Hostname: page-component-55f67697df-jr75m Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-05-18T17:44:21.582Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Easy and plain languages as special cases of linguistic tailoring and standard language varieties

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2022

Leealaura Leskelä ,
Arto Mustajoki  and
Aino Piehl
Leealaura Leskelä*
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Unioninkatu 40, 00170 Helsinki, Finland
Arto Mustajoki
Affiliation:
University of Helsinki, Unioninkatu 40, 00170 Helsinki, Finland National Research University ‘Higher School of Economics’, Myasnitskaya ulitsa, 20, Moscow, 101000, Russia
Aino Piehl
Affiliation:
Institute for the Languages of Finland, Hakaniemenranta 6, 00530 Helsinki, Finland
*
*Email for correspondence: leealaura.leskela@helsinki.fi
Get access

Abstract

This article aims to introduce new insights to further the understanding of easy language (EL) and plain language (PL) as examples of tailored language and place them within a broader context of linguistic varieties. We examine EL and PL in relation to standard language, and we consider the degree of conscious effort required in tailoring and the compliance with the codified norms of standard language. Both EL and PL are used in asymmetric communication: PL to mediate between specialists and the general public and EL in communication with people with language barriers. We argue that while these varieties have similar purposes and methods, they also have significant differences; for example, the tailoring moves in opposite directions, as PL seeks general comprehensibility and EL aims to reach special and vulnerable groups. The differences between PL and EL are primarily linked to social prestige and the potential risk of stigma related to their use.

Keywords

asymmetric communicationeasy languagelinguistic simplificationlinguistic tailoringplain languagestandard languagestigma
Type
Research Article
Information
Nordic Journal of Linguistics , Volume 45 , Special Issue 2: Special Issue: Easy Language Research , October 2022 , pp. 194 - 213
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Nordic Association of Linguistics

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Alvim da Silva, Anna Eliza Ferreita, Pereira, José Roberto & Felizardo, Luiz Flávio. 2022. Science popularization from the perspective of the theory of communicative action. Cultures of Science 5(1), 50–66.10.1177/20966083221088041CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ammon, Ulrich. 1986. Explikation der Begriffe ‘Standardvarietät’ und ‘Standardsprache’ auf normtheoretischer Grundlage [Explanation of the terms ‘standard variety’ and ‘standard language’ on a norm-theoretical basis]. In Holtus, Günter & Radtke, Edgar (eds.), Sprachlicher Substandard [Linguistic substandard], 1–64. Tübingen: Niemeyer.Google Scholar
Ammon, Ulrich. 2003. On the social forces that determine what is standard in a language and on conditions of successful implementation. Sociolinguistica 17, 1–10.10.1515/9783110245226.1CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail Mikhailovich. 1986. Speech Genres and Other Late Essays (translation of Estetika slovesnogo tvorchestva). University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Bargh, John A. & Chartrand, Tanya L.. 1999. The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist 54, 462–476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartsch, Renate. 1987. Norms of Language. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Be concise. https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/concise/ Google Scholar
Blokpoel, Mark, Marlieke van Kesteren, Arjen Stolk, Haselager, Pim, Toni, Ivan & van Rooij, Iris. 2012. Recipient design in human communication: Simple heuristics or perspective taking? Frontiers in Human Neuroscience 6, art. 253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blückert, Ann. 2010. Juridiska – ett nytt språk? En studie av juridikstudenters språkliga inskolning [Legalese – a new language? A study of the language socialization of law students] Uppsala: Uppsala University.Google Scholar
