Sara Vecchiato- Department of Languages and Literatures, Communication, Education and Society (DILL), University of Udine, Udine, Italy
In this paper, we distinguish between four interconnected notions that recur in the literature on text simplification: clarity, easiness, plainness, and simplicity. While plain language and easy language have both been the subject of standardization efforts, there are few attempts to define text clarity and text simplicity. Indeed, in the definition of plain language, clarity has been favored at the expense of simplicity but is employed as a self-evident notion. Meanwhile, text simplicity suffers from a negative connotation and is more likely to be defined by its antonym, text complexity. In our analysis, we examine the current definitions of plain language and easy language and discuss common definitions of text clarity and text complexity. We propose a model of text simplification that can clarify the transition from specialized texts to plain language texts, and easy language texts. It is our contention that text simplification should be placed in a more general framework of discursive ergonomics.
Introduction
The movement of opinion known as plain language has gained attention in many countries (Schriver, 2017; Clerc, 2022) and has popularized several notions for identifying what we may call reader-friendly writing. Among these labels, we find four recurring notions: clarity, easiness, plainness, and simplicity. These are semantically close notions that are sometimes employed interchangeably and may generate ambiguity, for example, Naderi et al. (2019) use the phrase plain language to refer to language used for people with disabilities and differentiate it from easy language, which they use for language for people with generic reading difficulties, contrary to Baumert (2016) and Maaß (2020). Moreover, even the current conceptualization of text simplification does not satisfy some specialists (Garbacea et al., 2021).
The goal of this article is to answer these research questions:
1. How are these notions related and how do they differ?
2. How can considering these four notions offer a better conceptualization of text simplification?
In fact, much effort has been devoted to developing a standard definition of plain language (Balmford, 2018); similar effort has been made with regard to proposing international standards for easy language (Lindholm and Vanhatalo, 2021). Conversely, there have been few attempts to define text clarity, with the consequence that some confusion persists regarding its meaning (Gracie, 2017). There have been even fewer attempts to define text simplicity, which seems rather defined by its antonym, text complexity. However, text complexity does not have an established definition either (Tolochko and Boomgaarden, 2019).
This paper is structured as follows: First we will discuss the definitions of plain language, easy language, text clarity, and text complexity; then, we will briefly present a modeling of the transition from language for special purposes to plain language and easy language. In this modeling, the tension between complex and simple text is articulated along different aspects of text clarity. Since plain language is an international movement, we will consider the English, French and German languages in our examples.
Plain language as clear (and simple) language
In the 2000s, plain language specialists felt the need for a standard definition of this notion. In order to achieve this, the Plain Language Association InterNational formed a working group (James, 2009), which discussed several proposals. Cheek (2010) grouped the existing definitions into three categories. The first category consists of readability tests: These are methods based on objective indicators, such as the number of words per sentence; the second category consists of recommendations on wording to be chosen or avoided, such as word choice, sentence length, and content planning; the third category consists of definitions based on message outcome. The PLAIN working group favored the latter approach (Balmford, 2018). Its definition characterizes plain language as being sufficiently “clear” for a desired effect to occur:1
1) Communication is in plain language if its wording, structure and design are so clear that the intended audience can easily find what they need, understand what they find, and use that information (International Plain Language Federation, 2019).
In the French and German versions of this definition, the wording is slightly different. In German (2), the equivalent of plain language is einfache Sprache “simple language” (Baumert, 2016). Instead, the French label is langage clair “clear language” (Krieg-Planque, 2020). Since a literal translation would create a tautology, the second clear has been deleted (3):
2) Eine Mitteilung ist in einfacher Sprache gehalten, wenn ihre Sprache, ihre Struktur und ihr Design so klar sind, dass die gemeinten Leser*innen relevante Informationen leicht finden, verstehen und anwenden können.
“Communication is considered to be in simple language, if its wording, its structure and its design are so clear that the intended readers can easily find, understand and use the relevant information” (International Plain Language Federation, 2019, translation is ours).
3) Une communication est en langage clair si les mots et les phrases, la structure et la conception permettent au destinataire visé de facilement trouver, comprendre et utiliser l'information dont il a besoin.
“Communication is in clear language if its words and sentences, its structure and design allow the intended recipient to easily find, understand and use the information they need” (International Plain Language Federation, 2019, translation is ours).
