Accessible official language – not only clear

Accessibility is sometimes a matter of services. Assistance is needed in order to reach, to see or to get somewhere. Services, however, are not available just like that, on request. While the right to disability services, for instance, is enshrined in law, you cannot enjoy the service you need until you have made a claim for it and the authorities have made a decision on the claim: to get help we need texts and we use language, and the language in itself may either form a barrier or lower the thresholds.

Back to headlines

Plain language or accessible communication

When we look at accessibility in terms of language, we often speak about clarity and intelligibility. Mention is also sometimes given to accessible communication, paying well-deserved attention to a language adapted to the needs of, for instance, immigrants learning Finnish or people with dyslexia. Some users of disability services are also in need of easy to read texts.

Easy Finnish is not the same as an ordinary plain language. However, in attempting to produce accessible communication, easy or plain Finnish, consideration is given to similar issues: choice of words, sentence and clause structures, and visual features of texts.

Back to headlines

Shifting focus from language to language usage

When we focus on the usage of language rather than language itself, we begin to see more than what is displayed on the surface of the paper or screen. It appears that familiar words or short sentences are not a guarantee that the text is intelligible.

Focusing on language usage means focusing on human interaction. Examining successive turn-taking in speech indicates that a text that appears to be clear may be unintelligible if it, for instance, fails to answer a question posed.

Accessible language addresses recipients directly whereas official language typically speaks over their heads. You may receive a text that is addressed to you, but which is of such form or content that it seems to be directed to somebody else. A question that concerns a detailed or specific issue may be answered by quoting general rules or provisions. Sometimes you may even find an official decision on a benefit claim in your letter box although you did not know you had claimed anything.

Back to headlines

From usage to practices

The rules of everyday interaction do not apply when it is not apparent in the text who is responsible for it. The identity of the writer easily becomes blurred when texts are produced collectively, as the texts of public administration often are. Moreover, it may be difficult to interpret code-like ways of presentation that develop within organisations, such as expressions in committee agendas.

Writing practices do, in fact, affect language usage. As a result of a centralised production of texts, for instance, people who have not drafted a text may have to answer for its content and tone.

Typically, many texts for customer service purposes are drafted at a great distance from where the service is delivered. This is the case with, for instance, invitations to health-centre or hospital appointments whereby the nursing staff are often unaware of who has written the texts sent in their name. Such practices increase the distance between the writer and the reader and the texts will not help give an understanding of the service process as a whole.

Back to headlines

Unwritten boundaries

Language usage is also affected by unwritten rules, which may be more powerful than written ones. Many laws provide that public bodies should undertake client consultation in making decisions. Comparisons of texts and text sequences, however, reveal who has been consulted and who has not.

Official texts generally give "experts" the right to voice their views. The possession or lack of the right to express one's views can be examined by analysing reference and argumentation practices. For instance, an analysis of decisions on transport services to be granted according to the Services and Assistance for the Disabled Act reveals a hierarchy where a doctor's view weighs more than that of a service claimant and the view of the granting body's medical adviser more than that of the claimant's own doctor.

Unwritten rules also specify what topics may be mentioned. Feelings are seldom worthy of mention in official texts; decisions on transport services make reference to the pain experienced by the claimant only if it is mentioned in the doctor's statement.

Back to headlines

Language as a barrier to participation

Official texts are often drafted with other texts as a basis. When a text disregards certain background documents and topics, it also disregards the language used in them. Expert language qualifies for official texts, which may include passages of medical Latin or the jargon of financial administration.

Formulations of legal texts also circulate from one document to another. A form for claiming transport services, for instance, includes more or less direct quotations from the Assistance and Services for the Disabled Act. When the decision text repeats the same formulations, this means that a text addressed to an individual citizen will include passages of the original legal provisions. This is unacceptable, bearing in mind that some recipients might actually need accessible communication and plain language texts.

By contrast, the language used by clients in claiming benefits will generally not end up in official documents. When the language used does not qualify for reference, the user of the language does not qualify as a discussion partner: no traces of "client consultation" remain in official documents.

The style of official texts is often approached as a problem of intelligibility. It is, though, a larger barrier to interaction than this. If you want to be heard in a matter that concerns yourself, you should also be able to produce language that can be referred to as such by an official who is drafting texts under time pressure.

Back to headlines

Red tape as a barrier

When the problems of official language accumulate, they form a barrier to service use. Although the texts are usually produced with good intentions - with the aim of improving service and safeguarding clients' rights - they may work against their original purpose.

At worst, a person converses with an unknown companion  in order to sort out a matter, and has difficulty in obtaining information about a proceeding or about content. Speaking over the heads of people, a lack of the right to have a say, and problems of intelligibility also lead to problems with the tone of speaking, so that the language will not (even) meet the requirement of appropriateness, as defined in the Administrative Procedure Act (Section 9). A failure to treat an individual as an equal and reliable partner in the use of language generates feelings of dislike and frustration.

When the service claimant is a person with disabilities, the arduous and humiliating process of service claiming is likely to result in the claimant giving up the process.

Back to headlines

Structural solutions

The problems of official language forms and texts are interrelated and also linked with the way the administrative sector works at large. Currently the problems are further increasing due to the fact that the conflicting demands of cost reduction and quality policies are also reflected in the production of texts.

The target of improving the performance of the administration has increased the quantity of texts produced. However, this has not been taken into account in resource allocation – quite the contrary: the productivity programme by the Finnish government reduces the number of employees at the same time as the amount of work is increasing.

In order to cope with the growing production of documents, language and texts are standardised and text drafting is organised as hierarchical mass production. Texts are produced in a more centralised manner and electronic services are increased.

From the viewpoint of accessibility, however, it is important that sufficient resources are allocated to allow face-to-face contacts as well, which makes it easier to immediately clarify misunderstandings.

On the other hand, it is important to ensure that all those involved in writing texts for clients are known and in contact with each other. For instance, those who produce texts for  information systems should have close contacts with the developers of the systems.

At best, client-contact professionals are skilful interpreters between the administration and clients. This is why they should not only have effective tools but also power over the language they use.

Official language will form a barrier to service access if the profound links between language, texts and action are not recognised, but language is seen as a harmless surface phenomenon that can be discussed over when celebrating for instance the national literature day.
 
Administrative trends are bound to influence language: if we genuinely aimed at achieving accessible language, the current developments with increasing amounts of texts should largely be stopped.

Ulla Tiililä

Ulla Tiililä's doctoral dissertation 'Texts in the work of a city department. A study of the language and context of benefit decisions' (SKS) received its public examination in spring 2007. The dissertation, which examines decisions on transport services, was done in the field of Finnish language, and applies a multidisciplinary approach. Tiililä has acted as a trainer and as a researcher at the Research Institute for the Languages of Finland since the early 1990s.

Back to headlines