Plain Language and Organizational Challenges

Abstract

Changing the language in an organization is a major organizational change. In this article, I discuss some of the organizational challenges for one specific language change implementation, taking the stance that language change must be treated as any other organizational change for it to have an effect. I work with the case of the Danish tax authorities' language project aimed at producing more readable letters. The empirical data that I work with are two qualitative informant interviews. One recorded at the language project's headquarters where they lay out the general lines for the project, and the other at the payment center where they use the revised letters. SAGE Openeffective can be a daunting task, because sometimes people just do not accept plain language as a language practice that they can adopt even if it can be shown to work. But even if it does seem counterintuitive that one would prefer a text that does not work, over a text that does, we must not disregard factors such as tradition and professional identity when we talk about the use of language in organizations (Becker Jensen, 2006;Lund, 2004;Pedersen, 2012). For us to find out what it takes for a text to work, we will have to discuss the organizational settings as well as the actual and desired (organizational) functions of the text. Also we will have to acknowledge the existence of communication culture as a reflection of the degree of openness and dialogue to which an organization wants to dedicate itself. In such an understanding, organizations that seek secrecy over openness will have and maintain a culture of secrecy, and organizations that seek openness over secrecy will have and maintain a culture of openness. Therefore, an organization that adopts a plain language approach must realize that it entails openness and dialogue. Bolman and Deal (2008) identify four issues that they claim are present in all organizational changes or innovation processes: Organizational ChangesFirst, it affects individuals' ability to feel effective, valued, and in control . . . Second, change disrupts existing patterns of roles and relationships . . . Third, change creates conflict between winners and losers-those who benefit from the new direction and those who do not . . . Finally, change creates loss of meaning for recipients of the change. (p. 396) So change, in the eyes of Bolman and Deal (2008), means that an organization loses some of the stability that it used to have and that means that any change process must have something to offer the employees to make up for the loss. In the case of language change, it means that old ways of addressing the public are no longer valid, that a more direct or perhaps inviting way of writing will change the role of the SKAT employees from that of the keen controller to that of the friendly advisor. As we shall see later, there will also be people who find the new ways wrong and hard to live with. They will be the losers. Those who find the new ways interesting and challenging will be the winners. And all of...

Er ’klart sprog’ lettere at forstå? En undersøgelse af forståelsen af to versioner af et brev fra SKAT

“…Uagtet at der eksisterer nogen forskning, virker efterlysningerne efter mere forskning i øvrigt ikke urimelige. Den sparsomme forskningsindsats karakteriserer i øvrigt ikke bare modtageraspektet, som vi fokuserer på her i artiklen, men også aspekter ved fx afsenderinstitutionen (også her er der dog lavet nogen forskning, se fx Kjaergaard 2010, Nord 2011, Schriver 2012, Pedersen 2014og Bendegard 2015.…”