of plain language. This article briefly outlines how we arrived at this definition, what we’ve done since then, and where we go from here.

Beginnings

The path to an internationally accepted definition was neither easy nor straightforward. The work was started by the (then) International Plain Language Working Group that Neil James proposed at the 2007 PLAIN conference in Amsterdam. We held our first meeting at the Clarity conference in Mexico City the following year.

The group was formed with representatives from the Plain Language Association International, The Center for Plain Language , and Clarity to professionalize plain langauge in ways best achieved by working together.

In 2009, the working group released a series of options papers at the Sydney PLAIN conference, one of which set out the existing definitions of plain language and proposed that we establish a standard international approach. Up to that point, varying definitions were used and they were of variable quality.

This called for extensive consultation with the plain language community over subsequent conferences. In 2010, the working group published a more developed version of the options papers in the Clarity Journal, Issue 64. We identified an international definition as our top priority task.

The International Plain Language Working Group renamed itself the International Plain Language Federation at the Stockholm conference in 2011, where there was also extensive debate on the right wording for the definition.

We continued to refine the definition in conferences at Washington (2012) and Vancouver (2013) and through an email discussion list. As we narrowed the drafts (and there were 17 of them) the group also narrowed until we were left with Annetta Cheek, Joe Kimble, Chrisopher Balmford, Martin Cutts and Neil James. The Federation Board endorsed the definition in 2014 and the 3 member organizations adopted it in the following year.

These translations are not meant to be literal, but rather to capture the essence of the definition. If you can provide a translation in another language, please email Federation Chair Vera Gergely.

Issues

A couple of issues have come up repeatedly throughout the history of the definition. The one that generated the most discussion is whether to use the term “reader” or “audience.” The 2010 options paper used“audience”,butthedefinition endorsed in 2014 used “reader.”

More recently, some people have advocated for “user,” to signify that plain language is not just for documents that are read. Some commenters suggest that “reader” is becoming too limiting and out of date, and that we will need to broaden it.

During the final push to adopt the definition, the drafting group also debated the adverb “easily” ad nauseum. For a short time, “readily” was in the running, but that quickly lost out. However, not all drafters believed that either word should be there. “Easily” won because a majority agreed that it would close a potential loophole. The qualifier requires that the reader can comprehend a document without excess effort.

International standard

The 2010 options papers included international standards as the implied second priority after the definition. The Federation started its standards project in 2019. We decided to work with ISO, the international standardization body, to develop that standard.

Through the efforts of Christopher Balmford, Standards Australia (the Australian national standards body) proposed the project and ISO agreed. By 2021, the ISO working group produced a draft standard, which is now in its final stages of development.

The plain language standard is largely based on the international definition.It’saprocedural document that outlines processes that organizations need to follow to ensure their communications conform to the definition.

ISO is an immensely influential international body. Once the standard is adopted, it and the definition on which it is based should become accepted very widely in the public and private sectors of many countries.

The future

I’m occasionally asked whether there’s any intent to revise the definition. Actually, when it was first adopted, there was an intent to review the definition in 5 years to see if it should be revised.

While developing the ISO standard, there was considerable discussion about possible revisions. Most people on the ISO working group – which included many with communication interests other than plain language – felt that the current definition was a good one. But there were some suggestions that the Federation may want to think about in the future.

One suggestion has been to change the structure to clear up any confusion about whether “easily” applies only to “find”, or also to “understand” and “use”. The original intent was that it applied to all 3 verbs, but the current version does not make that clear enough. We might also want to revisit the wording alternatives of “reader”, “audience”, or “user”.

Finally, it’s likely that as the ISO standard spreads to different countries that are not all English- speaking, we may learn lessons about applying the definition in other languages that will suggest changes in the original English version.