Weeks three and four of TECM 5190: Style in Technical Writing were focused on plain language and how tone of voice is used in both of these concepts. These modules reinforced the concept of how choices in language and tone can shape the meaning of writing and affect any audience positively or negatively.
What did you read or watch that surprised, delighted, or disappointed you? Why?
In particular, the discussions in week three surrounding plain language and accessibility were both interesting and surprising to me. Rebecca Monteleone and Jamie Brew’s article “What Makes Writing More Readable?” discusses the many nuances behind plain language, utilizing a unique side-by-side format that allows readers to see a direct comparison of plain versus non-plain language.
This article was thorough in its investigation of plain language, readability, and how these two concepts can — or cannot — be defined. I was especially surprised by the discussion over readability formulas. It seems hard to believe that we haven’t developed a concrete way to assess readability on a nuanced level. However, once you consider the endless aspects of human language (not to mention English as a language alone!), it seems obvious that a simple formula can’t accurately evaluate readability. The difficulty of assessing plain language and readability is something that I am interested in pursuing even after this course ends.
How did the material influence your approach to graded work in the course? Explain.
Module three presented a plain language assignment that challenged me to translate a technical guide into plain language. This assignment challenged me to think about how language can be used to teach or to create barriers. While the original author of the document probably did not intend for the document to be difficult to understand for people with English as a second language or who have a hard time comprehending written instructions, they likely had a subconscious bias toward those who would be unable to understand the original language.
Working with this document made me consider how content made for teaching should be structured. Using concepts from Leslie O’Flavahan’s video series, like reader-focused language and emphasized actions, required me to analyze the document to see where these concepts were originally used and how they could be restructured into plain language. Additionally, Monteleone and Brew’s work encouraged me to rewrite the document in a way that was accessible to a much broader range of people. The material helped me to think critically about the placement and use of every single word, as well as how these choices would impact the overall comprehension of the content.
What was most meaningful for your own career goals? Why?
In my current internship, I am working on a large project aimed at engineering professionals. The content in these modules made me think about how plain language and tone of voice should be used when writing content for a narrower audience. As Monteleone and Brew state, “the effectiveness of plain language translations comes down to engagement with [the] audience.” While it’s still important that I consider plain language and tone of voice when authoring content for this project, the material and assignment for this module made me consider how audience analysis is absolutely integral to the writing process.
I know that the audience for my project is, and always will be, engineering professionals. One of my recent tasks for this project was to synthesize the content into a consistent tone of voice. I found it helpful to use Kate Moran’s “The Four Dimensions of Tone of Voice” when brainstorming for this task.
Thinking of the project’s tone of voice as being on a scale, rather than one concrete adjective, helped determine how the document should be written and edited. Our team decided on a tone of voice that is business casual, respectful, and matter-of-fact with carefully placed moments of enthusiasm. Using this method helped me and my team finalize our project’s tone of voice and continue to advance the project. It was a helpful lesson in conducting a thoughtful analysis of my audience and using a format that will appeal to them in a real-world setting.
–
References:
Monteleone, Rebecca, and Brew, Jamie. “What makes writing more readable?” The Pudding. Published February 2022. https://pudding.cool/2022/02/plain/.
Moran, Kate. “The Four Dimensions of Tone of Voice.” NN Group. Last modified August 16, 2023. https://www.nngroup.com/articles/tone-of-voice-dimensions/.
O’Flavahan, Leslie. “Writing in Plain Language.” LinkedIn Learning. Published April 13, 2020. https://www.linkedin.com/learning/writing-in-plain-language/why-write-in-plain-language?u=74650474.
Image Sources:
Daiga Ellaby, https://unsplash.com/photos/a-person-reading-a-book-F3hw_PQYaOc.
Mikhail Nilov, https://www.pexels.com/photo/person-in-brown-long-sleeve-shirt-using-macbook-pro-beside-white-ceramic-mug-6894103/.