Writing and speaking clearly

[Reverend Jim]

A big problem today is that people have forgotten the purpose of language. In my day (cue Seth Meyers routine) language was intended to convey ideas from one person to another. Similarly to data transmission, we want to get the information from one person to another as quickly and as error free (unambiguously) as possible. Consider how the following three examples fail utterly to do this.

The first example is from this blog where the author is discussing system design.

The goal of the design process is not to generate a single point solution, but to instead characterize the design space for a given problem: a single point should then fall naturally out of that space given the problem constraints.

Clearly, the intent of this post is to impress upon the reader both the depth of the blogger's knowledge as well as the blogger's vocabulary. But as to imparting knowledge, I think it falls flat.

Here is a second example from the Steven Bochco series, Raising the Bar. In this episode a lawyer is defending a prisoner who was forced to attack a rival gang member. He was severely beaten several times prior to the attack to demonstrate the consequences of disobedience. His expert witness testifies:

The situational use of violence is central to both the order and hierarchy of prisons.

When the lawyer asks the witness to respond in English she says:

Generally they'll beat the crap out of someone until they do what they're told.

Clearly the first response was intended to display mastery of a subject (she must be an expert because I didn't understand a word she said) while the second response was intended to tell the jury what it needed to hear. As well, in the second example the plain English response carries an emotional message that is completely missing in the first response. I am reminded of the following evolution courtesy of George Carlin:

1. shell shock
2. battle fatigue
3. operational exhaustion
4. post traumatic stress disorder

The third example is from years back from one of our (Canada) jokier Prime Ministers, Joe Clark. He was in India with a delegation and at one point was talking with a farmer. He wanted to know the size of the farm, but instead of just asking "How much land do you have?", he asked, "What is the totality of your acreage?" I don't know what possesses people to talk like that but I wish it would stop.

So try to apply some common sense rules such as:

1. Do not use a long word when a shorter word will do as well
2. Do not use an unfamiliar word when a familiar word will do as well
3. Do not use a long sentence when a shorter one will do as well
4. Do not use convoluted (Yoda) syntax

But if you want to write poetry then by all means feel free to break all the rules.

[Dani]

I can write much better than I speak. I tend to get flustered and lose my words easily when speaking, primarily due to increased brain fog. Writing comes much more naturally to me, as I was often sick as a child, and therefore primarily self-taught from textbooks. By my early teens (mid-1990s), I was running an online AOL community for homeschooled kids, and that eventually transitioned into a web-based community for other computer science students by my late teens (DaniWeb was founded in 2002). So, yeah, lots of writing. Not a lot of talking.

After college, I decided to pursue an executive MBA, and I got a perfect score on the English section of the GMAT exam. I'm super good with grammar. (See what I did there?) However, I do tend to be misunderstood a lot (especially in person) and therefore gravitate to long sentences where I constantly repeat my thought in multiple ways. That's how I feel more heard, I suppose?

[Reverend Jim]

I can write much better than I speak.

As do I. Plus when I write I can edit and organize during and after the fact. I find it difficult these days to speak a complete thought without someone interrupting.

By the way, repetition can be an effective tool when trying to make a point. But like salt, a pinch is sufficient.