Editing for Plain Language
One sentence with 177 words, 15 commas, two semicolons, and two colons. By my estimation that’s not actually a sentence, it’s a short story. However, whoever wrote the Idaho statutes on fences figured it worked. For my final project in ENGL 513, I edited Idaho Statute Title 35, Chapter 1, Fences in General to meet plain language standards.
Legal language has a reputation for being incomprehensible and my goal was to make the information readable and user friendly. My task required chopping and rewriting sentences, shifting passive to active voice, and using visual aids like charts to get information across. Basically, the assignment boiled down to removing barriers to comprehension--removing fences, if you will--and making the statute more accessible to all. Read my full project reflection below.
Original Statue Language
Revised Plain Language Statute
Editing for Plain Language Reflection
Our final projects in ENGL 513 - Technical Editing required us to edit or rewrite a difficult-to-read passage of text. I chose to edit the Idaho State Statutes on fences. The text was jam-packed with legalese and extraordinarily long, convoluted sentences. In this reflection, I’ll share the choices I made in editing the document, why I made them, and what I might have done differently.
Rhetorical Situation
The Idaho statutes, and for that matter, most legalese, do not follow plain text best practices. If you expect normal citizens to be able to understand laws, the laws shouldn’t be written for lawyers.
The Idaho statute on fences defies all most all of the principles of plain language--here are the ones that I specifically focused on updating to bring the document into compliance and make it understandable to an average citizen:
Stripping out legalese
Changing sentences from passive to active
Removing double (and even triple) negatives
Taking out antiquated words and phrases
Shortening sentences and paragraphs by taking out unnecessary words
Using “you” instead of the more nebulous terms “persons” or “landowners” or “proprietors”
Creating a chart to make fence specifics easier to understand
Changing the antiquated “inclose” to the more modern “enclose”
Strengths/Weaknesses
Apart from the general “I made it actually readable” element of this project, I also converted some of the information into a chart. The section of the statutes that describes each fence’s dimensions and the requirements for each was nearly impossible to wade through in text form. In the spirit of easier comprehension and design best practices, I broke the main requirements for each type of fence into a simple chart. By using the chart, readers can easily find more information on the type of fence they’re interested in. If readers prefer not to use the chart, I also included a text version of the information, but transformed it into easier-to-read lists, rather than using paragraph format.
Although the statutes are easier to read and more understandable, I don’t know how reliable they would be in court. I can see that writing laws could be tricky—you don’t want to oversimplify and make a law so general that it can have multiple interpretations, but you also don’t want one sentence with 177 words, 15 commas, two semicolons, and two colons (yes, that’s a real example from the original text). I simplified sentences and broke paragraphs into digestible chunks, but I’m not sure how well my new version of the language would stand up in a legal case.
What I Would Change
One element that would have strengthened the finished document is a glossary of terms. When I was working on the project, I considered adding a glossary, but our class readings pointed out that if the parties most commonly using the document would know certain terms, then you should not define them. Although, for example, I had never heard the term “hog-tight” before, I was able to surmise what it means, and I’m guessing folks who raise livestock are well-familiar with hog-tight fences and their functions. However, in the spirit of making the document accessible to your average citizen, a glossary would have made the document more broadly useful.
What I Learned
The biggest thing I learned, or at least pondered, as I completed this project was about legalese. Why does it have to be so complicated? It seems like so much boils down to the spirit of the law and our litigious society. Just saying “don’t be a jerk about your fence” obviously isn’t an adequate law, but as a society we’ve painted ourselves into a corner with ridiculously complex legal language. At the very least, there should be an alternative plain language version of laws, terms and conditions, and other legal works that apply to and are supposed to be comprehensible to normal human beings.
The project was also an excellent exercise in real-world editing. I like the process of chiseling away complex or unnecessary parts of sentences to find the clear and simple intent. And sometimes visuals really help. A chart or graphic can convey information much more easily than words, and we as technical communicators should be ready to create and deploy visuals whenever they might help get the point across.