Extreme gobbledygook

I thought you might enjoy seeing these two award-winning examples of extreme gobbledygook:

A British government bureaucracy that calls itself the “NHS Cheshire Warrington and Wirral Commissioning support organisation” wrote the worst gobbledygook* in 2012:

A unique factor of the NHS Cheshire Warrington and Wirral Commissioning support organisation is its systematised methodology for project and programme management of small, medium, large service re-design and implementation... Building in equality and risk impact assessments the options are taken through a process to arrive at the content for an output based specification and benefits foreseen as a result of the implementation

The service is inclusive of full engagement with Clinical Commissioning Groups who direct at decision-making points how they wish the proposal to be deployed (re-commmisson, de-commission or changes to current services/providers), and lastly an implementation team who see the service redesign through to evaluation and benefits realisation.

Mitt Romney, an American politician, spoke the worst gobbledygook** in 2012:

I believe in an America where millions of Americans believe in an America that’s the America millions of Americans believe in. That’s the America I love.

The Takeaway: If you fear that you may unwittingly publish gobbledygook, protect yourself as follows: Download and read The Gobbledygook Manifesto, by David Meerman Scott. And occasionally read award-winning gobbledygook on the website of the Plain English Campaign. These actions will re-sensitize you to gobbledygook and help prevent you from unconsciously imitating the written or spoken gobbledygook of the oblivious people around you.)


___________________

*According to the Plain English Campaign, which bestowed its 2012 annual “Golden Bull” award for written gobbledygook (pictured) on the the “NHS Cheshire Warrington and Wirral Commissioning support organisation” and on nine other organizations.

**According to the Plain English Campaign, which bestowed its 2012 annual “Foot in Mouth” award for spoken gobbledygook on Mr. Romney. The Campaign explained that this sample was merely one of “literally dozens” of Mr. Romney’s comments during 2012 that were worthy of the award.

See disclaimer.

Straight talk: an example (20) – Oliver Wendell Holmes

We writers need to read a little straight talk now and then. By contrast, it makes us more aware of the evasive diction (sample here) that besets us every day, so we won’t unconsciously imitate evasive diction.

An example of straight talk

From the Wikipedia article on Buck v. Bell:

Buck v. Bell 274 U.S. 200 (1927), is a decision of the United States Supreme Court ... in which the Court ruled that a state statute permitting compulsory sterilization of the unfit, including the mentally retarded, “for the protection and health of the state” did not violate the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

...

The ruling was written by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. In support of his argument that the interest of the states in a “pure” gene pool outweighed the interest of individuals in their bodily integrity, he argued:

We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices, often not felt to be such by those concerned, to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. (Links in original article have been omitted here.)

The Takeaway: We are often startled by straight talk. We react this way because we have become habituated to evasive, pussyfooting, sniveling diction (more samples here). I advise you to occasionally read, listen to, or view some straight talk. It doesn’t matter whether you agree or disagree with the statements – what matters is the way the statements are expressed. A little dose of straight talk helps you become less likely to passively absorb and unconsciously imitate evasive diction.

An historical oddity: Even though Buck v. Bell sounds grotesque today, the Supreme Court has never expressly overruled it.

See disclaimer.

Concise writing is usually clear writing (34) – Louise Erdrich

Here’s another outstanding example of concise, clear writing. It’s from The Painted Drum, by Louise Erdrich (pictured):

“Life will break you. Nobody can protect you from that, and living alone won’t either, for solitude will also break you with its yearning. You have to love. You have to feel. It is the reason you are here on earth. You are here to risk your heart. You are here to be swallowed up. And when it happens that you are broken, or betrayed, or left, or hurt, or death brushes near, let yourself sit by an apple tree and listen to the apples falling all around you in heaps, wasting their sweetness. Tell yourself you tasted as many as you could.”

The writing is lean, even austere. And yet it’s also intimate. You could easily imagine Louise Erdrich sitting with you and speaking to you. Her voice is steady and compelling. You know, even as the words reach your ears, that you will never forget them.

Now read the passage aloud. Notice that she repeats some words: She says “You have to love. You have to feel.” More rhythmic and powerful than “You have to love and feel.” She drastically varies the sentence length, from four words to 39. She puts her longest sentence second-to-last, at the climax of the passage. And so on.

For the record: The passage is 103 words long. It averages only 4.0 characters per word and only 11.4 words per sentence. As a result of short words and short sentences, it rates a Flesch Reading Ease (FRE) score of 88.4 – easily readable by high schoolers.

