Re: [NIFL-HEALTH:2927] Easy to read vs. grammatically incorrect

From: michelle.black@sickkids.ca
Date: Mon Mar 19 2001 - 14:49:42 EST


Return-Path: <root>
Received: (from root@localhost) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) id f7VBr2H09466 for health-archive@nifl.gov; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:53:02 -0400 (EDT)
Resent-Message-Id: <200108311153.f7VBr2H09466@literacy.nifl.gov>
Received: from inside.sickkids.on.ca (mail.sickkids.on.ca [142.20.67.51]) by literacy.nifl.gov (8.10.2/8.10.2) with ESMTP id f2JJo3g12529 for <nifl-health@nifl.gov>; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 14:50:06 -0500 (EST)
Received: from notessmtp01.sickkids.on.ca (notessmtp01.sickkids.on.ca [142.20.71.62]) by inside.sickkids.on.ca (8.10.0/8.10.0) with SMTP id f2JK39X00333 for <nifl-health@nifl.gov>; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 15:03:09 -0500
Received: by notessmtp01.sickkids.on.ca(Lotus SMTP MTA v4.6.7  (934.1 12-30-1999))  id 85256A14.006CEE3A ; Mon, 19 Mar 2001 14:49:48 -0500
X-Lotus-FromDomain: HSC
From: michelle.black@sickkids.ca
To: nifl-health@nifl.gov
Message-ID: <85256A14.006CECFD.00@notessmtp01.sickkids.on.ca>
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2001 14:49:42 -0500
Subject: Re: [NIFL-HEALTH:2927] Easy to read vs. grammatically incorrect
Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Resent-From: root@literacy.nifl.gov
Resent-Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 07:53:02 -0400
Resent-To: health-archive@nifl.gov
Status: O
Content-Length: 1515
Lines: 43






Felicia wrote:  When writing easy-to-read patient ed materials, I occasionally
find that the easiest-to-understand wording is (technically) grammatically
incorrect. What's your opinion on choosing one over the other?

Greetings Felicia.

I would err on the side of using whatever your audience can understand without
too much effort. In this case, the readers are likely going to identify less
with the "for whom" example, because this is not the way most people talk.
Therefore, the grammatically-less-correct example would likely work better. In
fact, many people who work in clear communication--be it patient education or
other types--have publicly dashed that "no ending sentences with a preposition"
rule. Most of these folks acknowledge that as a language evolves, it will start
to do away with things that do not work in practice; hence the acceptance of
relaxing that particular grammatical rule.

That said, I would also caution that relaxing grammatical rules takes a long
time to gain acceptance in many contexts. This can make it harder to make a case
for your decisions with your clients, for one. It also is something that takes a
long time; and in my experience it only happens if enough people can find
effective ways to prove that changing that rule will ultimately benefit the
document's ability to communicate with its audience.

'Hope that helps,

Michelle Black
Plain Language Writer
Centre for Health Information and Promotion
Hospital for Sick Children
Toronto, Ontario  CANADA



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Jan 18 2002 - 11:28:28 EST