This article surveys some recent trends in the area of clear writing and
highlights some of the issues that face professional writers, people in
business and other fields who write as part of their day-to-day work, and
those who teach writing. Researchers are beginning to create empirically
validated guidelines for writing clear and comprehensible prose and to
develop useful theories about clear writing. Writers and editors can use
research findings in practical settings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
R. Pressman, Legislative and Regulatory Progress on the Readability of Insurance Policies . Washington, DC: Document Design Center (December 1979).
2.
J.C. Redish and K. Racette.Teaching College Students How to Write: Training Opportunities for Document Designers. Washington, DC: Document Design Center (November 1979).
3.
A.M. Rose and L.A. Cox.Following Instructions. Technical Report No. 4, Washington, DC: Document Design Center (February 1980). V.M. Holland and A.M. Rose.Understanding Instructions with Complex Conditions. Technical Report No. 5, Washington, DC: Document Design Center (February 1980).
4.
The example and the interpretation are taken from a Federal Trade Commission poster titled "Do You Speak Credit?," issued in 1980.
5.
V.R. Charrow, V.M. Holland, D.G. Peck, and L.K. Shelton. "Revising a Medicaid Recertification Form: A Case Study of the Document Design Process." Final report, Biomedical Research Support Grant No. 5-SO7-RR05615. Washington, DC: Document Design Center (July 1980).
6.
For example, see the several articles in the "Forum" section of IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, PC-24, No. 1, March 1981); or Janice Redish's chapter on "Readability" in the review of the literature noted in 16.
7.
G.R. Klare, "A Second Look at the Validity of Readability Formulas," Journal of Reading Behavior, Vol. 8, pp. 129-152 (1976).
8.
R.F. Lockman , "A Note on Measuring 'Understandability,'''Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 40, pp. 195-196 (1957).
9.
L.A. Morris, D. Thilman, and A.M. Myers.Application of the Readability Concept to Patient-Oriented Drug Information. (MS, 1980) Available from first author, HFD-107, FDA, 5600 Fishers Lane, Rockville, MD 20857.
10.
P. Wright and P. Bernard. "Just Fill in this Form—A Review for Designers." Applied Ergonomics, Vol. 6, No. 4, pp. 213-220 (1975).
11.
For example, H. Clark and E. Clark. "Semantic Distinctions and Memory for Complex Sentences," Quarterly Journal of Psychology, Vol. 20, pp. 129-138 (1968); or D. Hakes and H. Cairns, "Sentence Comprehension and Relative Pronouns," Perception and Psychophysics, Vol. 8, pp. 5-8 (1970).
12.
For example, W. Kintsch and D. Vipond. "Reading Comprehension and Readability in Educational Practice and Psychological Theory." Paper presented at the Conference on Memory, University of Uppsala (June 1977); or D. Kieras, The Relation of Topics and Themes in Naturally Occuring Technical Paragraphs. Technical Report No. 1, Tucson, AZ: University of Arizona (January 1979).
13.
D.B. Felker and A.M. Rose.The Evaluation of A Public Document: The Case of FCC's Marine Radio Rules for Recreational Boaters. Technical Report No. 11, Washington, DC: Document Design Center (February 1981).
14.
L.S. Flower, J.R. Hayes, and H. Swartz.Revising Functional Documents: The Scenario Principle. Technical Report No. 10, Document Design Project. Pittsburgh, PA : Carnegie-Mellon University (March 1980).
15.
For example, J. Danks and P. Sorce. "Imagery and Deep Structure in the Prompted Recall of Passive Sentences," Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, Vol. 12, pp. 114-117 (1973); or V. Charrow and R. Charrow. "Making Legal Language Understandable: Psycholinguistic Study of Jury Instructions," Columbia Law Review, Vol. 79. pp. 1306-1374 (1979).
16.
A comprehensive review is D. B. Felker, (Ed.) Document Design: A Review of the Relevant Research. Washington, DC: Document Design Center (1980).