Both clarity and simplicity are part of the dictionary meanings of plain (Merriam-Webster, 2022): In fact, they are present in the synonymic pair clear and simple language, which is attested as a paraphrase of plain language (Economic and Social Committee, 1995). However, there has been an evolution over time: according to Ngram Viewer (Michel et al., 2011), the use of this locution peaked in the 1940s and declined from the 1960s onward2. Schriver (2017, p. 345) recalls that initially plain language was indeed described as “simple and direct style,” but this characterization did not incorporate the innovations brought about by information design. Moreover, simplicity has suffered from a negative connotation and has met with opposition (Kimble, 1992b; Coleman, 1998): In fact, this notion is often mentioned in the literature, but one must continually take account of its negative counterpart:
4) Plain language is clear language. It is simple and direct but not simplistic or patronizing (Plainlanguage.gov, 2022).
We can infer that in defining the notion of plainness, clarity has displaced simplicity.
Easy language: when plain is not enough
In the definitions (1–3), the parameter for quantifying clarity is ease. The adjective easy is opposed to difficult and refers to the absence of effort (Merriam-Webster, 2022). Indeed, cognitive psychology has long investigated the relationship between textual comprehension and cognitive effort: The perception of difficulty seems to be related to the relationship between effort and result (Kintsch, 1998, 2018). It is not surprising, then, that ease has become a category of its own: easy language.
The main characteristic of easy language is its target audience, which is people with disabilities. Among the best-known programs is that on easy-to-read information by Inclusion Europe (2009). Inclusion Europe proposes a definition of this type of writing, drafting it in an easy-to-read form. In this definition, a text is easy because it is visually clear and structurally simple:
5) Easy to read is information that is written in a simple way so that people with intellectual disabilities can understand it. It is important to use simple words and sentences. If there are words that are difficult to understand, an explanation is provided. The text needs to be clear to see (…) (Inclusion Europe, 2019).
Here, structural simplicity is used as a proxy for easiness, just as complexity is commonly used as a proxy for difficulty. For example, according to Hansen-Schirra et al. (2020, p. 18) easy language would fit into the extreme end of a difficulty spectrum, with the specialized text at the opposite end. Specialized text and easy language text are contrasted along two parameters: complexity and comprehensibility. The plain language text and the common language text lie between these two opposing poles, along an axis of progressive simplification.
While text simplification for the public has met with opposition, resistance toward simplified forms for people with disabilities goes as far as stigma: For this reason, Maaß (2020) argues for the creation of an intermediate category, Easy Language Plus.
What exactly is text clarity?
Although it is often used as a self-evident notion, the conceptualization of clarity can be problematic (Swiggers, 1987; Meschonnic, 1997; Gracie, 2017). As to professional writing, some authors speak of clear writing (Gunning, 1983; Gottlieb, 1992; Kimble, 1992a; Ragins, 2012), others of (text) clarity (Michaelson, 1949; Walton, 1983; De Vries, 2002; Bischof and Eppler, 2011). We will treat these expressions as synonyms.
Among its meanings, the adjective clear is synonymous with transparent, plain, and unmistakable (Merriam-Webster, 2022). Moreover, Emig (1977, p. 126) associates clarity with the avoidance of ambiguity, which she considers a trigger for misunderstanding:
6) Clear writing by definition is writing which signals without ambiguity the nature of conceptual relationships, whether they be coordinate, subordinate, superordinate, causal, or something other.
Coleman (1998, p. 393) contrasts clarity with precision, attributing to the latter the function of avoiding ambiguity:
7) Clarity in fact includes a range of attributes: brief, simple, comprehensible and concise. Precision, on the other hand, refers to an exactness of expression, to an absence of ambiguity, an attempt to reduce contestability.
Beaudet (2001, p. 3) attempts a definition where clarity does not correspond to a set of attributes, but to the aim of the text itself (translation is ours):
8) the clarity of a text produced in the workplace corresponds to its effectiveness and is measured by the materialization, or not, of the action it was intended to provoke.
Among these three definitions, we opt for Beaudet (2001). In fact, Emig's and Coleman's definitions seem problematic to us for two different reasons: On the one hand, as we have argued elsewhere (Vecchiato, forthcoming), a text that is intended to be clear does not necessarily exclude the use of ambiguous expressions—such as a pun—because they can offer an accomplished synthesis of the text's content. Regarding Coleman's definition, on the other hand, we have misgivings about the necessarily “short” nature of a clear text: A text can be reasonably long if more words are needed to adequately explain a concept. Beaudet's definition seems more convincing to us, because the label clear is attributed to a text ex post: In other words, a text is “clear” if it has been understood.
