Research problem: Interest in plain-language communication has been growing in many sectors of business and government, but knowledge about its development is scattered and in need of synthesis. Research questions: 1. How did plain language in the US evolve to gain acceptance by industry, government, and the public? 2. In what ways have advocates changed their vision of plain language? Literature review: My review identified a corpus of more than 100 publications relevant to the history of plain language from 1940 to 2015. Methodology: I evaluated the literature on plain language to identify milestones, events, and trends between 1940 and 2015. I focused on the evolution of plain language and on ways that practitioners altered their perspective of the field. Results: Between 1940 and 1970, plain language focused mainly on readability. During the 1970s, some practitioners began to employ usability testing. By the mid-1980s, there was a widespread sense that plain-language advocates had shifted priorities from readability to usability. Between 1980 and 2000, advocates broadened their vision-beyond word- and sentence-level concerns to include discourse-level issues, information design, and accessibility. Between 2000 and 2015, advocates continued to worry over their old questions (“Can people understand and use the content?”), but also asked, “Will people believe the content? Do they trust the message?” By 2015, plain language had gained significant momentum in business, government, medicine, and education. Conclusions: Plain language evolved over the past 75 years from a sentence-based activity focused on readability of paper documents to a whole-text-based activity, emphasizing evidence-based principles of writing and visual design for paper, multimedia, and electronic artifacts. Plain-language practitioners expanded their concerns from how people understand the content-the usability and accessibility of the content-to whether people trust the content. In addition to a narrative about the field's evolution, I offer a Timeline of Plain Language from 1940-2015, which chronicles the field's highlights. Together, the narrative and timeline offer a fairly comprehensive view of the current state of plain language and allow those with an interest to dig deeper.

Background: Although plain language is almost universally promoted by teachers of professional writing, editors, and communication professionals, some have argued that the effects of and preferences for plain style in written messages differ among groups of individuals. Research questions: 1. Do professionals prefer plain style? 2a. Do preferences differ for different categories of style? 2b. Do preferences differ for different groups of workers? Literature review: Style, the word- and sentence-level elements in a written text, is a critical element of plain language. There is evidence that plain style, however, affects readers differently based on their level of subject matter knowledge. Plain style is even criticized by a few. There is a long history of tensions surrounding linguistic prescriptivism, the notion that one manner of language use is superior to all others. Further, readers' preferences for writing style, plain or otherwise, may not be consistent across occupational positions, education levels, nationalities, personality types, or genders. Research methodology: We conducted a quantitative study of preferences for two major style categories (conciseness and word choice) using an online survey instrument. The student-recruiter technique provided us with usable responses from 614 working adults in the US. Using that data, we calculated proportions of respondents, with confidence intervals, who chose the plain-style options. We also used statistical tests to explore associations between preferences and respondent characteristics. Results and conclusions: Our findings support an overwhelming preference for plain style among US professionals who are native speakers of English. Reader preferences were stronger for elements associated with word choice than with conciseness. Those with lower education levels and blue-collar occupations had lower preferences for plain style. The study had two major limitations: 1. We investigated only two aspects of plain style rather than the full range of elements that make up plain language. 2. Our data-collection instrument presented readers with an artificial rather than an authentic reading experience. Future research may investigate the role of personality on stylistic preferences and the attributions readers make about writers based on their style.

This paper describes a five-year research project aimed at developing a corpus-based language support tool able to respond to the English writing needs of Japanese software engineers who do not speak English natively. Our research was based on recent developments in corpus and text linguistics. Since foreign readers often complain that English text produced by Japanese authors is difficult to understand because it is poorly organized and incoherent, we focused on the possibility of designing a writing tool that would provide discourse-level as well as sentence-level assistance. We collected a total of 539 sample English abstracts from four well-known technical journals and tagged them with linguistic and rhetorical information. Using this tagged corpus, an initial prototype was developed on a Unix-based workstation and a second one on the Web. The Web-based prototype was then evaluated in terms of its usability by engineers in Ricoh's Software Research and Development Group. They evaluated the final product positively. However, they expressed uncertainty about its ability to address their weaknesses in using transition words effectively as cohesive devices. In spite of unexpected difficulties, product improvement continues.

In his preface, Joseph M. Williams says that Style: ten lessons in clarity and grace focuses on “the single most serious problem that mature writers face: a wordy, tangled, too-complex prose style.” His book deals with that problem admirably. Indeed, the advice and examples furnished by Williams are varied and sophisticated enough to make it a useful resource for any mature writer — even the mature writer whose prose is clear and concise.

Accuracy, clarity, and efffectiveness are basic qualities of good technical writing. If there is conflict in accommodating all three simultaneously, or when stylistic choices are being considered, writers should not sacrifice accuracy for clarity nor accuracy and clarity for effectiveness. The priority of accommodation is accuracy, clarity, effectiveness: ACE.