In the course of my daily grind, I routinely review documents created by dozens of colleagues. Some are internal documents intended for specific audiences, while others are external correspondence addressed to individuals with particular circumstances, ranging from average Joes to belligerent solicitors. While some are excellent structural writers who can identify their audience and communicate decisions accordingly, others do not possess these skills. But what seems universal among poor and generally sound writers alike, is a lack of ability to communicate nuance.
There seems to be a lack of appreciation that words can simultaneously be similar, yet different. Something may be both possible and plausible, yet something may be possible but implausible. It is both possible and plausible that my train may run late (some may argue that it’s even probable). It is also possible that I will win lotto, but, sadly, implausible. These words convey concepts which are related, yet distinct.
This is a long-winded way to make the point that subtleties of language actually communicate deeper truths. Where subtleties disappear, nuance disappears also. Where nuance disappears, precise thought disappears. Where precise thought disappears, complex ideas are strangled and become unintelligible. Once regarded as unintelligible these ideas are discarded as useless.
Yet despite this, as a society we seem hell-bent on simplifying language to a dangerous degree. I recently attended a writing and editing course in which we were informed that the average reading level in Australia sits at approximately grade seven. The argument was then presented that, as a consequence, we should reduce the language we use in formal communication to this common denominator. We were also taught, among other things, that multiple ideas should not appear in one sentence, and to reduce the use of commas (let’s leave the defence of Oxford commas for another day).
These ideas on linguistic simplification may seem harmless at face value, however, they are the thin end of a very dangerous wedge. Limiting one idea per sentence fails to allow for a natural, logical progression of one idea to another, while still preserving contingencies and distinctions within one intelligible thought through the use of conjunctions and punctuation. Arbitrarily reducing commas may have been the catalyst for this idea, or perhaps the consequence of it – our trainer was unable to explain why commas should be reduced, but in her defence, she did advise that she would seek the answer and provide it to us. Commas are used to denote pauses and to separate clauses. They allow for one to read a sentence as it would be spoken, thereby making it more intelligible. Furthermore, by separating clauses, commas allow related ideas to develop with greater depth and nuance within a single sentence, thereby communicating a more complete thought.
Credit where credit is due, the course taught valuable lessons too, especially regarding document structure, however, it was also fatalistically simplistic. There was no thought that perhaps we should strive to increase everybody’s understanding of language, rather than pushing those with greater understanding down. Instead of reaching out a hand to pull people up, the modern world seems content to drag everyone down to the lowest level. After all, that achieves ‘equality’ with much less effort than raising others up.
A policy of simplified language in communication can be useful in circumstances where we are always dealing with people who share a similar level of reading comprehension, however, oftentimes we deal with highly intelligent people, who require far more precise, technical, and frankly ‘adult’ language. When an organisation’s official writing guide is updated to require simplifying language for the seventh-grade level, this results in less precise and, at times, even childish language being used when communicating with experts in various fields! The simplification of language and style not only makes one appear patronising (or if you’re lucky, stupid), but more importantly, it fails to provide the tools necessary to deal with complex ideas.
Language is the means by which we refine, articulate, and subsequently communicate distinctions. When language is systematically impoverished, the rigorous thought which it is designed to cultivate is weakened.
A person who cannot distinguish between authority and power may come to regard the possession of power as synonymous with the legitimate exercise of authority. Similarly, one who cannot distinguish between law and justice will inevitably assume that whatever is legislated is necessarily just, justice, and law having become indistinguishable.
While these are errors of concept, it’s language which provides the means through which the nuances of related, yet distinct concepts become explicit.
English is one of the truly great languages for nuance. Being a rich hodgepodge of Old English, French, German, Latin, and other languages, we have an extensive vocabulary not found in most others. This gives us similar words deriving from different languages, but with slight variations in meaning. Take, for example, ‘ask’, ‘question’, and ‘interrogate’. They are indeed synonyms, yet a closer examination reveals slight definitional variations. ‘Ask’ derives from Old English and is used when generally seeking an answer. ‘Question’ comes from Latin through French and suggests an inquiry of some kind. Finally, ‘interrogate’ implies a kind of sustained or formal examination. The etymological onion that is the English language has produced words with overlapping meaning which have nevertheless developed uniquely nuanced definitions.
When we discourage precise language, we risk discouraging the precise distinctions which that language expresses. When we no longer habitually make those distinctions, complex questions become reduced to simplistic categories, and arguments which depend upon careful qualification become increasingly difficult to follow.
While some may argue that simplifying language is intended to make ideas easier to understand, the very practice of oversimplification eventually encourages a habit of thought incapable of effectively understanding those very ideas themselves.
This process has real and potentially devastating political consequences. A citizen who understands the distinction between a necessary policy and an expedient one can challenge a government which invokes necessity to justify an otherwise questionable or arbitrary exercise of power. A citizen who has never learned to distinguish these concepts, however, is in danger of accepting a government’s assertion of necessity without recognising that it requires justification. Consequently, a government faces less scrutiny, as those whom they govern lack the conceptual tools necessary to expose the deficiencies in their reasoning.
The oversimplification of language impoverishes thought; impoverished thought diminishes the capacity for critical judgment; diminished critical judgment weakens political accountability; and weakened accountability creates favourable conditions for the arbitrary exercise of power and rule by diktat. Only those who have been truly educated in the foundational principles of epistemology, metaphysics and logic (even if only intuitively rather than through formal study) possess the intellectual tools necessary to hold their rulers to account. Such an education provides an intellectual foundation of infinitely greater value than a PhD from a modern university. And to grasp these concepts one requires a command of precise language through which these fundamental principles can be understood, articulated, and applied to the problems of the day.
