Plain-Style Preferences of US Professionals

Kim Sydow Campbell University of North Texas ; Nicole Amare University of South Alabama ; Erin Kane ; Alan D. Manning ; Jefrey S. Naidoo University of Alabama

Abstract

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.

Journal
IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication
Published
2017-12-01
DOI
10.1109/tpc.2017.2759621
CompPile
Search in CompPile ↗
Open Access
Closed
Topics
Export

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication

Cites in this index (7)

  1. Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  2. College Composition and Communication
  3. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  4. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  5. College Composition and Communication
Show all 7 →
  1. Research in the Teaching of English
  2. Written Communication
Also cites 30 works outside this index ↓
  1. 10.1177/0021943613487073
  2. 10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00229.x
  3. 10.1177/026192702237956
  4. 10.1016/j.esp.2013.09.001
  5. 10.1111/joop.12042
  6. 10.1515/text.2003.014
  7. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
  8. 10.1177/108056990006300302
  9. 10.1080/10496490802625817
  10. 10.1111/1475-679X.12039
  11. 10.1007/BF01544212
  12. 10.2307/376679
  13. 10.2307/359061
  14. 10.4324/9781315796956
    Plain Language and Ethical Action A Dialogic Approach to Technical Content in the 21st Century  
  15. 10.1108/13563281011037964
  16. 10.1177/1080569907313376
  17. 10.1177/1080569909336450
  18. 10.1177/0893318989002004002
  19. 10.2307/356689
  20. 10.1177/108056999906200308
  21. 10.1177/1080569912441967
  22. 10.2307/358985
  23. 10.1177/002194369002700202
  24. 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143754
  25. 10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.005
  26. 10.1037/a0020386
  27. 10.1177/0261927X04273034
  28. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
  29. 10.1080/01638530802073712
  30. 10.1371/journal.pone.0149885