Furthermore (ibid., p. 12), Beaudet emphasizes the dimension of the text's adequacy to the recipient—a dimension we approximate to ergonomics (translation is ours):
9) [C]larity is not a property of thought or language, per se, but the result of the match between the language strategies used and the communication situation.
Beaudet (2001) includes other related concepts in the scope of clarity, such as readability, intelligibility, and coherence. Recently, Labasse (2008) has taken up these concepts in the light of research in cognitive psychology. In his model, clarity or “intelligibility” takes different labels depending on the level of text information processing. At the acquisitive level, that is, the processing of vocabulary and syntax, we will speak of readability; at the logical level, of coherence; and at the figurative level, coinciding with the possibility of constructing a mental image of the text, of representability.
Text simplicity and text complexity
As stated above, the notion of simplicity rather appears in the literature as an antonym of complexity. Therefore, if we start from this second notion, we must first distinguish the dimension of language from the dimension of text. In fact, the phrase linguistic complexity generally refers to a characteristic inherent in language as a system (Dahl, 2004). By contrast, text complexity concerns the speaker's use of the language (Saussurean parole, see Pallotti, 2015, p. 120).
As we have seen, complexity is used as a proxy for readers' difficulty in coping with it. In this regard, Miestamo (2008, p. 23) identifies two approaches to complexity: In the “absolute” approach, the complexity of language and text is addressed as an objective property, while in the “relative” approach, complexity is seen as cognitive cost/difficulty. In their definition of text complexity, Mesmer et al. (2012, p. 236) keep the two notions distinct, while Temnikova (2012, p. 34) treats them as synonyms, and Fisher and Frey (2014, p. 237) consider textual complexity as a set of features encompassing those of difficulty. According to Pallotti (2015, p. 118) it is a matter of polysemy: Complexity has three main meanings, and only meanings 2 and 3 are related to difficulty:
10) 1. Structural complexity, a formal property of texts and linguistic systems having to do with the number of their elements and their relational patterns; 2. Cognitive complexity, having to do with the processing costs associated with linguistic structures; 3. Developmental complexity, i.e., the order in which linguistic structures emerge and are mastered in second (and, possibly, first) language acquisition.
It is important to properly assess the complexity of a text, when deciding on its destination. In fact, we have suggested (Vecchiato and Gerolimich, 2013) the term hypercomplexity to describe choices, made from several linguistic options, which are “too difficult” for a specific text type. Structural complexity virtually covers all textual levels, that is, lexicon, syntax, cohesion, and discourse (Dascalu et al., 2018).
Among the best-known models for measuring text complexity is the US Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts (CCSSO and NGA, 2010). This model represents text complexity as a triangle, each side of which represents a set of factors: Quantitative factors, such as word length; Qualitative factors, such as levels of meaning; Reader and task considerations, such as prior knowledge. The Common Core has been criticized by some scholars because it devotes much more attention to the first two factors than to the last one (Mesmer et al., 2012; Fisher and Frey, 2014). Both Mesmer et al. (2012) and Fisher and Frey (2014) have proposed returning to the RAND Reading Study Group's heuristic for reading comprehension (Snow, 2002): RAND's heuristic is also tripartite, yet is based on the Text, the Reader, and the Reading activity. Mesmer et al. (2012, p. 236) clarify the connections between the three parts of this model in the figure to emphasize that “No element (…) occurs in isolation”. We shall expose presently a modeling of text simplification along a similar principle.
Discussion: Text simplification and discursive ergonomics
Formal processes of text simplification are varied (Siddharthan, 2014; François, 2018; Garbacea et al., 2021; Ermakova et al., 2022). In this regard, Garbacea et al. (2021) emphasize the persistent ambiguity of this phrase, which can refer to different linguistic levels, that is, lexical, syntactic, and semantic, and the way it is conducted, whether manual or automatic, etc. While we will not deal here with the way text simplification is conducted, our goal is to provide a simplification model that considers all levels of structural complexity.