Bock, Bettina M. 2015. Zur Angemessenheit Leichter Sprache: Aus Sicht der Linguistik und aus Sicht der Praxis [On the appropriateness of easy language: From a linguistic and a practical perspective]. Zeitschrift für Sprachkritik und Sprachkultur 11 (2), 131–140.Google Scholar
Bock, Bettina M. 2019. ‘Leichte Sprache’ – Kein Regelwerk: Sprachwissenschaftliche Ergebnisse und Praxisempfehlungen aus dem LeiSA-Projekt [‘Easy language’ – No rulebook: Linguistic results and practical recommendations from the LeiSA project]. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Bock, Bettina M. & Lange, Daisy. 2017. Empirische Untersuchungen zu Satz- und Textverstehen bei Menschen mit geistiger Behinderung und funktionalen Analphabeten [Empirical studies on sentence and text comprehension in people with intellectual disabilities and functional illiteracy]. In Bock, Bettina M., Fix, Ulla & Lange, Daisy (eds.), 251–274.Google Scholar
Bock, Bettina M., Fix, Ulla & Lange, Daisy (eds.). 2017. ‘Leichte Sprache’ im Spiegel theoretischer und angewandter Forschung [‘Easy language’ reflected in theoretical and applied research]. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Bohman, Ulla. 2021. Easy Language in Sweden. In Lindholm, Camilla & Vanhatalo, Ulla (eds.), 527–567.Google Scholar
Bredel, Ursula & Maaß, Christiane. 2016. Leichte Sprache: Theoretische Grundlagen, Orientierung für die Praxis [Easy Language: Theoretical foundations, practical orientation]. Berlin: Duden.Google Scholar
Bredel, Ursula & Maaß, Christiane. 2019. Leichte Sprache [Easy language]. In Maaß, Christiane & Rink, Isabel (eds.), 251–273.Google Scholar
Bremer, Katrina & Simonot, Margaret. 1996. Preventing problems of understanding. In Bremer, Katharina et al. (eds.), Achieving Understanding: Discourse in Intercultural Encounters, 159–180. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Bruggink, Maria, Swart, Nicole, van der Lee, Annelies & Segers, Eliane. 2022. Theories of reading comprehension. In Putting PIRLS to Use in Classrooms Across the Globe (IEA Research for Educators 1), 3–19. Springer: Cham.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bugge, Hanna Bovim, Berget, Gerd & Vindenes, Eivor. 2021. Easy Language in Norway. In Lindholm, Camilla & Vanhatalo, Ulla (eds.), 371–400.Google Scholar
Cinková, Silvie & Latimier, Camille. 2021. Easy Language in Czechia. In Lindholm, Camilla & Vanhatalo, Ulla (eds.), 119–148.Google Scholar
Coupland, Nicolas & Kristiansen, Tore. 2011. SLICE: Critical perspectives on language (de)standardisation. In Kristiansen, Tore & Coupland, Nicolas (eds.), Standard Languages and Language Standards in Changing Europe, 11–35. Oslo: Novus.Google Scholar
Dahle, Malin & Ryssevik, Jostein. 2013. Of Course We Can! An Evaluation of the Effects of the ‘Clear Language in Norway’s Civil Service’ Project. Ideas2evidence report 11/2013. https://www.sprakradet.no/globalassets/klarsprak/kunnskap-om-klarsprak/evaluering-av-effektene-av-prosjektet-klart-sprak-i-staten-2013-2.docx.pdf (accessed 30 October 2021).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dragojevic, Marko & Giles, Howard. 2014. Language and interpersonal communication: Their intergroup dynamics. In Berger, Charles R. (ed.), Interpersonal Communication (Handbooks of Communication Science 6), 29–51. Berlin: De Gruyter.10.1515/9783110276794.29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ehrenberg-Sundin, Barbro & Sundin, Maria. 2015. Krångelspråk blir klarspråk: Från 1970-tal till 2010-tal [Complicated language becomes plain language: From the 1970s to the 2010s]. Stockholm: Norstedt.Google Scholar
Freed, Barbara F. 1981. Foreigner talk, baby talk, native talk. International Journal of the Sociology of Language 28, 19–39.Google Scholar
