The Underdog of Writing Styles

By Tiffany Yang

After learning the strategies and devices used within official style, I learned about plain style and how they are the opposite of each other. This gave me the misconception that plain style translates to unprofessional, unreliable, non-educational, and unintelligent forms of writing. To dig deeper, I analyzed an article that utilized plain style and detected the strategies used to compare how this prose style is used, the context of this article, and how it can affect the way it is used in spheres of human activity. The article chosen was published by a website called Healthline. Their main goal is to set readers and viewers on a journey to health and wellness. They claim to have the best interests concerning wellbeing, and cutting through all the confusion with straightforward, expert-reviewed, person-first experiences – all designed to help viewers make the best decisions for themselves. They have several topics ranging from nutrition, sleep, mental health, fitness, and product reviews, etc. My article talks about haircare, specifically the effectiveness of hair vitamins. The article explains what exactly hair vitamins are, nutrients they provide, if they work, and their recommendations. This article was found on Google, with a quick word search of “Do hair vitamins work?” and it was one of the first five articles that appeared. This shows that the article is easily accessible to the public and very inclusive. 

The author of this article is Katey Davidson. She is a Canadian registered dietitian and certified personal trainer. She graduated with a master's in science in foods and nutrition from Western University. She specializes in women's nutrition and fitness, with a focus on sustainable, long-term behavioral change. In addition, she teaches at the School of Food and Nutritional Sciences at Brescia University College, an affiliate of Western University. She has authored several articles for Healthline on weight loss, veganism, product-reviews, and more.

 Davidson uses a lot of obvious plain styles in her article about hair vitamins. After reading what Healthline's purpose is, it makes sense as to why they use plain style in their writing. Their website description clearly states that they want to cut through all the confusion and provide expert answers and information, in a straightforward way. This is premature evidence that plain style is present. To look closer at plain style strategies I will share the ones found within the excerpt I have examined but let us first discuss the readability statistics of this article. 

To gather accurate numbers for the statistics, an excerpt which I believe was an accurate representation of this article’s writing was selected to calculate. The results were slightly shocking because plain styles are meant to have low Gunning Fog Indexes and high Flesch Reading Eases, but in this case the Gunning Fog Index was 13.27 which means in order to read and comprehend this article, the individual would need to have at least 13 years of formal education. I was expecting this number to be lower considering the simplicity of the writing but after taking into consideration that Healthline still is a source that provides information and expert answers, it makes sense that the Gunning Fog Index is around, what would be considered, a high school graduate. As for the Flesch Reading Ease, I was expecting this number to be very high because to me this article was easy to read but I was surprised to see a reading ease of 39.86. Although this is not low, it is also not as high as I expected. These results do not fit what is expected of plain style writing, so let us now identify the strategies of plain style Davidson used.

The first strategy Davidson used is a clear active voice. An example within the excerpt is when Davidson states, “When your body is functioning well, it can better support nonessential functions like growing healthy hair.” This is an active voice because this statement focuses on the subject and then what the subject is doing, rather than the subject being acted upon by the verb. A passive example of this exact statement would be written like this: “Growing healthy hair is a nonessential function that can be better supported by a well-functioning body.” This is the opposite of plain style and the tone it presents is much more formal. This led me to identify the next strategy, which is the level of formality Davidson chose. 

Plain style often uses low levels of formality, taking into consideration all audiences and open accessibility. A first-person perspective would be the lowest level of formality, a second person perspective would be next, and the third-person perspective would be the highest level of formality. Davidson having written the article in second person perspective makes the article less intimidating and does not obscure readers from understanding her article. The low level of formality is not the only strategy that helps readers understand her writing. It is also accompanied by the strategy of providing sentences that are noncomplex. 

Throughout this article Davidson refrains from using jargon and euphemism, in turn avoiding the probable cause of creating unnecessary verbose and complex sentences. The idea around plain style is to have short, noncomplex sentences that typically have one or minimal ideas within each sentence. There is no jargon that would obscure readers and no euphemism to force readers to read in formal tones. Having put all the strategies mentioned together, they all work in favor of the same goal and purpose: to relay information in a simple manner so that the article can have a large openness of accessibility, which can then be read by various groups of audiences, and circuit through different spheres of human activity. 

After identifying all the strategies and how they play a role within plain style, let us now discuss context versus text. I had mentioned earlier that this website (Healthline) had a goal of providing viewers and readers with quick, easily understood, expert answers and information by cutting through all the confusion. It seems like Healthline is reciting exactly what plain style. They are an accessible website open to whoever has internet access and in being so accessible, their audience can be determined as the general public. Based on this context, I argue that plain style is very appropriate and fitting. When something is as accessible as this article on Healthline, the goal should be to appeal to a wide range of audiences, wide range of purposes and goals, because the spheres of human activity here can vary. Therefore, I believe Healthline chose to write in plain style to reach the maximum number of readers and viewers. Now we should consider different contexts and the counterargument that plain style is not fitting or does not affect the spheres of human activity. Hypothetically, what if the context of this article was the exact opposite? Such as, it had extremely limited accessibility through the means of a paid subscription, or the need for a specific position/status/certification of some type (student, professor, scientist, etc.). In this scenario, would plain style still be fitting or does the prose style have an impact on this different context? I would argue that plain style would still be appropriate because although the context is different, Davidsons article still serves it purpose of presenting knowledge and information. The different context would change accessibility, audiences, and how this article would circuit, but the purpose of the article remains the same. This article still provides the audience with quick and simple expert answers, which means the spheres of human activity would still be similar, Healthline provides their information to be applied and used as knowledge.

In conclusion, I do not believe there is a situation where plain style would not be appropriate. Although some contextual factors may change, the overall purpose remains no matter the context. Plain style does not translate to unprofessional, unreliable, non-educational, or unintelligent. Text can still relay amazing information, answers and expertise while using plain style. Plain style simply means one's writing means exactly what they say/write. There are minimal to zero special strategies that could cause obscurities. Therefore, the prose style of plain may sometimes affect the context but does not change the purpose or sphere of human activities. 

Double-Speak in Plain Style

By Branden Schultz

            Plain Style is great at its job. It can clearly pass on information, and it doesn’t matter if it's meant to be entertaining, informative, or persuasive. For one, it keeps a simple vocabulary and usually has concise sentences, guaranteeing that almost any reader can get something out of it. However, plain style can be used for more than simple language. It can put a spotlight on abstract ideas and themes, while not physically having them within the text. Ernest Hemingway employs this ‘double-speaking’ this in the short story “Hills Like White Elephants”, which touches on hedonism and abortion in its four pages.