In order to contextualize text simplification, we suggest framing it within a more general framework of discursive ergonomics (Delavigne, 2019). Ergonomics is associated with document design, which allows for a “clarification of communicative expectations” (Romain et al., 2022, p. 113). In fact, as Py noted (Py, 1994), simplification is typical of asymmetrical communicative exchanges characterized by a pedagogical contract (“didacticité” as defined by Moirand, 1993). However, as we have seen, readers may reject simplification if they feel belittled. It is therefore necessary to calibrate choices according to the relationship one wants to establish with the reader. Therefore, linguistic matching or tailoring (Schillinger et al., 2021, p. 6) is a form of discursive ergonomics.
Our model highlights the links between levels of structural complexity and levels of clarity. Hence, we propose a diagram in Figure 1. In the center, we have the most complex text type, namely LSP (language for special purposes) texts. In an outer circle, we find plain language texts, and in a circle even further out, easy language texts. Simplification operations are split in two groups (Vecchiato, forthcoming): on the one hand, operations based on approximation (Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot et al., 2010), on the other, those based on explicitness (Sbisà, 2007). Both reduce the density of the text, but they do so over three levels of cognitive information processing (acquisitive, logical, and figurative).
Figure 1. Text simplification wheel.
In a study we conducted on popularization in the medical field (Vecchiato, forthcoming), we pointed out that in the transition from medical textbook to patient brochure, certain trends are constant. On the lexical level, long and compound words, and low-use “collateral terms” (Serianni, 2007, p. 82) give way to shorter, more frequent words, possibly segmented to allow the reader to easily identify morphemes. Some technical terms are retained, as they carry relevant content; in contrast, writing in easy language may further restrict their use. On the syntactic level, “condensed” sentences (Kocourek, 1982, p. 59) based on nominalization give way to less complex sentences. On the logical and figurative level, presuppositions, inferences, and more generally the communicative macro-act, are made explicit, often in the form of a question that the paragraph or text answers (Vecchiato et al., 2022). Overall, only relevant information (Wilson and Sperber, 2012) is selected.
Conclusion
In this article, we pointed out that, in the definition of plain language, the notion of simplicity has been sidelined in favor of clarity, although simplicity recurs in research on easy language. Furthermore, we opted for the definition of text clarity proposed by Beaudet (2001) and integrated it with Labasse's (2008) model, which complexified the concept by identifying a different type of intelligibility (readability, coherence, representability) depending on the level of information processing (acquisitive, logic, figurative). Finally, we adopted Pallotti's (2015) distinction between structural complexity, cognitive complexity and developmental complexity. Therefore, we attempted a text simplification model that would integrate the different levels of intelligibility with various simplification steps. This “wheel” diagram should help writers to choose what level and what kind of simplification may work best. We emphasize the fact that text simplification should be conceptualized in a framework of discursive ergonomics.
Data availability statement
The original contributions presented in the study are included in the article, further inquiries can be directed to the corresponding author.
Author contributions
The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.
Funding
This study was funded by the Department of Languages, Literatures, Communication, Education and Society (DILL), University of Udine, Udine, Italy.
Acknowledgments
I am grateful to Christian Faisstnauer and the reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions.
Conflict of interest
The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher's note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Footnotes
1. ^In the examples, underlines are ours, while bold words are in the original; indents have been deleted for reasons of space.
2. ^According to Ngram Viewer, the peak occurred in the 1940s for langue claire et simple and in the 2000s for langage clair et simple, while it occurred in the 1940s for klare und einfache Sprache.
References
Balmford, C. (2018). An ISO standard for plain language: The back story and the next steps. Clarity 79, 6–10. Available online at: https://www.clarity-international.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/06/Clarity_79.pdf (accessed October 20, 2022).
Bat-Zeev Shyldkrot, H., Adler, S., and Asnes, M. (2010). Approximation et précision : un champ à explorer. L'inf. Grammat. 125, 3–5. doi: 10.3406/igram.2010.4086
Baumert, A. (2016). Leichte Sprache – Einfache Sprache: Literaturrecherche, Interpretation, Entwicklung. Hannover: Bibliothek der Hochschule Hannover.
Beaudet, C. (2001). Clarté, Lisibilité, Intelligibilité Des Textes : Un État de La Question et Une Proposition Pédagogique. Recherches En Rédaction Professionnelle 1, 1–19. Available online at: https://coloe.fr/rrir/IMG/pdf/Beaudet2.pdf (accessed October 20, 2022).