Fröhlich, Walburga & Candussi, Klaus. 2021. Easy Language in Austria. In Lindholm, Camilla & Vanhatalo, Ulla (eds.), 27–52.Google Scholar
Gunnarsson, Britt-Louise. 1997. Language for special purposes. In Richard Tucker, G. & Corson, David (eds), Encyclopedia of Language and Education, vol. 4. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1978. Language as Social Semiotic: The Social Interpretation of Language and Meaning. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Hallintolaki 2003 [Adminstrative Procedure Act]. https://www.finlex.fi/fi/laki/ajantasa/2003/20030434?search%5Btype%5D=pika&search%5Bpika%5D=hallintolaki (accessed 30 October 2021).Google Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia & Maaß, Christiane (eds.). 2020. Easy Language Research: Text and User Perspectives. Berlin: Frank & Timme.10.26530/20.500.12657/42088CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia & Maaß, Christiane. 2020. Easy language, plain language, easy language plus: Perspectives on comprehensibility and stigmatisation. In Hansen-Schirra, Silvia & Maaß, Christiane (eds.), 17–40.Google Scholar
Hansen-Schirra, Silvia, Abels, Katja, Signer, Sarah & Maaß, Christiane. 2021. The Dictionary of Accessible Communication. Berlin: Frank & Timme.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heikkinen, Vesa, Lehtinen, Outi & Lounela, Mikko. 2005. Lisätietoja uutistutkimukseen Lappeenrantalaismies löi toista nenään baarissa: Uutisia ja uutisia [More information on the news investigation A man from Lappeenranta punched another in the nose in a bar: News and news]. In Vesa Heikkinen (ed.), Tekstien arki: Tutkimusmatkoja jokapäiväisiin merkityksiimme [The everyday life of texts: Research trips into our day to day meanings]. Statistics available at https://www.kotus.fi/julkaisut/genrejulkaisut/tekstien_arki/lisatietoja_uutistutkimukseen_yleisyyslistat (accessed 28 July 2022).Google Scholar
Hirvonen, Maija, Kinnunen, Tuija & Tiittula, Liisa. 2021. Viestinnän saavutettavuuden lähtökohtia [Basic principles of communication accessibility]. In Hirvonen, Maija & Kinnunen, Tuija (eds.), Saavutettava viestintä: Yhteiskunnallista yhdenvertaisuutta edistämässä [Accessible communication: Promoting social equality], 13–31. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.Google Scholar
Horton, William S. & Gerrig, Richard J.. 2002. Speakers’ experiences and audience design: Knowing when and knowing how to adjust utterances to addressees. Journal of Memory and Language 47(4), 589–606.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Humbley, John, Budin, Gerhard & Laurén, Christer (eds.). 2018. Languages for Special Purposes: An International Handbook. De Gruyter.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
IE. 2009. Information for All: European Standards for Making Information Easy to Read and Understand. https://www.inclusion-europe.eu/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/EN_Information_for_all.pdf (accessed 30 October 2021).Google Scholar
IFLA. 1997. Guidelines for Easy-to-Read Materials (IFLA Professional Report 54). The Hague: IFLA Headquarters.Google Scholar
IFLA. 2010. Guidelines for Easy-to-Read materials (IFLA professional Report 120, revision by Misako Nomura, Gyda Skatt Nielsen and Bror Tronbacke) The Hague: IFLA Headquarters.Google Scholar
ILSMH. 1998. Make it Simple: European Guidelines for the Production for Easy-to-Read Information. https://docplayer.net/142050357-Ilsmh-european-association-make-it-simple-european-guidelines-for-the-production-of-easy-to-read-information-for-people-with-learning-disability.html (accessed 29 July 2022).Google Scholar
International Plain Language Federation. 2010. Plain Language Definitions. https://www.iplfederation.org/plain-language (accessed 30 October 2021).Google Scholar
