Jan makes a good point about how text-message-aholics use butchered English
and it works well for them.  And there are other examples of groups using
non-standard forms of the language (e.g. AAVE, a.k.a. Black English and
Ebonics).

I would love to be able to tailor every health-related message to each of
these various groups of people (or, ideally, to individuals), but that's a
tad unrealistic, so I think what we should try to find is some form of the
language that exists in the middle ground: a form that the greatest number
of people can understand.  And that form already exists; it's Standard
English.  (For now we'll ignore national differences in forms such as
Standard Canadian English or Standard Australian English.)

The thing is, people who use non-standard language forms have no trouble
comprehending the standard for the simple reason that it's all over
mainstream media.  Newscasts in particular pretty much always stick close
to the standard, and almost everybody hears them on a daily basis.  The
point is, if our goal is to reach the widest possible audience with one
piece of writing, I can think of no more appropriate form of the language
than the standard form, presented in a (semi) casual tone.

     ...Alex...




                                                                           
             "Jan Potter"                                                  
             <jpotter at gha.org>                                             
             Sent by:                                                   To 
             healthliteracy-bo         "The Health and Literacy Discussion 
             unces at nifl.gov            List" <healthliteracy at nifl.gov>     
                                                                        cc 
                                                                           
             2008-05-19 12:29                                      Subject 
                                       [HealthLiteracy 2009] Re: Wednesday 
                                       Question: Writing how we talk:      
             Please respond to         better or worse?                    
              The Health and                                               
                 Literacy                                                  
              Discussion List                                              
             <healthliteracy at n                                             
                 ifl.gov>                                                  
                                                                           
                                                                           




I believe in using correct grammar and syntax – in fact, I am obnoxiously
passionate about it.  I teach in what is basically an engineering school
and I am generally appalled by my students’ writing.  However, I think that
we need to consider the fact that the world is moving away from what we
think of as a written form of communication.  These kids can send a text
message in the time it takes me to figure out how to turn on my cell phone
or PDA.  I can despise the idea that we are losing “our” method of
effective communication, but I am wondering if perhaps we are missing the
point.

They communicate and they do it on their terms.  I can force them to my
terms, but exactly what is the point?  If we are trying to communicate,
don’t we want to do it on THEIR terms?  I am not so sure that there is a
right or a wrong way here.  We need to be more concerned – particularly in
a health setting – about whether they hear us and understand.  Text
messaging English makes me crazy but they love it and it allows them to
communicate rapidly and fairly clearly.  Good grammar and perfect syntax
allows 2 very educated people to converse (and pat themselves on the back
about how smart they are).

Too often we lose the meaning for the structure.

Jan Potter, MSTC
Communications Specialist
Partnership for Health and Accountability
770-249-4549
www.gha.org/pha