Bischof, N., and Eppler, M. J. (2011). Caring for clarity in knowledge communication. J. Univ. Comput. Sci. 17, 1455–73. Available online at: https://www.jucs.org/jucs_17_10/caring_for_clarity_in/jucs_17_10_1455_1473_bischof.pdf (accessed October 20, 2022).
CCSSO NGA (2010). CCSSO Council of Chief State School Officers, NGA National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. English Language Arts and Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects | Appendix A : Research Supporting Key Elements of the Standards, Glossary of Key Terms. Common Core State Standards Initiative, Available online at: http://www.corestandards.org/assets/Appendix_A.pdf (accessed October 20, 2022).
Cheek, A. (2010). Defining plain language. Clarity 64, 5–15. Available online at: https://www.clarity-international.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Clarity-no-64-bookmarked1.pdf (accessed October 20, 2022).
Clerc, I. (2022). “Introduction,” in Communication écrite Etat-citoyens. Défis numériques, perspectives rédactologiques, ed. I. Clerc (Québec: Presses Université Laval) 5–18. doi: 10.2307/j.ctv30dxxf3.5
Coleman, B. (1998). Are clarity and precision compatible aims in legal writing? Singapore J. Legal Stud. 376–408.
Dahl, Ö. (2004). The Growth and Maintenance of Linguistic Complexity. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. doi: 10.1075/slcs.71
Dascalu, M., Crossley, S. A., McNamara, D. S., Dessus, P., and Trausan-Matu, S. (2018). “Please readerbench this text: a multi-dimensional textual complexity assessment framework,” in Tutoring and Intelligent Tutoring Systems, ed. S. D. Craig (New York, NY: Nova Science Publishers), 251–71.
De Vries, K. (2002). “Writing clearly: differing perceptions of clarity in chinese and american texts,” in Proceedings of the International Symposium on Contrastive and Translation Studies Between Chinese and English (Shanghai: PRC).
Delavigne, V. (2019). Littératies en santé et forums de patients : des formes d'ergonomie discursive. Éla. Études de Linguistique Appl. 195, 363–381. doi: 10.3917/ela.195.0363
Economic and Social Committee (1995). Opinion on Plain Language. Official Journal of the European Communities.
Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composit Commun. 28, 122–128. doi: 10.2307/356095
Ermakova, L., Bellot, P., Kamps, J., Nurbakova, D., Ovchinnikova, I., SanJuan, E., et al. (2022). “Automatic simplification of scientific texts: simpletext lab at CLEF-2022,” in Advances in Information Retrieval, eds. M. Hagen, S. Verberne, C. Macdonald, C. Seifert, K. Balog, K. Nørvåg, et al. (Lecture Notes in Computer Science. Cham: Springer International Publishing), 364–73. doi: 10.1007/978-3-030-99739-7_46
Fisher, D., and Frey, N. (2014). Addressing CCSS anchor standard 10: text complexity. Lang. Arts 91, 236–250. Available online at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/24576869 (accessed October 20, 2022).
François, T. (2018). Amesure : Une Plateforme Web d'assistance à La Rédaction Simple de Textes Administratifs. Repères DoRiF 16, Littératie et Intelligibilité: Points de Vue Sur La Communication Efficace En Contexte Plurilingue. Available online at: http://www.dorif.it/reperes/thomas-francois-adeline-muller-baptiste-degryse-cedrick-fairon-amesure-une-plateforme-web-dassistance-a-la-redaction-simple-de-textes-administratifs/ (accessed October 20, 2022).
Garbacea, C., Guo, M., Carton, S., and Mei, Q. (2021). “Explainable prediction of text complexity: the missing preliminaris for text simplification,” Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics and the 11th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (Volume 1: Long Papers), 1086–1097. doi: 10.18653/v1/2021.acl-long.88
Gottlieb, S. S. (1992). Clear Writing in the Professions. ERIC Digest. Bloomington, Indiana: ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills, Indiana University.
Gracie, J. L. L. B. (2017). “La clarté rédactionnelle en pratique,”. in La fabrication du droit de l'Union européenne dans le contexte du ≪ Mieux légiférer ≫, ed. N. Rubio, (Confluence des droits 3. Aix-en-Provence: DICE Droits International, Comparé et Européen), 33–44. doi: 10.4000/books.dice.1373
Gunning, R. (1983). The Technique of Clear Writing. Revised version. New York, NY: McGraw Hill Higher Education.