Inzlicht, Michael, Shenhav, Amitai & Olivola, Christopher Y.. 2018. The effort paradox: Effort is both costly and valued. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 22, 337–349.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Isof (Institut för språk och folkminnen). 2022. Klarspråkshjälpen [Plain language help]. https://www.isof.se/stod-och-sprakrad/spraktjanster/klarsprakshjalpen/skriv-klarsprak/tank-pa-dina-lasare/fordjupning-tank-pa-dina-lasare/valj-ratt-innehall (accessed 29 July 2022).Google Scholar
Jernudd, Björn H. & Neustupný, Jiří V.. 1991. Multi-disciplined language planning. In Marshall, David F. (ed.), Language Planning: A Focusschrift in Honor of Joshua A. Fishman on the Occasion of his 65th Birthday, vol. 3, 29–36. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Jones, Edward E., Farina, Amerigo, Hastrof, Albert H., Markus, Hazel, Miller, Dale T. & Scott, Robert A.. 1984. Social Stigma: The Psychology of Marked Relationships. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Kachru, Braj B. 1985. Standards, codification and sociolinguistic realism: The English language in the outer circle. In Quirk, Randolph & Widdowson, H. G. (eds.), English in the World: Teaching and Learning the Language and Literatures, 11–30. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kankaanpää, Salli. 2006. Hallinnon lehdistötiedotteiden kieli [The language of the administrative press releases]. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Kankaanpää, Salli & Piehl, Aino. 2011. Tekstintekijän käsikirja: Opas työssä kirjoittaville [The writer’s handbook: A guide for writing at work]. Helsinki: Yrityskirjat.Google Scholar
Kankaanpää, Salli, Piehl, Aino & Räsänen, Matti. 2012. Språkets roll i lagberedningen: Hur forska i lagtextformulering? [The role of language in legislative drafting: How to study formulation of the law?]. In Kristinsson, Ari Páll & Sigtryggsson, Jóhannes B. (eds.), Juridisk sprog i Norden: Rapport fra en nordisk konference om klarsprog, Reykjavík 11.–12. oktober 2011 [Legal language in the Nordic countries: Report from a Nordic conference on plain language]. https://tidsskrift.dk/ksn/article/view/18328/15983 (accessed 29 July 2022).Google Scholar
Karvonen, Pirjo. 1995. Oppikirjateksti toimintana [Textbook as activity]. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan & Zhang, Fenghui. 2009. Activating, seeking, and creating common ground: A socio-cognitive approach. Pragmatics & Cognition 17(2), 331–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keysar, Boaz. 2008. Egocentric processes in communication and miscommunication. In Kecskes, Istvan & Mey, Jacob (eds.), Intention, Common Ground and the Egocentric Speaker-Hearer, 277–296. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Kienpointner, Manfred. 2005. Dimensionen der Angemessenheit: Theoretische Fundierungen und praktische Anwendungen linguistischer Sprachkritik [Dimensions of appropriateness: Theoretical foundations and practical applications of linguistic language criticism]. In Aptum: Zeitschrift für Sprachkritik und Sprachkultur 1, 193–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kimble, Joseph. 2012. Writing for Dollars, Writing to Please: The Case for Plain Language in Business, Government, and Law. Durham, NC, USA: Carolina Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kimble, Joseph. 2016. A curious criticism of plain language. Legal Communication and Rhetoric: JALWD 13, 181–191. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2881592 (accessed 30 October 2021).Google Scholar
Kirchmeier, Sabine, Piehl, Aino, Van Hoorde, Johan, Choleva, Júlia, Hallik, Katrin & Robustelli, Cecilia. 2022. ELIPS – European Languages and their Intelligibility in the Public Sphere. http://www.efnil.org/projects/elips/articles/ELIPS-Article-V8-web-def-2803-22.pdf (accessed 31 July 2022).Google Scholar
Kleinschmidt, Katrin & Pohl, Thorsten. 2017. Leichte Sprache vs. adaptives Sprachhandeln [Easy language vs. adaptive language action]. In Bock, Bettina M., Fix, Ulla & Lange, Daisy (eds.), 87–110.Google Scholar
Kulkki-Nieminen, Auli. 2010. Selkoistettu uutinen: Lingvistinen analyysi selkotekstin erityispiirteistä [Easy language news: A linguistic analysis of the special features of simplified text] (Acta Universitatis Tamperensis 1524). Ph.D. dissertation, Tampere University.Google Scholar