The Takeaway: To improve the clarity of your writing, spend at least ten minutes a day reading aloud from writers who write clearly. You will see, hear and feel the stark contrast between careful diction and the careless, vague, infantile diction (sample here) that besets us every day. The topic you select for your reading doesn’t matter, because you’re reading for style not content. If you would like a list of recommended writers and works, please email me at joeroy(at)joeroy(dot)com. Ask for my “List of Writers to Absorb.” I will respond via email.

See disclaimer.

Placement of modifiers (24)

Careless placement of a modifier can make a sentence unclear or unintentionally comical.

Example

“Monthly electricity bills in Panama City are left at the entry to apartment buildings which can be lost or misplaced forcing most customers to use their online billing and payment services.” (Source)

[The modifier “which can be lost or misplaced” immediately follows “apartment buildings,” implying that apartment buildings can be lost or misplaced.] 

Example

“He was thought to be mentally retarded until the age of seven. However, after six weeks of schooling his father overheard him repeating his multiplication tables.” (Source) (Link and footnote omitted)

[The modifier “after six weeks of schooling” appears to modify the nearby verb “overheard,” implying that the father had only six weeks of schooling.]

Example

“I’m going to do my best to explain why objectification can’t be a valid theory and doesn’t in any way establish the need for any social and political movement pitting the genders against each other at as purely practical a level as I can manage.” (Source)

[The modifier “at as purely practical a level as I can manage” begins 27 words after the verb it modifies, “explain.” Most readers will have to re-read the sentence in order to recognize what the modifier is modifying.]

Example

“Inside Job is a 2010 documentary film about the late-2000s financial crisis directed by Charles H. Ferguson.” (Source) (Links omitted)

[The modifier “directed by Charles H. Ferguson” immediately follows “financial crisis,” implying that Mr. Ferguson somehow directed that financial crisis.]

The Takeaway: Place every modifier as close as possible to what it modifies. Forcing your readers to mentally correct your grammar is unprofessional and inconsiderate.

See disclaimer.

The cumulative effect of errors (3)

There is a legal concept called the cumulative effect of errors. One description is: “In some cases, the cumulation [sic] of minor errors may amount to error requiring [a decision by a judge], even if individual errors, alone, would not.” (Via LexisNexis. Subscription required.)

You have probably noticed an analogous effect in your reading. If an author keeps making errors (or keeps using awkward diction or syntax), eventually you will conclude that he is careless and probably unreliable, even if none of his errors reduces clarity by much.

Example of cumulative effect

My example consists of the title and first five paragraphs of a blog post by Kris Dunn, Chief Human Resources Officer at Kinetix, a recruiting firm.

I’m going to use Dale Carnegie’s method of analysis: A portion of Mr. Dunn’s text, the reader’s reaction, the next portion of Mr. Dunn’s text, the reader’s reaction, and so on.

The 5 Managerial Responses to Sabotage At Work…

[Does that ellipsis mean there’s more to come? I hope so; this is only the title.]

Human behavior is so… well… human.

[More ellipses.]

How many times have you seen it?  The pressure’s on at work, and maybe even layoffs look like they might be around corner –

[Around the corner.]

or another round of layoffs, depending on your company’s situation. And when the pressure’s on, you can bet that questionable human behavior is right around the corner.

Self-Preservation 101.  I’m good, he’s bad.  Pick me, pick me!…

[Why would someone ask to be picked for a layoff? To get a fat severance package?]

[Will you stop with the ellipses?]

What type of human behavior?

[I thought you just answered that.]

How about the type who will cheat

[You just asked “what type of human behavior” and now you’re answering with a type of person.]

to ensure an edge is gained

[To gain an edge.]

against a co-worker you

[You alluded to a type of employee; now you refer to the employee as “you” (second person).]

are directly or indirectly competing against?  The type of behavior you see

[Now you’re using “you” to refer not to that employee but to me. You’re making this article more confusing with every line.]

when someone’s trying to keep his job

[Is this “someone” different from the employee who asked to be laid off?]

and will apparently DO WHAT IT TAKES TO CLOSE THE DEAL

[Please don’t shout, Mr. Dunn.]

vs. his competitor, who also happens to be a teammate.

How do you deal with that when it involves actions that are labeled as “sabotage”?

[Your title promised this article was about sabotage; and now, like a shifty lawyer, you’re squirming out of that promise by embedding the word sabotage in a sneaky, passive-voice circumlocution.]

You know the type of internal cheating I’m talking about – email tips, gossip about someone’s performance, misinformation and yes, even stealing the ideas of others and presenting them as your own.

[In one sentence, you’re using “you” in two different ways.]

