Acronyms, Jargon + Plain English

Cutting out the capital letters

Apr 20th 2011, 14:01 by R.L.G. | NEW YORK

OVER at Language Log is a discussion of a new directive that is intended to get executive agencies to cut the jargon and acronyms in writing intended for the public. Johnson certainly applauds that effort. But Mark Liberman and other commentators note a few ironies.  One is that the  guidance itself is pretty confusingly worded, as is the underlying  statute (like many other statutes). Mr Liberman's peeve is the confusing scope of conjunctions in acts of Congress: how to interpret simple ands, ors and buts ends up taking up a lot of appellate courts' time.

The second irony, noted by Matt Negrin at Politico, is the name of the set of rules designed to cut masses of capital letters.  It is the Plain Language Action and Information Network. (Update: see correction below.) Get it?  PLAIN?  Ugh. This from the sausage factory that brought you the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act of 2001. As David Rees wrote in his comic "Get Your War On", "I still can't believe they named that thing the fuckin' USA-PATRIOT Act.  Grown-ups did that. Never forget that."  If I were in Congress I'd sponsor a Prohibiting Naming Laws With Cute Titles Act, or the PNLWCT Act, avoiding initial vowels just to make sure that it's unpronounceable.

Mr Liberman says he doesn't mind acronyms. In technical writing (including statues) you have to refer to specific entities over and over, and some of them have long names.  But there is usually an easy way around this, which Bill Walderman notes and The Economist's style book prescribes: after first mention, use the main noun on second mention:  The European Commission, and thereafter "the commission"; the International Atomic Energy Agency and thereafter "the agency". And statutes or other technical writing can accomplish this with a bit of legalese in parentheses such as "(hereinafter 'the act')".  Only when you have competing acts or commissions in the same article or statute do you have to distinguish which one you mean each time.

Correction:  PLAIN isn't the rulebook, but the group of federal employees that has organised to fight for clearer langauge. It is not new, but hails from the 1990s. The group's website is here. Thanks to Ben Zimmer for the correction.

*Bill Walderman:

1. One other choice: you can introduce short forms of reference, such as National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (hereinafter, the "Institute"); Metal Oxide Semiconductor Field Effect Transistor (hereinafter, a "transistor"). Actually, you don't need "hereinafter" or even the quotation marks. In a statute or regulation, you can use short-form defined terms with definitions that are limited in scope to a particular provision. ("For purposes of this section, the term "Institute" shall mean the National Institute of . . . "). Using a noun instead of an acronym can sometimes be more helpful to the reader than using an acronym or repeating a long-winded official name.

This proposition seems much easier to understand as readers would have to check back to see what NICHHD mean and that it actually referred to an institute. Is it easier to add a semantics onto an existing word, or remember a new 'word' and its semantics???

Source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/johnson/2011/04/acronyms_and_plain_language