Lappalainen, Hanna. 2012. Sosiolingvistiikka [Sociolinguistics]. In Heikkinen, Vesa et al. (eds.), Genreanalyysi: Tekstilajitutkimuksen käsikirja [A handbook of studying textual genres], 662–666. Helsinki: Gaudeamus.Google Scholar
László, Péter & Ladányi, Lili. 2021. Easy language in Hungary. In Lindholm, Camilla & Vanhatalo, Ulla (eds.), 219–251.Google Scholar
Leskelä, Leealaura. 2019. Selkokieli: Saavutettavan kielen opas [Easy language: A guide to accessible language]. Helsinki: Opike.Google Scholar
Leskelä, Leealaura. 2020. Helppoa vai vaativampaa selkokieltä: Selkokielen mittaaminen ja vaikeustasot [Easy or more demanding easy language: Measuring easy language and difficulty levels]. Puhe ja kieli 39(4), 367–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leskelä, Leealaura. 2021. Easy language in Finland. In Lindholm, Camilla & Vanhatalo, Ulla (eds.), 149–189.Google Scholar
Leskelä, Leealaura. forthcoming. Selkopuhetta! Puhuttu selkokieli kehitysvammaisten henkilöiden ja ammattilaisten vuorovaikutuksessa [Speaking clearly! Spoken easy language in interaction between people with intellectual disabilities and professionals]. Helsinki: University of Helsinki.Google Scholar
Leskelä, Leealaura & Kulkki-Nieminen, Auli. 2015. Selkokirjoittajan tekstilajit [Textgenres in easy language]. Helsinki: Opike.Google Scholar
Leskelä, Leealaura & Lindholm, Camilla. 2012. Näkökulmia kielellisesti epäsymmetriseen vuorovaikutukseen [Perspectives on linguistically asymmetric interaction]. In Leskelä, Leealaura & Lindholm, Camilla (eds.), Haavoittuva keskustelu: Keskustelunanalyyttisia tutkimuksia kielellisesti epäsymmetrisestä vuorovaikutuksesta [Vulnerable conversation: Conversation analytic studies of linguistically asymmetric interaction], 12–31. Helsinki: Kehitysvammaliitto.Google Scholar
Liddicoat, Anthony J. 2007. An Introduction to Conversation Analysis. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
Lindholm, Camilla & Vanhatalo, Ulla (eds.). 2021. Handbook of Easy Languages in Europe. Berlin: Frank & Timme.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Linell, Per. 2012. On the nature of language: Formal written-language biased linguistics vs. dialogical language sciences. In Kravchenko, Alexander (ed.), Cognitive Dynamics in Linguistic Interactions, 107–124. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholar Publishing.Google Scholar
Maaß, Christiane. 2020. Easy Language – Plain Language – Easy Language Plus: Balancing Comprehensibility and Acceptability. Berlin: Frank & Timme.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maaß, Christiane & Rink, Isabel (eds.). 2019. Handbuch barrierefreie Kommunikation [Handbook of accessible communication]. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Maaß, Christiane & Rink, Isabel. 2020. Scenarios for Easy Language translation: How to produce accessible content for users with diverse needs. In Hansen-Schirra, Silvia & Maaß, Christiane (eds.), 41–56.Google Scholar
Maaß, Christiane, Rink, Isabel & Hansen-Schirra, Silvia. 2021. Easy Language in Germany. In Lindholm, Camilla & Vanhatalo, Ulla (eds.), 253–273.Google Scholar
Maaß, Christiane, Rink, Isabel & Zehrer, Christiane. 2014. ‘Leichte Sprache’ in Sprach- und Übersetzungswissenschaft [‘Easy language’ in linguistics and translation studies]. In Jeka, Susanne J. et al. (eds.), Sprache barrierefrei gestalten: Perspektiven aus der Angewandter Linguistik [Making language barrier-free: Perspectives from applied linguistics], 53–86. Berlin: Frank & Timme.Google Scholar
Marková, Ivana. 1982. Paradigms, Thought, and Language. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Mazur, Beth. 2000. Revisiting Plain Language. Technical Communication 47(2). Reprinted online: https://www.plainlanguage.gov/resources/articles/revisiting-plain-language/ (accessed 30 October 2021).Google Scholar