“Hills Like White Elephants” is, again, short and has a very simple style. If complexities were crimes, its only charges would be the occasional longer sentence and requiring some familiarity with Spanish currency and alcohol names (or at least the ability to use context clues to figure out what they mean). For some context on “Hills Like White Elephants”, it was originally published in 1927 for the literary magazine Transition, and again later that same year in Hemingway’s short story collection Men Without Women. Transition was a magazine known for having abstract articles that did not directly address their themes, but instead alludes to them. Men Without Women is a selection of Hemingway’s works, which share common themes of hedonism, infidelity, and abortion among them. “Hills Like White Elephants” maintains a simple language that only requires four years of education to understand, according to the Gunning Fog Index. (3.98, specifically).  Pieces written in this style were a norm for Transition, giving Hemingway a specific audience that he would want to maintain circulation with-besides the general, wide-spanning audience that the plain language inherently gives him.

The dialogue is some of the simplest, shortest parts of the story, but has the strongest allusions at the same time. A husband and wife are on a training, with the implication that the wife is pregnant and seeking/considering an abortion. Consider the following excerpt, which can be found after the first introduction paragraph (see “Further Reading” below for the full passage).

"What should we drink?" the girl asked. She had taken off her hat and put it on the table.

"It's pretty hot," the man said.

"Let's drink beer."

"Dos cervezas," the man said into the curtain.

"Big ones?" a woman asked from the doorway.

"Yes. Two big ones."

Again, the dialogue is very simple. The longest spoken sentence is four words, but already there’s emphasis that they’re drinking ‘big’ ones (notice the repetition). There is also an implied detachment with the man speaking into the curtain, as if he is issuing dismissive orders to a waiting servant (which he really is). As soon as the scene starts, the main characters begin drinking, which kicks off their hedonistic behaviors. There’s also signs of a controlling relationship between the two, as the man tries to reign in his wife’s conversation and also convince her that she wants the abortion.

“"Everything tastes of licorice. Especially all the things you've waited so long for, like absinthe." (The girl says), to which the man replies, “Oh cut it out.” Again, the sentences are concise and clear, especially the man’s blunt replies. Regarding my aforementioned accusation that the man is convincing the girl to want the abortion (which is only referenced as an ‘operation’ in the story; another allusion), Hemingway writes, “‘Well’, the man said, ‘if you don’t want to you don’t have to. I wouldn’t have you do it if you didn’t want to. But I know it’s perfectly simple.’ [The girl replies] ‘And you really want to?’ ‘I think it’s the best thing to do. But I don’t want you to if you don’t really want to.’” The man puts emphasis that A) there’s no reason to worry about the operation because it’s ‘perfectly simple’, B) the man is still in control of the situation because ultimately he will be the one deciding he he has her do it or not, though he is being ‘good’ by letting her choose if she wants to. It’s a subtle, manipulative way to reassert control, while allowing the girl to have an illusion of choice (even if there is a clear ‘right’ choice). Hemingway does not leave it plainly written for the audience, but the signs and allusions are all within the piece.

In short, plain style is a great way to help ensure that a text maintains a wide circulation of audiences. The more people that can understand a text, the better. However, plain style also allows for a spotlight to be put on allusions and themes, and is done in a way that other styles can not so cleanly replicate. The story is not about the text, but the implications beneath it. There’s a story within a story.

 

Further Reading

“HillsLike White Elephants” 

Does Standardized Testing Measure Intelligence?

By Caitlin Olson

Standardized testing is to suppose to be an accurate representation of how well a student will perform in various subjects throughout school. The article that I chose to write about is “The Advantages and Disadvantages of Achievement Tests” by Ralph Heibutzki. Throughout this article he discusses the main issues of standardized testing such as race, income, pressure to perform, and not all skills are measured equally. He also gave same some examples of how standardized testing could be beneficial such as it is efficient to administrator, student improvement, and accurate performance indicator.

The plain style is very evident by using short, less complex sentences. They state the facts clearly and concisely without all the extra, unnecessary jargon. This article does not have a targeted audience and it does not seem to be bias towards one opinion. This allows the audience to read the information and form their own opinion on the topic. I believe the writer wanted their readers to know both sides of standardized testing and how it can be a positive thing when determining effective performance and a negative thing when it comes to the pressure they bring to students. 

As far as accessibility, this article is accessible to any reader as well as it is easy to read. Each section of the article is bolded as well as it uses clear, plain language. The writer also wrote their argument in a logical order by putting the important details first. In the beginning they talked about some of the positive aspects of standardized testing such as being a performance indicator, effective venue for change, and efficient to administer. They indicated that if used appropriately, standardized testing can provide a clear-cut picture of how well a student is performing. This is a good thing for parents because they appreciate having this information so they can pinpoint what their child is doing wrong and how they help them succeed. Teachers also benefit by seeing these results because it allows them to see what they need to approve on as a teacher. When it comes to being effective venue for change, the educational policymakers often use these tests to decide how they want to allocate their resources. According to Popham “Such funds are best used in districts whose scores suggest serious action is requires”. If a school’s test scores look like they need to be improved, most of the funding will go to that school. Lastly, they discussed how standardized testing is more efficient to administer. This is because all of the testing is done over the computer, and it reduces the time that it takes to grade tests.

They continued this pattern by then discussing the negative effects of standardized testing. By doing this it allows the reader to easily follow along with the main arguments of the paper. Some of the negative effects that they talked about are not all skills are measured equally, fairness, and the negative pressures on schools. In this section they argued that no test will ever be able, no matter how unbiased it seems, can equally measure what each student learns. Standardized testing is typically in a multiple-choice format which only measures knowledge and skills and not creativity and problem solving. When it comes to fairness there is a gap in achievement results between rich and poor students because students that are rich have more opportunities to succeed than students who are in low-income houses. Lastly, there is a lot of negative pressures on the schools to succeed because funding and salary improvements are typically associated with the test score results. Also, students that do not do well on the test may be written off and placed in classes that do not challenge them. This may leave the student as well as the teacher to feel unmotivated.

