IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication Dec 2017

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
Open Access
Closed
Topics
voice and style professional writing quantitative research book reviews
Export
BibTeX RIS

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (1)

  1. John et al. (2021)
    Designing STEM-Specific Student-Friendly Reading Content for the Engineering En…
    IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication

References (49) · 7 in this index

  1. Campbell et al. (2017)
    Rhetorical Move Structure in High-Tech Marketing White Papers
    Journal of Business and Technical Communication
  2. HAGGE et al. (1989)
    Linguistic Politeness in Professional Prose: A Discourse Analysis of Auditors' …
    Written Communication
  3. 10.1177/0021943613487073
     ↗
  4. 10.1111/j.1473-4192.2009.00229.x
     ↗
  5. 10.1177/026192702237956
     ↗
Show all 49 →
  1. 10.1016/j.esp.2013.09.001
     ↗
  2. riley (2011)
    Revising Professional Writing in Science and Technology Business and the Social Sciences
  3. 10.1111/joop.12042
     ↗
  4. 10.1515/text.2003.014
     ↗
  5. 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1991.tb00688.x
     ↗
  6. pullum (2009)
    50 years of stupid grammar advice
    Chronicle Higher Educ
  7. turfler (2015)
    Language ideology and the plain-language movement: How straight-talkers sell linguistic myths
    Legal Commun Rhetoric JALWD
  8. 10.1177/108056990006300302
     ↗
  9. bizzell (2000)
    The Rhetorical Tradition Readings from Classical Times to the Present
  10. fowler (1908)
    The King's English
  11. 10.1080/10496490802625817
     ↗
  12. (2017)
    What is Plain Language?
  13. conrad (2011)
    24 Business communication skills: Attitudes of human resource managers versus business ed…
    Amer Commun J
  14. 10.1111/1475-679X.12039
     ↗
  15. Bacon (2015)
    Review Essay: Cross-Disciplinary Approaches to Style
    College Composition and Communication
  16. Barnard (2010)
    The Ruse of Clarity
    College Composition and Communication
  17. Jones et al. (2012)
    Plain Language in Environmental Policy Documents: An Assessment of Reader Compr…
    Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  18. Garwood (2013)
    Metonymy and Plain Language
    Journal of Technical Writing and Communication
  19. pinker (2014)
    The Sense of Style The Thinking Person's Guide to Writing in the 21st Century
  20. 10.1007/BF01544212
     ↗
  21. 10.2307/376679
     ↗
  22. 10.2307/359061
     ↗
  23. willerton (2015)
    10.4324/9781315796956
    Plain Language and Ethical Action A Dialogic Approach to Technical Content in the 21st Century  ↗
  24. 10.1108/13563281011037964
     ↗
  25. 10.1177/1080569907313376
     ↗
  26. kimble (2016)
    A curious criticism of plain language
    Legal Commun Rhetor JALWD
  27. 10.1177/1080569907313376
     ↗
  28. 10.1177/1080569909336450
     ↗
  29. 10.1177/0893318989002004002
     ↗
  30. kimble (2012)
    Writing for Dollars Writing to Please The Case for Plain Language in Business Government and Law
  31. 10.2307/356689
     ↗
  32. 10.1177/108056999906200308
     ↗
  33. 10.1177/1080569912441967
     ↗
  34. 10.2307/358985
     ↗
  35. wallraff (2015)
    Improve your writing to improve your credibility
    Harv Bus Rev
  36. 10.1177/002194369002700202
     ↗
  37. 10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143754
     ↗
  38. Dyson (2006)
    On Saying It Right (Write): "Fix-Its" in the Foundations of Learning to Write
    Research in the Teaching of English
  39. 10.1016/j.pec.2008.11.005
     ↗
  40. 10.1037/a0020386
     ↗
  41. 10.1177/0261927X04273034
     ↗
  42. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
     ↗
  43. 10.1080/01638530802073712
     ↗
  44. 10.1371/journal.pone.0149885
     ↗
CrossRef global citation count: 5 View in citation network → Build reading path →

Related Articles

  1. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication Sep 2024
    The Audit Report in Contrast: Developing Corpus-Informed Applications for Spanish Users of English for Business Purposes ↗
    Marlén Izquierdo
    rhetorical criticism genre theory professional writing quantitative research book reviews
  2. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication Sep 2016
    Web 2.0 and Communication Processes at Work: Evidence From China ↗
    Louie H. M. Wong; Carol X. J. Ou; Robert M. Davison; Hui Zhu; Cheng Zhang
    collaborative writing professional writing quantitative research social media book reviews
  3. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication Dec 2014
    Product Review Users' Perceptions of Review Quality: The Role of Credibility, Informativeness, and Readability ↗
    Jo Mackiewicz; Dave Yeats
    professional writing quantitative research book reviews editorial matter
  4. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication Jun 2013
    The Frequency and Function of Just in British and New Zealand Engineering Lectures ↗
    Lynn Grant
    genre theory discourse analysis writing pedagogy professional writing quantitative research book reviews
  5. Business and Professional Communication Quarterly Mar 2026
    Book Review: “What we’ve got here is how to communicate” “What we’ve got here is how to communicate”PlungD. L. (2024). The Art of Professional Communication: Strategies That Advance Careers. Routledge, 132 pp. ↗
    Kevin Schmidt
    professional writing book reviews