Hansen-Schirra, S., Bisang, W., Nagels, A., Gutermuth, S., Fuchs, J., Borghardt, L., et al. (2020). “Intralingual translation into easy language – or how to reduce cognitive processing costs,” in Easy Language Research : Text and User Perspectives, eds. S. Hansen-Schirra, and C. Maaß (Berlin: Frank and Timme), 197–226. doi: 10.26530/20.500.12657/42088
Inclusion Europe (2009). Information for All. European Standards for Making Information Easy to Read and Understand. Inclusion Europe. Lifelong learning programme. Available online at: https://www.inclusion-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/EN_Information_for_all.pdf (accessed October 20, 2022).
Inclusion Europe (2019). Easy-to-Read. Available online at: https://www.inclusion-europe.eu/easy-to-read/ (accessed October 20, 2022).
International Plain Language Federation (2019). Plain Language Definitions. IPLFederation.Org. Available online at: https://www.iplfederation.org/plain-language/ (accessed October 20, 2022).
James, N. (2009). Raising the standard. Clarity 62, 3–4. Available online at: https://www.clarity-international.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Clarity-no-62-bookmarked.pdf (accessed October 20, 2022).
Kimble, J. (1992a). “Plain English: A charter for clear writing (Part 1),” in Michigan Bar Journal October, 1064–67.
Kimble, J. (1992b). “Plain English: A charter for clear writing (Part 2),” in Michigan Bar Journal November, 1190–94.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A Paradigm for Cognition. Cambridge/New York: Cambridge University Press (1998).
Kintsch, W. (2018). “Revisiting the construction—integration model of text comprehension and its implications for instruction,” in Theoretical Models and Processes of Literacy, eds. D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, M. Sailors, and R. B. Ruddell, (New York and London: Routledge), 178–203. doi: 10.4324/9781315110592-12
Kocourek, R. (1982). La langue Française de la Technique et de la Science. Wiesbaden: Oscar Brandstetter Verlag.
Krieg-Planque, A. (2020). Quand la communication publique travaille son expression. Politiques de Commun. 14, 3–34. doi: 10.3917/pdc.014.0003
Labasse, B. (2008). “Modeling the communication of complexity in an information-saturated society,” in Research Communication in the Social and Human Sciences: From Dissemination to Public Engagement, eds. C. Beaudet, P. Grant, and D. Starke-Meyerring (Newcastle: Cambridge Scholars Publishing).
Lindholm, C., and Vanhatalo, U. (2021). Handbook of Easy Languages in Europe. Berlin: Frank and Timme. doi: 10.26530/20.500.12657/52628
Maaß, C. (2020). Easy Language – Plain Language – Easy Language Plus: Balancing Comprehensibility and Acceptability. Berlin: Frank and Timme. doi: 10.26530/20.500.12657/42089
Merriam-Webster (2022). Clear. Merriam-Webster.Com Dictionary. Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster, Inc. Available online at: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ (accessed October 20, 2022).
Meschonnic, H. (1997). Ce Que La Clarté Empêche de Voir: À Propos de La Langue Française. Esprit. 230, 51–63.
Mesmer, H. A., Cunningham, J. W., and Hiebert, E. H. (2012). Toward a theoretical model of text complexity for the early grades: learning from the past, anticipating the future. Read. Res. Quart. 47, 235–258. doi: 10.1002/rrq.019
Michaelson, H. B. (1949). Clarity in technical writing. Proc. IRE 37, 1455–1456. doi: 10.1109/JRPROC.1949.230561
Michel, J. B., Shen, Y. K., Aiden, A. P., Veres, A., Gray, M. K., Google Books Team, et al. (2011). Quantitative analysis of culture using millions of digitized books. Science 331, 176–182. doi: 10.1126/science.1199644
Miestamo, M. (2008). “Grammatical Complexity in Cross-Linguistic Perspective,” in Language Complexity: Typology, Contact, Change, eds. M. Miestamo, K. Sinnemäki, and F. Karlsson, (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins), 23–41. doi: 10.1075/slcs.94.04mie
Moirand, S. (1993). Autour de La Notion de Didacticité. Les Carnets Du Cediscor. Public. Du Centre de Recher. Sur La Didacticité Des Disc. Ordin. 1, 9–20. doi: 10.4000/cediscor.600
Naderi, B., Mohtaj, S., Ensikat, K., and Möller, S. (2019). Subjective assessment of text complexity: a dataset for german language. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.07733.