As far as credibility, this article seems to be very organized and well thought out by how they laid out their argument to their readers. They also cited their research throughout the article which makes the reader feel as though the writer took the time to thoroughly investigate this topic. They were able to make this article easy to read while also seeming credible to their readers. This article is very easy to skim from outside readers because of the bolded title as well as shorter paragraphs. It was set in an appropriate tone where it seemed like they were very professional and they also seemed very passionate about the topic. As I said before, this article does a really good job of blending styles because it seems credible as well as it is easy to read for outside audiences. 

There was also minimal redundancy throughout this article. The main idea was definitely stated but it was repeated over and over again. They clearly had separate sections for each main point and then continued to elaborate on those main points. The use of active voice was also clear throughout this article. The tone made it seem like they were talking straight to their readers which gave it a personal touch. Using this tone, it allows the readers to connect with the writer and form their own opinion.

In conclusion, “The Advantages and Disadvantages of Achievement Tests” conveyed a lot of plain language while also seeming credible to its readers. This article a lot of shorter, less complex sentences and minimal jargon. The article wrote in active voice which helps the readers connect more with the writer. Using these strategies of plain style will help the readers fully understand the topic and then they can form their own opinions on the matter.

Plain Style in the Deep Water Movie Review

By Matthew Nelson

        I am looking at a review written for the movie Deep Water starring Ben Affleck and Ana de Armas.  The review itself was written by Brian Tallerico.  The movie is a thriller about a serial adulterer whose partners keep going missing and she suspects her husband as being responsible for the disappearances.  Due to the nature of the film the review was also tailored to a mature audience in its references to the behavior of the characters but the style in which it was written is extremely informal and plain.  It was written in the first person and includes quite a few plain style strategies that give the review the feeling of a conversation the author is having with the reader rather than a formal analysis of how the film conducted itself in the eyes of the reviewer.  Despite the ease I found in reading the review it still scored a 14.77 on the Gunning Fog Index which is relatively high for a plain style, a score of 12 being deemed the more difficult end of the plain style spectrum.  The Flesch reading ease is more proportionate to how I felt the review read, that score being 53.99.

            The first very contrasting element to the review that makes it a plain style of writing compared to some of the official style works that we had looked at was the lack of jargon used by the author.  There are a number of pop culture references and comparisons made between Deep Water and other films made in the genre but there was no use of jargon or Latinate diction that would have excluded the reader from an of the information or reserved aspects of the review for the movie critic community.  An excerpt from the review reads, “There are echoes of Affleck's work in “Gone Girl” in how he captures Vic’s temperature,” where the reference to another film that Ben Affleck starred in captures the most exclusive aspect of the review, though instead of accumulating years of education to understand the reference fully as is common in the official style, the reader needs only watch the film for it to make sense.  That level of depth, or lack thereof, is what highlights the plain style the review was written in without any jargon potentially alienating the members of its audience.

            I had also mentioned in the introduction that the author wrote the review in a way that makes the audience feel more like they are being spoken to by a familiar person rather than having to read through lines of droning cinematic analysis which is not necessarily a criteria of official or plain style in its own right, but the way it was used in this piece contribute to the plain style of literature that it was written in.  There are times when the author drifts in and out of an inner monologue and a direct conversation with the reader and this sense of inconsistency and messiness adds to the entertainment value of the review which was no doubt the indented effect, but it does become too familiar in my eyes to be considered anything other than plain and informal writing.

            In the review the author uses a number of rhetorical devices that contribute the conversational feeling of the writing, but he extensively uses rhetorical questions to engage the audience in his train of thought when he was reviewing Deep Water.  They are littered throughout the review, and each provokes analysis of the movie but none of them require an answer since, in keeping with the rhetorical strategy they are all either answered immediately after or require no answer at all since the answer was already talked over by the author. “Will the “Make Movies Sexy Again” crowd give some of the storytelling bumps in “Deep Water” a pass or is this going to be further proof that the subgenre is creatively dead?...  Is he kidding?...  Why is this man devoting so much time and capital to his theory that Vic is a murderer?...  Has Vic always seen human life as disposable?” are just a few of the rhetorical questions in the review that create an informal and conversational atmosphere about the writing.  This is not to say that a rhetorical device like the rhetorical question cannot be used in official style but the frequency of their implementation and the dialogue between the reader and the author that they cultivate create a plainer style of writing that most if not all adults would be proficient enough at reading to fully grasp.

            I thought the review was entertaining and explored the film knowledgably without alienating any of the audience by using the official style.  The devices and strategies that the author imbued his writing with for this review was plain but not boring which made the reading accessible to a general audience without subjugating them to a bland or elementary diction.

Can Plain Language Effectively Stand Alone?

By Peter Hliqaim

Society has an obligation to write in a manner so that the complexities of writing can be understood without hard analysis followed by long hours of frustration. Plain style is straight forward, clear, and when used correctly, can be very effective. It is a tool for reaching a range of audiences and providing easily understood information. The use of strategies such as metabasis, exemplum, and active voice can make writings straight forward yet still interesting and keeps the reader intrigued when used effectively. Though some pieces can appear written in the official style, it may not necessarily be considered official style by merely adopting formatting styles and using complex words.

Imagine Games Network (IGN) is a media outlet for gaming news, reviews, and walkthroughs; This professional platform influences IGN writers to pull from the official style format, but that is as far as it goes. Dan Stapleton, IGN’s Executive Editor of Reviews is a 18 year gaming journalist veteran and is in charge of the gaming reviews that are published through IGN. His expertise as a journalist influences the many writers at IGN such as Mitchell Saltzman, the author of the article Elden Ring Review to write in similar taste. The article only uses official style strategies such as prepositional phrases to appear professional, but in reality, is straightforward and uses more plain text strategies to convey the message, “To set the stage, all you know from the outset is that you play as a “Tarnished” of no renown, blessed by grace, and are compelled to make the journey to The Lands Between and become an Elden Lord” (Saltzman, 2022). The structure isn’t complex and Saltzman sticks to the idea of explaining who the Tarnished is. This is one way to mask plain style in a way that is higher level writing, and not incorporating too many different ideas in a sentence. Plain text can be at times uninteresting and dry, but Saltzman is able keep readers engaged through writing in the active voice and relating his experience to the readers.   

Saltzman begins with a first-person approach to give the audience an understanding that this is his experience, and this is his opinion:

In the 87 hours that it took me to beat Elden Ring, I was put through an absolute wringer of emotion: Anger as I was beaten down by its toughest challenges, exhilaration when I finally overcame them, and a fair amount of sorrow for the mountains of exp I lost along the way to some of the toughest boss encounters FromSoftware has ever conceived.