The Takeaway: As you edit your copy, watch out for the cumulative effect of errors. The more errors you make, the worse you look, even if none of your errors reduces clarity by much. Eventually your reader stops reading – and may even vow never to read anything else with your name on it. Or your company’s name. Think about that.

See disclaimer.

Simple, clear, memorable

In 1966, I attended a one-day Smith System course in defensive driving. The course taught five important behaviors, which are now called The Smith 5 Keys to Space Cushion Driving:

Aim high in steering.

Get the big picture.

Keep your eyes moving.

Leave yourself an out.

Make sure they see you.

I have been able to recall The Smith 5 Keys – word for word – for 47 years. The main reason* they are memorable is that they consist of short words (17 one-syllable words and 4 two-syllable words) and short sentences (average 4.2 words per sentence).

That is about as simple as language gets, except in primary school.

The Takeaway: Whenever you need to write or present information of high importance, try to follow the example of The Smith 5 Keys: Use mostly short words and short sentences. Your writing and speaking will be clearer and more memorable than ever before. You will stand out from other writers and presenters.

See disclaimer.
__________________
*Here are three other reasons: (1) They use parallel structure, which adds power and aids memorization; (2) they use active voice, which is easier to understand than passive voice; and (3) they use imperative mood, which is the natural mood for teaching.

Straight talk: an example (19) – Allen Frances

For educational purposes, we writers should occasionally read, listen to, or view an example of straight talk. It doesn’t matter whether we agree or disagree with the statements – what matters is the way the statements are expressed. This exercise can make us more aware of the evasive diction (sample here) that besets us every day, so we won’t unconsciously imitate it.

An example of straight talk

Allen J. Frances, MD (pictured) is an American psychiatrist best known for having edited the fourth version of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV). The DSM “provides a common language and standard criteria for the classification of mental disorders.”

In a press interview, Dr. Frances reportedly said “there is no definition of a mental disorder. It’s bullshit. I mean, you just can’t define it.”

The Takeaway: We are often startled by straight talk. We react this way because we have become habituated to evasive, pussyfooting, sniveling diction (more samples here). I advise you to occasionally read, listen to, or view some straight talk. It will help you become less likely to passively absorb and unconsciously imitate evasive diction.

See disclaimer.

Order (2)

When readers encounter a series, they expect it to be in order, usually in a specific order. For example, if you’ve just taken your seat in a concert hall, and you’re looking at the evening’s program, you expect it be in chronological order, the order in which the pieces will be performed.

A careful writer tries to put every series in proper order. In contrast, a careless writer will often present a series in a jumble; for example, I recently saw this jumbled series while trying to log on to a web site:

“We need to send you an Identification Code Your information is securely transmitted via https (S S L) 128-bit Encryption — We need to confirm your identity to ensure your accounts are secure. We do this by sending a temporary Identification Code to one of the telephone numbers or email addresses you provided us in the past.”

Analysis

1.    The sequence of the message is jumbled.

2.    There’s a missing period after the first sentence.

3.    The tenses are confusing.

4.    The voices are confusing.

My rewrite

In order to ensure your accounts are secure, we need to confirm your identity. To confirm your identity, we need to transmit a temporary Identification Code (via https (S S L) 128-bit Encryption for security) to one of the telephone numbers or email addresses you provided us in the past.

The rewrite took me two minutes and five seconds; I spent most of that time on guesswork.

The Takeaway: When you are presenting a series, put it in order, usually in the order that readers expect. And when the order is not what readers expect, state the order.

See disclaimer.

Circumlocution (2)

A circumlocution is a roundabout expression. Circumlocution is the use of such expressions. Circumlocution confuses readers and listeners and wastes their time.

An egregious example of circumlocution

In the Washington Times, an article about combat training quotes Congresswoman Niki Tsongas:

“To put in place a training regimen that is ill-suited to maximizing the success of women is not really the outcome any of us want to see.”

This obese sentence is a circumlocution built up of several circumlocutions. We can replace this obese sentence with a trim, clear sentence by replacing the component circumlocutions with straightforward English. Here we go:

Let’s replace “to put in place” with nothing.

Let’s replace “a training regimen” with “training.”

Let’s replace “that is ill-suited to maximizing the success of women” with “that helps women excel.” This replacement also converts a negative to a positive.

Let’s replace “is not really the outcome any of us want to see” with “we want.” This replacement also converts a negative to a positive.

And we end up with this:

“We want training that helps women excel.”

Original: 27 words
My Rewrite: 7 words
Reduction: 74 percent

Making this kind of improvement takes little time; my rewrite took me only 40 seconds.

The Takeaway: The more you rely on circumlocution, the flabbier your brain gets. Use circumlocutions sparingly if at all.

See disclaimer.