Search results

Irrespective of various forms of language existent worldwide, it is still imperative that recipients of professional legal advice be communicated in clear terms to avoid a chaotic situation and to better fulfil obligations and enjoy the rights to which they are entitled to appropriately. As such, the objectives of this paper are twofold: firstly, this paper aims to assess the extent to which clients of the legal profession prefer plain over traditional legal language in Mauritius, a country using a myriad of languages, and secondly, to suggest recommendations for the legal stakeholders in Mauritius regarding guidelines and mechanisms on plain language provisions.

This study will use a desk-based research methodology by analysing existing literature on the importance of plain language in legal writing. In addition, an empirical study will be conducted to gather information on clients’ preferences in legal communication.

The responses were received on a complete anonymous basis, and it was found that in general, clients of the legal profession in Mauritius are more at ease when law practitioners use simple, direct and straightforward terms, sentences structured in active voice rather than passive voice or the use of legal jargons or complicated words. These clients also prefer when their legal advisers explain the legal meaning or interpretation in a document or agreement even if these advices may be longer than shorter sentences with only the legal jargons.

At present, there are few literature on the researched topic and this study will be among the first academic writings on the effectiveness of using plain language in legal documentation in Mauritius. The study is carried out with the aim of combining a large amount of empirical, theoretical and factual information that can be of use to various stakeholders and not only to academics.

The purpose of this paper is to review the literature on plain language in Australia, the UK and the USA since the movement began to accelerate in the early 1960s; to review the progress of plain‐language initiatives in those countries in the years since then; to provide guidance on generating plain‐language documents for writers in the corporate arena; and to present suggestions for further research.

The paper discusses historical and contemporary initiatives and issues relating to plain language, presents guidelines for writing in plain language, and discusses the desirability of ongoing research.

The paper concludes with suggestions for further research in the corporate sector, where issues such as plain‐language “standards” are contestable, and compliance with plain‐language guidelines is under‐researched.

Although the plain‐language movement has gained great momentum worldwide in recent years, this paper is limited to the countries in which it was pioneered.

The desirability of adopting plain language is undeniable, with many professions and businesses recognising the social and economic benefits of presenting information to their customers in plain language: efficiency, effectiveness, cost‐savings, equity, enhanced consumer satisfaction, among others.

The paper provides a valuable overview of the progress of plain‐language initiatives in Australia, the UK and the USA since the 1960s and highlights the necessity for further research in a movement that has become an important consideration for corporations in an economy in which writing and information design are central.

This paper aims to study the impact of readability of corporate social responsibility (CSR) information on its credibility as perceived by generalist versus specialist readers. It is hypothesized that the readability-credibility effect will be contingent on reader specialization.

To test the hypothesis, a quasi-experiment with a 2 (readability) × 2 (reader specialization) design was conducted.

Overall, the results lead to the conclusion that using plain language in CSR disclosures may be beneficial for their credibility as perceived by generalist readers thanks to their higher perceived truthfulness (one specific sub-dimension of credibility). Specialist readers’ perceived credibility, on the other hand, is not influenced by the enhanced readability resulting from plain language.

Student participants were used. The results may not be generalizable to practitioners with different levels of exposure to, familiarity with, and understanding of CSR disclosures.

Given the lack of credibility of CSR disclosures, insight into perceived credibility antecedents is important. This study may be considered as a first step toward informing reporting standards regarding the inclusion of more detailed guidance on how corporations should formulate their CSR information to increase its perceived credibility.

The results suggest that enhanced readability may improve the potential of CSR reports as legitimacy tools for generalist readers. The direct examination of readers complements prior studies on CSR reporting quality and the language used in CSR disclosures.

For several decades, a prominent movement within government and the legal profession has emphasized the use of “plain language” to improve readability in legal writing. Plain language legal writing in U.S. Tax Court opinions is important for tax advisors and their clients for two primary reasons. First, clients value efficiency in the work of the tax advisor. A tax advisor can research a thorny legal issue more efficiently and cost-effectively if the related Tax Court opinions are written in a clear, logical, and easy-to-read manner. Second, if opinions are difficult to understand, they provide less certain authority. A degree of certainty in the tax law is important for taxpayers to plan and conduct their economic activities, whereas a lack of certainty creates confusion and an inefficient tax compliance and planning environment.

We examined the readability of the Tax Court opinions using the Flesch Reading Ease formula. Since we selected the opinions used in this study based on the same database search term, they contain similar technical content, improving comparability of readability scores. The analysis shows that as the plain language movement progressed over the years, the readability of these opinions has actually decreased.

In response to many authoritative and honorary bodies, the accounting profession has recognized the importance of accounting curricula emphasizing written and oral communications skills. Accounting practitioners expect accounting students to master communications skills as accounting curricula become more responsive to changes in the accounting environment. Discusses key provisions of the US Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) recent Rule #33‐7380 that requires registrants to use “plain English” to prepare a prospectus’s cover page, summary and risk factor sections in filing with the SEC. The rule specifies six principles of clear writing and provides a handbook for use in preparing prospectuses. Accounting professors should consider adopting the suggestions of this SEC rule as a basis for improving their students’ writing skills.

In one of his two letters published in the June issue of Journal of Documentation, Moss rightly draws attention to the confusion arising out of the casual use of terminology in the field of information storage and retrieval. Unfortunately he does not go far enough, for there is a great deal of sorting out to be done with regard to our understanding of what we are talking about when we discuss languages, vocabularies, etc. before we start assigning names to the concepts which emerge. Moss's suggested terms are no more helpful in connoting the attributes of the things we are trying to isolate than those which he criticizes, and Bhatta‐charyya's reply (published with ref. 1) is a poor argument for retaining expressions which are clearly unsatisfactory. Leaving aside the problems arising out of retrieval of texts using such terminology, we have difficulty in knowing what authors are talking about when we read such documents, and the context and explanations in the text have to be used to enable us to appreciate what is being discussed. Bhattacharyya has had two papers published quite recently in which such lack of clarity appears, the first being that on ‘natural language’, of which Moss is critical, the other that on ‘explicit relations’.

‘Plain English’, ‘simple language’ and ‘good style’ are frequently taken for granted. Yet, easily as such epithets may come to us, they, nevertheless, conceal issues concerning the use of language which are unlikely ever to be resolved in a satisfactory manner. The quotation from Through the Looking Glass illustrates one of the most enduring of these. Alice, perhaps because she is a child, supports the conservatives: strict rule‐followers who believe that English words have fixed and invariable meanings. Into this category also come those who hope to purge our language of foreign (especially American) influences, much like those who wish to eliminate all traces of ‘franglais’ from the French language. Humpty Dumpty represents the liberals—those who feel that words can change their meanings according to circumstances. This allows him to close the argument by claiming that: ‘I can explain all the poems that ever were invented—and a good many that haven't been invented just yet.’