There is no “they” because this is a personal level Saltzman is trying to relate with the reader. When reviewing a game for the public, point of view matters because the audience wants to learn what the good and the bad is directly from the person, someone to relate to. If what Saltzman experienced is relatable by writing in the first-person view, we as an audience are more likely to feel a connection because there is an attempt to connect with the audience rather than just spewing information for us to absorb. Saltzman does a good job staying in the first-person and tells his story well to the audience. In this way we get a better understanding of what he went through and what we can expect or have already similarly experienced. To further increase the readability of Elden Ring Review, Saltzman makes it easy to follow each new idea introduced.

Saltzman makes it a point to make sure his audience understands what is to come next from one  idea to the next by using a plain text strategy known as metabasis. This helps the reader follow the article more easily and helps them understand what to expect, “you can equip Ashes of War to your weapons and completely change their affinity and skill…The Ashes of War system essentially combines two elements of prior Souls games – weapon affinities and weapon skills – by making them items that you can freely equip to your armaments” (Saltzman, 2022). All of his ideas transition smoothly, helping readers have an easier time understanding his thought process and explanations. This leads into the next strategy that is used in every new idea, and that is exemplum. Saltzman makes the effort to explain every idea as if the reader has no prior knowledge. This helps in the reader’s understanding of concepts they are not familiar with yet, “‘Freedom’ is the word that every aspect of Elden Ring’s design connects back to. From the moment you set foot in Limgrave, the first of many interconnected regions of The Lands Between, you are completely free to go wherever you want” (Saltzman, 2022). He introduces the idea of freedom in Elden Ring and then proceeds to explain why that is the case. Saltzman continues this strategy when explaining systems in the game regarding weapons, skills, and so on. Normally, these plain strategies would be very uninteresting as it tends to be too straightforward and dry, but Saltzman has achieved a good balance in his article by also pulling from creative strategies as well.

Possessing the skill to effectively blend different styles into an individual's writing makes a big difference when deciding your audience and what type of writing you want to achieve. Official style and plain styles can be dry and uninteresting, but Saltzman is able to pull from creative styles by using elements of hyperboles and creative word choice. In this instance, Saltzman exaggerates his time in Elden Ring to describe to the reader how he felt after his long 87 hour playthrough, “Even after 87 hours of blood, sweat, and tears that included some of the most challenging fights I’ve ever fought, and innumerable surprises, there are still bosses that I left on the table…” (Saltzman, 2022). Besides the sweat and tears, blood is definitely an exaggeration on Saltzman's part, as well as choosing to say “innumerable” to explain the many secrets found in Elden Ring. Saltzman uses strategies such as the ones mentioned above to effectively deliver his message and it proves to be an intriguing read throughout.

Plain style strategies shine best when paired with other writing strategies such as official and creative. It’s not a standalone strategy that works well on its own unless the text is strictly informative to the point of simplification for the audience's understanding. There are many things that plain strategies can do well even if at times it can be too vague. By blending different effective writing strategies, plain style can be made to shine well in any given situation.

National Geographic: Quasi-Scientific Writing?

By Draza Kolpack

It may come as no surprise that National Geographic is one of the most prolific and consumed magazines in the United States; whether one reads Nat Geo Kids at a young age or comes across a National Geographic article through research, millions of Americans are familiar with the name and content of these quasi-academic articles. But to what is their success due? After reading my chosen article, Climate-resilient coral gives hope to the world’s reefs, I would argue that their success rests in the author’s (in this instance Sarah Gibbens’) well-practiced ability to apply the plain style to information that is largely academic in nature. While one would expect information that would otherwise be found in scientific journals and studies to be dense and hidden behind a veil of jargon and flowery language, National Geographic seems to have found the balance necessary to ascribe to their large readership. However, this balance is invariably a difficult one to maintain; what are the implications of speaking too plainly or using too academic a tone in a piece such as this? In this piece I plan to illustrate how the writing style employed by the author fits the context of the article, as a piece of scientific literature made accessible to the public, and highlight how these styles work within the multiple spheres of human activity this information may find itself in.

To contextualize the context of the article, as well as the spheres of influence I referenced above, I think it is best to also have a greater understanding of the official and plain styles used by the author of this article in a broader sense. The official style, often found in academic and bureaucratic writing, is characterized by the use of passive or impersonal voice, complex sentences, slow sentence openings, shapeless or ‘unspeakable’ form, excessive use of jargon, a bureaucratic tone, and higher levels of abstraction alongside a number of other nuances. This lays in juxtaposition to the plain style, a style of writing that utilizes an active voice, simpler sentences, an informal tone/diction, and clear subjects with the intention of producing writing that is clear and concise to a large majority of readers in the target audience. To provide further context as to how these strategies are employed and how elements of both the official and plain styles were balanced by Gibbens in this piece, I will provide passages from the text with analyses as well as readability statistics that may grant a better frame of reference for the difficulty of the text.

Passage One:

““We found hope,” says Rowan McLachlan, a coral expert at Oregon State University and lead author of the study published today in Nature Scientific Reports.  Hope has been a scarce thing lately on coral reefs. As a result of human-made greenhouse gas emissions, they face chronically warmer water, more intense marine heat waves, and an increasingly acidic ocean. That’s in addition to local stresses from pollution and overfishing.  The world has so far warmed by 1.1°C (1.98°F), and coral reefs have already suffered mass fatalities.”

            Most notably this passage utilizes some active voice and shorter, less complex sentences; this lends itself to being easier to understand while also presenting the information in a more personal/personable tone. Furthermore, while there is still jargon scattered throughout this piece, the salient nature of the issue at hand (climate change) means that the terms the readers face are widely known or easily inferred.

Passage Two:

“Oceans absorb some of the heat building up in the atmosphere. Heat waves amplified by climate change prompt corals to expel the symbiotic algae that nourish them—an effect called coral bleaching, which can ultimately kill them. Meanwhile, oceans also absorb some of the atmosphere’s excess carbon dioxide, making seawater more acidic, which weakens coral skeletons.”

Once again there are examples of jargon in this passage, but here we see the author’s choice to preemptively provide an explanation to terminology which may be confusing to readers. I think that this is one glaring difference between this piece and your average academic paper, where jargon is thrown around under the assumption the reader is well aware of what it means and how it should be applied to the circumstance.

