Clear language, although increasingly adopted around the world, is the subject of debate on many aspects of its use, impact and limitations. Here are some of the main issues and debates surrounding clear language:
1. Simplification vs. language impoverishment
One of the major debates surrounding plain language concerns the fear that simplifying texts will lead to an impoverishment of language. Some critics believe that plain language can reduce linguistic richness, by limiting the use of technical, metaphorical or poetic terms, in favour of a more basic vocabulary. They fear that this could lead to a “sanitised” form of communication which, in an attempt to be understandable to everyone, risks neglecting the diversity of expression and nuance.
Argument in favour: Clear language is not intended to impoverish language, but to make it accessible to a greater number of people, particularly those with comprehension difficulties (illiteracy, cognitive disabilities, non-native speakers). It can be a preliminary step before exposure to richer, more complex language.
2. Universal accessibility vs. target audiences
There is also debate about whether clear language should be universal or adapted to the needs of specific audiences. Some critics point out that what is clear to one group (the elderly, young people, people with disabilities) may not be clear to another.
Argument in favour: The aim of plain language is to make information accessible to the majority, while recognising that there may be different levels of simplification depending on the target audience. Initiatives such as “Facile à Lire et à Comprendre” (FALC) communication are designed to meet the needs of people with intellectual disabilities, while other forms of simplification are more generalist.
3. Clarity vs. precision
In certain fields, particularly legal and scientific, plain language is criticised for the risk of compromising the accuracy of information. Legal texts, for example, are often highly complex because of the need to be extremely precise in order to avoid misunderstandings or legal loopholes. Simplification could, according to opponents, lead to erroneous or incomplete interpretations.
Argument in favour: The aim of clear language is not to reduce precision, but to make it more understandable. Effective communication can and should combine both precision and clarity, striking a balance between the two. Tools and standards, such as ISO 24495, help to formalise this approach.
4. Effort required vs. resistance to change
Adopting plain language requires changes in writing practices and training for professionals. This can give rise to a certain amount of resistance, particularly in academic, legal and administrative circles, where technical and complex language is often valued as a mark of professionalism.
Argument in favour: While change does require training, the benefits of plain language, in terms of time savings, efficiency and accessibility, far outweigh these challenges. Many public authorities and businesses have found that simplified documents reduce errors and improve understanding of procedures.
5. Universal standards vs. linguistic diversity
Another debate focuses on the difficulty of establishing universal standards for clear language, not least because of the diversity of languages and cultures. What is perceived as clear in one language is not necessarily clear in another, especially as some languages are more complex or contextual than others.
Argument in favour: Efforts to develop international standards, such as those of ISO, aim to adapt the basic principles of plain language to different languages, while respecting their specific characteristics. Local and regional initiatives play a key role in this adaptation.
6. Clear language and social justice
Plain language is often presented as a lever for reducing inequalities by giving marginalised groups such as people with disabilities, the elderly, migrant populations, etc. access to information. However, some fear that this is not enough to resolve the more structural inequalities linked to access to education or resources.
Argument in favour: While plain language alone cannot solve all the problems of inequality, it is nevertheless a powerful tool for social inclusion and democratic participation. By making information accessible to a wider audience, it contributes to individual autonomy and a fairer society.
Conclusion
Despite its growing adoption, plain language is facing debates about its implementation and consequences. Between simplification and precision, efforts to adapt and resistance to change, it is essential to find a balance that makes it possible to extend the accessibility of information without compromising its quality. These debates enrich our thinking and stimulate ongoing improvements to plain language as an essential lever of modern communication.