Abstract
Defining the concept ‘plain language’ has been hugely problematic since the origins of the so-called Plain Language Movement in the 1970s in the United States and elsewhere in the world. Definitions of ‘plain language’ abound, yet James (2008: 6) warns, in relation to plain language practitioners, that “we can’t yet call ourselves a coherent field, let alone a profession, while we offer such varying definitions of what we do”. Contemporary international definitions of ‘plain language’ are of three types: numerical (or formula-based), elements-focused, or outcomes-focused (Cheek 2010). In South Africa, protective legislation gave rise to a local definition of ‘plain language’ which was widely acclaimed for its comprehensiveness and practicality. From a textlinguistic angle, this article ruminates on the nature of the definition of ‘plain language’ in the National Credit Act (2005) and the Consumer Protection Act (2008), and critically appraises the value of the definition as a sharp and reliable conceptual tool for use by plain language practitioners – as applied linguists – in the absence of norms, standards or guidelines for the use of plain language in the consumer industry in contemporary South Africa.
Highlights
Defining the concept of ‘plain language’ seems to be hugely problematic, and for this reason criticism is often levelled at plain language movements
Commentators recommend that Plain English laws not adopt the precise standards associated with readability formulas [...] No one expects that every contract will be perfectly http://spil.journals.ac.za
Some seventeen years later, Neil James refers to the confusion that has accompanied the concept of ‘plain language’ for decades, and points to the large variety of definitions that exist and may well impact on the work of plain language practitioners when he remarks that “[w]e can’t yet call ourselves a coherent field, let alone a profession, while we offer such varying definitions of what we do” (James 2008: 6)
Summary
Defining the concept of ‘plain language’ seems to be hugely problematic, and for this reason criticism is often levelled at plain language movements. Some seventeen years later, Neil James refers to the confusion that has accompanied the concept of ‘plain language’ for decades, and points to the large variety of definitions that exist and may well impact on the work of plain language practitioners when he remarks that “[w]e can’t yet call ourselves a coherent field, let alone a profession, while we offer such varying definitions of what we do” (James 2008: 6). This points to a particular need for steadfastness or some measure of undeviating constancy without which “we would [lack] a theoretical and philosophical basis for distinguishing between various disciplines” (Weideman 2011: 5). Before the definition is discussed and appraised, it is suggested that textlinguistics, apart from rhetorics, may provide a useful theoretical framework for plain language work
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