Readability Statistics: (From the article as a whole) 

(Gunning Fog Index: estimated grade level required to understand text / Flesch Reading Ease: scale from 1-100, 1 being most difficult to read and 100 being the easiest)

            With the content of these passages in mind, we can now discuss the implications of writing scientific information plainly as the author of this article chose to do. It could be argued that distilling academic articles into plain writing only serves to water-down the content and that meaning is lost in translation, but I think that upon closer inspection that the author of the article in question walks the knifes-edge exceptionally well; I feel it would be quite reasonable to assume that readers with no background knowledge on the subject as well as readers well-versed in the field could consume this media with no complaints. By writing scientific findings plainly the author is able to circumvent the gatekeeping of information that is prevalent in academia due to use of the official style; this makes the information presented easily digestible (subjectively I suppose) to the average high school-educated individual and subsequently allows for National Geographic to appropriately reach larger audiences. Furthermore, it is important to note that while the official style is often used to present the author as credible or intelligent, distilling jargonistic and other wise difficult concepts into readable material demonstrates a certain level of expertise as well. I feel that in an age where ‘fake news’ and scientific denial are prevalent that recognizing this talent for making previously inaccessible data more readable, and the credibility borne of it, is increasingly important. This said, some will never read or trust National Geographic regardless of it’s use of plain writing to discuss complicated subjects, though it is difficult to claim that this phenomenon is a consequence of the stylistic choices made or the result of distrust in media due to widespread misinformation. Though this is undoubtably a limiting factor for this particular work, I find that there is very little change the author could have made to improve the situation at hand- no magazine has the entire world as members of its readership but the stylistic choices employed by Gibbens could set the stage for dissuading apprehension in regards to scientific literature which in turn can only lead to more acceptance of works in this genre. While many facets of the official style are not plausible to change, for example legal writing often requires the flowery language that the official style provides in order to cover any and all loopholes in a statement, but I feel much of today’s bureaucratic would be drastically improved by following in the footsteps of those at National Geographic; writing complicated things plainly could be one of many answers that solves the growing concern that is distrust in elite sources.

Explaining The Complex Science Behind Music With Plain Style

By Tori Horman

        When learning new things, I often find myself getting frustrated when the author uses confusing language to describe a concept. It makes me feel as though I’m not smart enough to grasp what is being talked about, and so I often give up trying to learn about it. One hobby that I’m very passionate about is music. I enjoy listening to it, as well as playing it. Because of this, the book Why You Love Music: From Mozart to Metallica--The Emotional Power of Beautiful Sounds by John Powell caught my attention and I had pick it up. In this book, Powell uses plain language to describe the psychology and science behind music. Powell has a master’s degree in music composition, as well as a PhD is physics. Some of the topics in the book can be quite complex, for example, the chapter discussing how notes are formed by combining sound waves, but the author does his best to break things down so that the average reader is able to understand. In addition to this, he writes in a casual, conversational tone, often with bits of humor sprinkled throughout.

            Two of the most prominent plain style strategies in this book are the avoidance of jargon, abstraction, and euphemism and lower level of formality. The author defines any terms that the reader may be unfamiliar with, often using analogies and examples of things that readers are familiar with. Taking a concept that the reader may be familiar with and using that to illustrate how something works allows them to better visualize what is going on. Page 205 reads, “When you improvise, you don’t allow yourself total freedom. You choose your notes carefully, according to the rules appropriate to whatever genre of music you are playing- and there are always rules. Rule-free improvisation would be like rule-free conversation: a frustrating, unrewarding mess. This comparison with conversation is quite useful because conversations are improvised.” Like musical improvisation, a conversation is not scripted, but there are rules to follow based on context. By making this comparison, readers who do not have a background in genres of music that use improvisation can better understand how it has rules. This quote also uses “you” to refer directly to the reader, thus lowering the level of formality. Another way the author does this is by adding humor and personal comments throughout the book to keep the reader entertained.

            In addition to explaining musical concepts the reader may not be familiar with, the book also breaks down scientific concepts regarding sound and how our brains process it. For example Page 122 of Chapter 9 says, “Your eardrums are like tiny, highly sensitive trampolines that react quickly to changes in air pressure.” Comparing an eardrum to a trampoline allows the reader to visualize something they are familiar with. The book goes on to explain how your eardrum reacts to musical notes in particular saying, “When you hear a musical note, however, there is a repeating pattern to the pushes and pulls on your eardrum. If you hit a piano key, twang a guitar string, or blow into a saxophone, you set up a trembling vibration in the instrument and the air around it…. The regular to-and-fro vibration of the instrument produces a pattern of repeating ripples of pressure in the air that push and pull on your eardrum.” In this explanation, the author uses active voice and simple sentences to explain the process of sound traveling to the eardrum. Active voice is particularly important when explaining processes like this because it’s important for the reader to know what is doing what (the vibration produces a pattern, the ripples of pressure push and pull on your eardrum, etc).

Some people may argue that plain style limits the reader from getting the full picture. They claim that advanced scientific concepts cannot be broken down very well into simpler language without losing some much-needed information. However, texts in plain style are a great starting point for conveying information to someone with no prior knowledge of a topic. Someone who is completely unfamiliar with the complex workings behind a topic is not going to find an article full of jargon and official style helpful. If the reader wants to dive deeper, they can seek out more advanced texts once they are more familiar with the basics. This book cites several studies throughout the text, so that readers can seek out information presented in its original more complex context once they are familiar with the basics. For example, chapter 8 centers around explaining a variety of studies done by researchers on musical talent. These studies are summarized and cited in the bibliography at the back of the book which has all of the sources cited by chapter so the reader can easily seek out the sources they are most interested in for further reading.

            Overall, plain style is important when first introducing readers to more complex topics. Although I am someone with a background in music, I don’t know all of the science behind it, or how creates certain psychological reactions in people. I learned a lot from this book that I feel will benefit me as a musician, as well as allow me as a listener to think about music in a new way. If this information was presented in a more complex way, I would have struggled to grasp it a lot more and admittedly not even bothered to learn about it in the first place.

Musical Analysis in Plain English

By Gabriella D.