Pallotti, G. (2015). A simple view of linguistic complexity. Second Lang. Res. 31, 117–134. doi: 10.1177/0267658314536435
Plainlanguage.gov (2022). Clear Writing and Plain Language. U.S. General Services Administration. Available online at: https://www.plainlanguage.gov/about/definitions/clear-writing-and-plain-language/ (accessed October 20, 2022).
Py, B. (1994). “Simplification, complexification et discours exolingue,” in Cahiers du Français Contemporain, ed. F. Lapeyre, (Paris: ENS Editions) 89–102.
Ragins, B. R. (2012). Editor's comments: Reflections on the craft of clear writing. Acad. Manage. Rev. 37, 493–501. doi: 10.5465/amr.2012.0165
Romain, C., Tortochot, É., and Rey, V. (2022). “Performativité des choix de simplification par un rédacteur professionnel lors de la evision de documents administratifs numériques,” in Communication écrite état-citoyens. Défis numériques, perspectives rédactologiques, ed. I. Clerc (Québec: Presses de l'Université Laval), 99–113. doi: 10.2307/j.ctv30dxxf3.9
Schillinger, D., Duran, N. D., McNamara, D. S., Crossley, S. A., Balyan, R., and Karter, A. J. (2021). Precision communication: physicians' linguistic adaptation to patients' health literacy. Sci. Adv. 7, 1–12. doi: 10.1126/sciadv.abj2836
Schriver, K. A. (2017). Plain language in the US gains momentum: 1940–2015. IEEE Trans. Prof. Commun. 60, 343–383. doi: 10.1109/TPC.2017.2765118
Siddharthan, A. (2014). A survey of research on text simplification. Int. J. Appl. Ling. 165, 259–298. doi: 10.1075/itl.165.2.06sid
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for Understanding: Toward an RandD Program in Reading Comprehension. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Education. Available online at: https://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1465.html (accessed October 20, 2022).
Temnikova, I. (2012). Text complexity and text simplification in the crisis management domain. PhD Thesis, University of Wolverhampton.
Tolochko, P., and Boomgaarden, H. G. (2019). Determining political text complexity: conceptualizations, measurements, and application. Int. J. Commun. 13, 1784–1804. Available online at: https://ijoc.org/index.php/ijoc/article/view/9952/2625 (accessed October 20, 2022).
Vecchiato, S. (forthcoming). Approximation et explicitation: des paramètres pour la rédaction de textes de vulgarisation. Application au domaine médical. Langages. eds. D. Ablali, and B. Wiederspiel. Revue internationale des sciences du langage.
Vecchiato, S., and Gerolimich, S. (2013). La langue médicale est-elle ‘trop complexe’? Nouvelles Perspect. Sci. Soc. 9, 81–122. doi: 10.7202/1024039ar
Vecchiato, S., Gerolimich, S., and Casini, M. (2022). “‘Écrire sur les antibiotiques, c'est pas automatique !’ Enquête italien-français pour une modélisation de la médiation ergonomique dans l'éducation à la santé,” in Communication État-citoyens, ed. I. Clerc (Québec: Presses Université Laval), 83–98.
Walton, J. (1983). The birth of clarity. Clarity Newsletter. Available online at: https://www.clarity-international.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/07/Clarity-no-1-bookmarked.pdf (accessed October 20, 2022).
Keywords: plain language, easy language, clear writing, text clarity, text simplification, discursive ergonomics, discourse and writing, text complexity
Citation: Vecchiato S (2022) Clear, easy, plain, and simple as keywords for text simplification. Front. Artif. Intell. 5:1042258. doi: 10.3389/frai.2022.1042258
Received: 12 September 2022; Accepted: 31 October 2022;
Published: 30 November 2022.
Edited by:
Grigori Sidorov, Instituto Politécnico Nacional (IPN), MexicoReviewed by:
Iqra Ameer, University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston, United StatesNoman Ashraf, Dana–Farber Cancer Institute, United States
Copyright © 2022 Vecchiato. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Sara Vecchiato, sara.vecchiato@uniud.it