Based on your Pudding example (I didn't read the article), Plain Language is also Less-Informative Language. It leaves out information. It is easier to be plain by saying less. Assuming it is driven by AI based on GPT-3 or equivalent, it is yet another example of a fun party game but of little real use. I'm an AI supporter but the hype is unrelenting.
Based on your Pudding example (I didn't read the article), Plain Language is also Less-Informative Language. It leaves out information. It is easier to be plain by saying less. Assuming it is driven by AI based on GPT-3 or equivalent, it is yet another example of a fun party game but of little real use. I'm an AI supporter but the hype is unrelenting.
I think the problem is that putting something in "plain language" means you you have to define the jargon in everyday terms. The example just drops the jargon thus changing and obscuring the meaning. imo
I too haven't visited The Pudding website and so may be missing something important, but I view the work differently. As a recovering academic who always tends toward wordiness, in my last teaching job the value of presenting an idea in different ways was really hammered into me. Sure, present the scholarly terms and definitions, but then present it in everyday English, and follow up with an example.
This generally does mean saying a little less in the everyday English version; but I didn't stop there. Once I see that students understand that, I can tie the two versions together for them, to show the connections. This helps students get the concepts, while also boosting their language skills (and their confidence). These steps became even more important when my school moved to fully online courses early in the pandemic.
Many of my students were first-generation college students, and/or English was the second language in their homes. I would have done them no favors by insisting that they learn academese on their own.
I have no problem at all with the principle of using simpler language to get one's point across. My point was only that omission of information is not language improvement but simply saying less.
Based on your Pudding example (I didn't read the article), Plain Language is also Less-Informative Language. It leaves out information. It is easier to be plain by saying less. Assuming it is driven by AI based on GPT-3 or equivalent, it is yet another example of a fun party game but of little real use. I'm an AI supporter but the hype is unrelenting.
I think the problem is that putting something in "plain language" means you you have to define the jargon in everyday terms. The example just drops the jargon thus changing and obscuring the meaning. imo
I too haven't visited The Pudding website and so may be missing something important, but I view the work differently. As a recovering academic who always tends toward wordiness, in my last teaching job the value of presenting an idea in different ways was really hammered into me. Sure, present the scholarly terms and definitions, but then present it in everyday English, and follow up with an example.
This generally does mean saying a little less in the everyday English version; but I didn't stop there. Once I see that students understand that, I can tie the two versions together for them, to show the connections. This helps students get the concepts, while also boosting their language skills (and their confidence). These steps became even more important when my school moved to fully online courses early in the pandemic.
Many of my students were first-generation college students, and/or English was the second language in their homes. I would have done them no favors by insisting that they learn academese on their own.
"recovering academic"...pretty skillful use of language. Props.
I have no problem at all with the principle of using simpler language to get one's point across. My point was only that omission of information is not language improvement but simply saying less.