           If written works in official style is hard to understand, plain style works are hard to find. Within this world full of official style, there aren’t many scholarly articles works in plain prose that are published and include a full text. More specifically, a university search database definitely makes my search more difficult. However, after reading this specific piece, I automatically knew that it was written in plain style based on general reading ease. The piece is called “Meaningful Collaborations: An Introduction to Music of Jamaica” by Karen Howard. In contrast to other articles, I was able to easily read the article and stay engaged without the niche language, repetition, or other high style techniques. At first glance, the sentence structure consistently followed the plain style format of the kicker followed then by the kicked. Not only linguistically but also visually, I was able to identify plain style because of the visual aids accompanying the text. The piece surrounds a 5^th grade teacher and his students. They invite Dr. David Aarons, an ethnomusicologist, to their fifth-grade class to teach about the professional’s wide variety of traditional and contemporary music experiences from Jamaica. The article follows the author’s experience teaching their fifth-grade class parts of the Jamaican music culture by an ethnomusicologist while also understanding the sociocultural socio-history behind Jamaican lyrics. While we learn the different parts of Jamaican musical culture, we analyze the type of prose used throughout the piece and its strategies, and why they are used. Then, we will consider the plain style prose within the context it is written. I argue that the context of which the piece is written makes a great impact on which stylistic prose is used. In this case, the author’s teaching background may have carried over into the language of the piece and affected the author’s choice of prose – plain style.

First, the stylistic strategies which are used throughout the piece prove that this piece is written mostly in plain-style which is also language teachers of lower-grade levels often use for easier understanding. For example, a plain-style strategy we see throughout the entirety of the article is conduplicato – the repetition of a keyword from a preceding clause or sentence at or near the beginning of the next. An article about music, understandably, variations of the word “song” is repeated about 14 times throughout the piece. Another strategy used is metabasis – stating what has been said and/or what will follow. Here, we can see that the author, rather smoothly, creates a transition by applying context to what they discussed which was analyzing Jamaican song lyrics, “An understanding of the song’s deeper cultural meaning behind the seemingly silly lyrics, however, secured its place in my curriculum” (56). We can see the author utilizes metabasis in hopes of concluding by tying the significance of this specific Jamaican musical piece to the context of their musical class.

However, we move on to the strategies that seemed to only magnify the cons of plain-style prose. For example, plain style may be easier to read but they may also oversimplify its content. For example, the author mentions a musical technique while analyzing the lyrics of a Jamaican song, “The call and response song can be placed into a key that works for the instruments that you choose” (56). According to ISKME.org, call and response is a technique where “one musician offers a phrase and a second player answers with a direct commentary or response to the offered phrase. The musicians build on each other’s offering and work together to move the song along and create a sound that’s inventive and collective”. However, this is a musical technique that is not explained further within the article. Although it can be self-explanatory, as the main topic being about music and Jamaican music analysis, there should be more explanation on this term and its nuances. Another example where the ethics of plain style are questioned is within a conversation between the teacher and their students on the introduction of Jamaican culture,

“They smoke a lot.” I realize that he means marijuana, and I am unsure how to respond. I decide to be frank and say that I do not know if that is true, but that it does seem to be a reputation associated with the country. I raise my finger in the air and say, “That might be . . . a stereotype!” We review the definition for stereotype. Clare reminds us is facing the wrong way,” It’s when we judge something without knowing things for sure.” I add, “Right—that we make an assumption without questioning why we think that, or where we heard it.” (54)

They are right to correct their students for stereotyping what they think they know of the country, but there is more to understand about this stereotype. It well and done that they now understand the definition of a stereotype, but more is to say about how to recognize other stereotypes in play, avoid them, and stop this stereotype threat. However, there is also not much to say as I doubt that sociological concepts of stereotypes are a part of the curriculum just yet.

In conclusion, the plain style has its pros and cons. It makes pieces more readable and accessible, however, it also has ethical implications like oversimplifying. This could be detrimental especially for the intended audience that comes with the more accessible plain style. However, the author’s stylistic choice of using plain-style prose may be due to the context surrounding this work. It is not written to a 5^th grade audience because of some moments of musical analysis. At the same time, this is not intended for musical theory experts as most of its sentences are simple and concise without much further explanation or analysis. The author is a teacher not only reflecting on their experience of teaching music culture to their fifth graders and analyzing Jamaican music, but they also aim to teach other educators how to go about music education. We can see this when they include dialogue of the students which makes for reference for other educators. Therefore, the intended audience are for teachers alike searching for ways to teach complex concepts to young children. In this case, plain-style prose is appropriate which its pros overpower its cons.

Accessibility in The New York Times: Does it Work?

By K.C. Cayo (they/them)

The New York Times, generally, has made a good practice of accessibility in their reading levels—their texts require a lower reading level, which means they have a higher reading ease. The typical New York Times article has about a tenth grade reading level and a Flesch Reading Ease of 60 to 70, so you do not need to be the most knowledgeable or the most qualified to understand any of their texts. One article, however, encompasses the best parts of Plain Style, though the overall tone used in the piece makes it fall short in other categories.

In mid-March, 2022, Luke Broadwater and Amelia Nierenberg wrote an article about the U.S. Senate meeting, groggy and obviously irritated, the morning after Daylight Savings time ended, and unanimously voted to make Daylight Savings permanent after very little discussion. The composition was humorous and light-hearted as it emphasized the exhaustion of senators after losing an hour of sleep, the surprising energy and unification they experienced across party lines at the possibility of getting rid of this “frustrating clock-changing", and the few comments that were covered in the bare-bones conversation. Senator Marco Rubio, a Republican from Florida, introduced the Sunshine Protection Act with almost no warning or debate.

Plain style is a writing approach that emphasizes the readers’ needs. It is concise and reader-friendly, often written for a wider audience. Daylight Savings, an issue that affects almost every person, is a good topic to address in plain style. This ensures that almost any reader could engage with the article and understand what the conversation is, what the bill addresses, and what final steps moving forward could look like. The authors ensured that this text would be accessible for a wide audience (ironic, seeing as The New York Times is [inaccessibly] hidden being a paywall) so they could inform the public about policies that the Senate is enacting. The style fits well with what a news article should look like, though perhaps it is at an even higher reading ease level than others of its kind. Though it uses some words that may require the occasional reader to break out their thesaurus, for the most part the sentences are simple, short, and intentional. The majority of the sentences are in active voice, emphasizing the action and the agent of said action, which in this scenario was likely done to not only humanize the Senators, but to create a humorous tone. The authors know that this topic, along with the speed in which it was brought to the Senate floor and passed, is funny, and that many readers will read about it with amused surprise. It is rare that politicians are willing to “cross the aisle” and agree with their counterparts of other parties, yet they came together so determinedly because they were cranky about losing an hour of sleep. In these ways, the plain style worked well for this type of writing.

On the other hand, plain style could also cause some problems when it is used in this way. This article reads like a comedy. It is laughable, it is enjoyable, and we, as readers, resonate will the bone-deep weariness and subsequent joy at the possibility of making Daylight Savings permanent. However, what this article gains in accessibility, it loses in credibility; the combination of the topic and the writing style do it a disservice in this situation. It hardly reads like a New York Times article. One way that this piece could have added credibility was by highlighting the historical precedent of Daylight Savings, the discourse that surrounds changing it in the first place, or even what the next steps look like in this conversation. Scientists and politicians have been advocating for a single time system for some time, though they do not agree about which version is the best one. There is also an extensive history to why Daylight Savings exists in the first place, from the passion project of Benjamin Franklin in the 1800s to the number of trains that would arrive late to the station due to the different “sun times” that different states followed in the 1840s. However, none of this history is addressed in any meaningful way in the article. Though this writing evokes excitement and amusement, it misses the mark in integrity.

There are pros and cons to every style of writing, and plain style is not unique in that sense. The New York Times, for all that it tends to aim toward official styles, or a mix of official and plain, leaned into the latter in this situation. This was an easy, comprehensible read geared toward a larger audience, which made sense for this piece considering how widely Daylight Savings affects a diverse range of people. However, for a political article, it was surprisingly comedic, whether that was intentional or not, and that hurt the ethos of the writing. Overall, this piece accomplished what it needed to: it informed the public of what the Senate is talking about in a simple, approachable way. Regardless of how they meant to accomplish that, they were successful.

Roger Ebert and Plain Style: A Review of the Review (Inception)

By Jonathon Brueggeman

        When reading through Roger Ebert’s personal, published review of the film Inception, it is immediately apparent why this particular reviewer has become synonymous with the term “film critic”—his language and analysis relates to a vast array of potential readers. However, this ocean of possible audience members seems paradoxical when you consider the fact that Ebert is essentially only telling his audience about his own experience with the film. He does not generalize the viewing to mass appeal, rather he crafts his review solely around his own experience and how he interpreted the film.

            Herein lies the beauty of plain style. In direct opposition of its big-headed brother “official style”, plain style exists as a medium where many different people can access certain information. Instead of being locked behind a barrier of jargon and deep contextual knowledge, plain style opens the gates of information and allows the masses to pour in. This concept is shown explicitly in Ebert’s review of Inception.

            In respect to the format of the review itself, I will not needlessly drone on about the benefits of plain style. The review will show exactly why plain style is so crucial in creating and engaging narrative and appealing to the most amount of people possible, though obviously not a limitless audience. Ebert uses plain and creative style strategies in order to create a captivating review that expresses his opinion of Inception to everyone concerned with (possibly) seeing the film.

            To begin, Ebert comes out swinging with a simple metaphor and immediately engages the audience with the use of first-person pronouns.

            [It] must have involved prodigious concentration, like playing blindfold chess while walking a tight-wire …Nolan tests us with his own dazzling maze.

            Right from the get-go, the audience of his article is captivated by his interesting, colorful use of language that also includes them in the conversation through his reference to “us”. The importance of this acknowledgement of community cannot be overstated. In official style, this sentence would likely read: “Because of the depth of the screenplay, the film is interesting to attempt to solve.” Blah, blah, blah. I bored myself just trying to think of the monotonous way an official style user would bastardize such a well-stated idea. By using figurative language, the reader immediately as an image of the task at hand and the complexity and sheer awe of the film in discussion.

            The story can either be told in a few sentences, or not told at all. Here is a movie immune to spoilers: If you knew how it ended, that would tell you nothing unless you knew how it got there. And telling you how it got there would produce bafflement

            Rather than jumping from his introduction directly into the summary of the plot, Ebert takes a second to let the astonishment of the movie settle in. He talks about Inception as if it is an experience rather than just a film. This connection would be impossible without the use of plain and creative styles. Ebert could have certainly begun his second paragraph with: “Dominic Cobb is a man who…” and proceeded to lay out a brief outline of the plot at hand. He doesn’t do that. The drama is allowed to marinate—the audience of his review can sense just how much this movie blew him away from three succinct sentences. It is also important to note that Ebert addresses Inception as a film “immune to spoilers”, but he goes out of his way to reveal as little of the plot as possible. Sure, this is the courteous thing to do, but I would argue that a piece written in official style may overlook this courtesy in favor of a deeper analysis of the film. Plain style allows Ebert to be vague in revealing the plot but oh so concrete in his description of his emotions and his experience watching the movie.

            The hero explains that you can never remember the beginning of a dream, and that dreams that seem to cover hours may only last a short time. Yes, but you don't know that when you're dreaming. And what if you're inside another man's dream? How does your dream time synch with his? What do you really know? 

            This excerpt is another perfect moment of plain style usage. Ebert brings up some monumental questions that the film challenged him to think about…but he doesn’t bother with answering them. Those are just details! He is not concerned with the questions themselves but rather the fact that the movie caused him to think them in the first place. By using official style, Ebert is allowed to branch off and ask himself big questions without feeling bogged down in the need to answer them. A piece written in a more official style would be obligated to explain something that was just brought up, but Ebert, because of his use of plain style, is allowed some space to just brainstorm ideas and show the audience what the film made him think.

            In the next paragraphs of the review, Ebert abandons the use of first person that I have so highly praised in favor of third person analysis. However, I would argue that this was the correct decision under the circumstances. This is because the paragraphs mostly summarize the events of the film in brief sentences that do not deal with his reactions or emotions during his own viewing. He is playing a dangerous game here because breaking the flow of his review with a complete shift in perspective into a more official style is risky, but it pays off incredibly well. Ebert uses these moments of official style to get the boring summary out of the way so he can get right back into the meat of his review—how Inception made him feel.

            So skilled is Nolan that he actually got me involved in one of his chases, when I thought I was relatively immune to scenes that have become so standard. That was because I cared about who was chasing and being chased. 

            In this quote is an important parallel between the review and the use of plain style: personal connection matters. In place of the monotonous droning provided in nearly every use of the official style that is plagued with prepositional phrases and useless filler, plain style, and Ebert himself, connect with the audience through the succinct descriptions of raw emotion. He does not care about the chase scene because of its technical prowess. I do not care about film analysis because it sounds technical—I care because of the way it makes me feel, just as Ebert feels connected with the characters and the film, I feel connected with the use of plain style.

            More I will not (in a way, cannot) say.

            Need I say more about this beautiful use of plain style? Only briefly. Ebert’s use of plain style and ambiguity is perfectly used here because he does not spoil any important plot elements within the story, and he also conveys the fact that he may not be physically able to say more about the plot because of the hurdles he has yet to overcome. To conclude his review, Ebert provides the audience with an essential use of plain style through his inclusion of first person pronouns:

            I think when Nolan left the labyrinth, he threw away the map.

            This final line accomplishes a few things. First, the fact that Nolan’s story is ambitious and unlike anything previously charted in the realm of film. Second, this analysis and review is strictly what Ebert thinks. It is nobody’s opinion except his own. Finally, the use of the metaphor  “labyrinth” helps prepare the audience for the complexities of the film that they have yet to see.

            All in all, this review exists as a perfect encapsulation of how plain style can be infinitely more accessible and well crafted than if the same piece was written in official style. Sure, there are some losses such as complexity and depth of analysis, but these losses are completely overshadowed by the benefits of: increased viewership and emotional attachment to the author and their opinion. Not every piece would work in plain style, but when one works as well as this one, sometimes its important to take a step back and appreciate the beauty in its simplicity and accessibility.

Official Style: Friend or Foe?

By Maggie Marks

Often during college courses, the texts that are required for us to engage with and learn from are written in a way that is difficult to comprehend during the first read through. I find myself not fully comprehending the meaning until the second or third time through (or in some instances I need to hear someone explain pieces of it in words that aren’t horrifically dense). If you can think of a time that you have felt like this reading for school, then you have most likely read something in official style. Official style is a complex tool that can be used to show the sophistication and credibility that an author holds within their field. However, there are times in which using this style can hurt more than help the efforts of the piece.

The case study Incorporating Community Grant Writing as a Service-Learning Project in a Nonprofit Studies Course was written by two University of Washington Tacoma employees, William Towey and Ruth Bernstein. William Towey is the Senior Director of Business Development, and Ruth Bernstein is an Assistant Professor in Nonprofit Studies. The case study was published in the Journal of Nonprofit Education and Leadership, section Teaching Case Study. The purpose of the case study was to analyze the relationship between university students seeking to become grant writers and nonprofit organizations; and how this relationship can improve to best benefit both parties. To do this, students are paired with local Washington nonprofits in a service-learning structure to provide students with real-life experience, and consequently improve the nonprofit’s ability to produce grant proposals.

I found this case study while browsing the good ol’ Google Scholar for articles written about grant writing for nonprofit organizations. Considering the place the case study was published, and who the authors are, the article seems to be written for educational purposes. However, the reason for using official style feels as though it is persuasive in nature. The complex sentence structure and hefty vocabulary used provides credibility and portrays confidence in the evidence that was accumulated during the case study to convince their audience, both the students and the nonprofits, to reframe the way that they structure their relationships.

The question of whether or not official style is a friend or foe in this instance is best understood when looked at through both the lenses of the university and the nonprofit organizations. I stated my analysis by thinking like the college student that I am.

“Observing students and their nonprofit community partners build relationships rooted in the excitement of mutual learning and benefit was demonstrated clearly throughout the class as students became increasingly informed and passionate about their partners and the staff from the community organizations became equally excited about their increased ability to write a great grant.” (pp. 309)

Sentences such as these demonstrate the type of official style writing that students are accustomed to when learning in a university setting. The most notable aspect should be the fact that this passage is one sentence when it could clearly be divided up in smaller and easier to digest sections. This causes us to see a much more bureaucratic and verbose strategy being utilized. We as college students are fairly comfortable dissecting the meaning and nuance behind official style texts and feel welcome in this sphere. We have a mutual agreement between us students and higher education officials that this is the type of writing that we use to communicate with each other. To display convincing information this is the unspoken rule that needs to be followed to correctly communicate within the world of higher education. This is an example of official style being a friend to the university and the individuals connected with it. We see official style for its intention: a persuasive and effective tool to display the authors solid grasp of the concepts to the point of superior knowledge and understanding.

            On the other side of the coin there is another player who is being written about in this case study. Individuals who work for nonprofits differ from college students in the way that there is a potential for higher variability between the type of individuals involved. More often than not, nonprofits are underfunded and stretched thin. There is no guarantee that the individuals involved have an equal level educational background. Additionally, writing to them in this style could cause an unfair presumption that these people have time or resources to decipher the information being thrown their way. A service-learning approach that is being proposed to these nonprofits may truly be a beneficial choice, however the way that the information is displayed to them could be more effective in a clear and simple matter.

“Effective service learning based on a reciprocal outcome model provides a platform upon which secondary benefits of broader community engagement and participation may emerge for students, nonprofits, university, and community that extend the operational horizon of all participants. Deeper and potentially transformative experiences for learners occur as they enjoy the benefits of seeing their work support a cause in which they believe while gaining satisfaction from helping those in need (Cress et al., 2013).” (pp. 302)

This section is a very good example of a slow sentence opening, the point of the sentence doesn’t reveal itself until around the second half. Which begs the question of whether or not the first sentence is needed at all. There is also an impersonal or passive nature to all of the “action” that is being proposed/ talked about within this passage. It is difficult to decide what the main point of this section is, and because of this it feels exclusive against the nonprofit individuals. This is especially harmful considering this “Literature Review” section is all about reviewing what previous knowledge exists about nonprofit interactions and how they can improve. It seems to me like the nonprofits should be an equal part of this conversation. With this style of writing though, we can see how they are considered to be that.

            To wrap things up, the official style usage in this passage isn’t as clear cut a question as originally thought. It is not as easy as whether it is a friend or a foe. It should be more about the role that it plays when considering the audience that it is reaching. Official style is a regular occurrence in the world of higher education, while it can still exclude and be a hassle to decipher at times, there is a more minor chance for full exclusion of individuals. The nonprofits are where the use of official style can become advantageous or not welcoming. The irony comes especially when the main purpose for the article was to create a mutually beneficial relationship between the two parties. There should not be an opportunity for this level of disconnection. Because of this the use of official style is both helpful and harmful in this case study.