Milroy, James & Milroy, Lesley. 2012. Authority in Language, 4th edn. London & New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moonen, Xavier. 2021. Easy Language in the Netherlands. In Lindholm, Camilla & Vanhatalo, Ulla (eds.), 345–370.Google Scholar
Mustajoki, Arto. 2012. A speaker-oriented multidimensional approach to risks and causes of miscommunication. Language and Dialogue 2, 216–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mustajoki, Arto. 2017. The issue of theorizing: Object-of-study and methodology. In Weigand, Edda (ed.), Language and Dialogue: A Handbook of Key Issues in the Field, 234–250. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Mustajoki, Arto. 2021. A multidimensional model of interaction as a framework for a phenomenon-driven approach to communication. Russian Journal of Linguistics 25(2), 369–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mustajoki, Arto & Baikulova, Alla. 2020. The risks of misunderstandings in family discourse: Home as a special space of interaction. Language and Dialogue 10 (3), 340–368.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mustajoki, Arto, Mihienko, Zhanna, Nechaeva, Natalia, Kairova, Elena & Dmitrieva, Anna. 2021. Easy language in Russia. In Lindholm, Camilla & Vanhatalo, Ulla (eds.), 439–466.Google Scholar
Nord, Andreas. 2018. Plain Language and Professional Writing: A Research Overview. Language Council of Sweden. http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1252218/FULLTEXT02.pdf (accessed 30 October 2021).Google Scholar
Ólafsdóttir, Sigríður & Pálsdóttir, Karítas Hrundar. 2021. Easy Language in Iceland. In Lindholm, Camilla & Vanhatalo, Ulla (eds.), 253–273.Google Scholar
Perego, Elisa. 2020. Accessible Communication: A Cross-country Journey. Berlin: Frank & Timme.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Piehl, Aino. 2006. The Influence of EU Legislation on Finnish Legal Discourse. In Gotti, Maurizio & Giannoni, Davide S. (eds.), New Trends in Specialized Discourse Analysis/Linguistic Insights (Studies in Language and Communication 44), 183–194. Bern: Peter Lang. https://www.kotus.fi/files/2074/New_trend_in_Specialized_Discourse0001.pdf (accessed 29 July 2022).Google Scholar
Piehl, Aino. 2008. Virkamiehet EU:n säädösvalmistelussa: Tasapainoilua oman kielen ja työkielten välissä [Civil servants in the legislative process of EU: Balancing between Finnish and EU working languages]. In Foley, Richard, Salmi-Tolonen, Tarja, Tukiainen, Iris & Vehmas, Birgitta (eds.), Kielen ja oikeuden kohtaamisia: Heikki Mattilan juhlakirja [Encounters of language and justice: A festschrift for Heikki Mattila], 207–227. Helsinki: Talentum.Google Scholar
Piehl, Aino. 2010. Suomalaisen oikeuskielen kehittäminen ja huolto [Development and maintenance of the Finnish legal language]. In Mattila, Heikki E. S., Piehl, Aino & Pajula, Sari (eds.), Oikeuskieli ja säädöstieto [Legal language and regulatory information], 152–164. Helsinki: Suomalainen Lakimiesyhdistys.Google Scholar
Piehl, Aino. 2019. Plain Finnish in the European Union: Mission possible? The Clarity Journal 80, 45–47.Google Scholar
Pierce-Grove, Ri. 2016. Conclusion: Making the new status quo: Social media in education. In Greenhow, Christine, Sonnevend, Julia & Agur, Colin (eds.), Education and Social Media: Toward a Digital Future, 239–246. Cambridge (MA) & London: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Rink, Isabel. 2019. Kommunikationsbarrieren [Barriers of communication]. In Maaß, Christiane & Rink, Isabel (eds.), 29–65.Google Scholar
Roedema, Tessa, Rerimassie, Virgil, Broerse, J. E. W. & Kupper, J. F. H.. 2022. Towards the reflective science communication practitioner. Journal of Science Communication 21(4), A02. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.21040202 (accessed 29 July 2022).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sacks, Harvey & Schegloff, Emanuel A., 1979. Two preferences in the organization of reference to persons in conversation and their interaction. In Psathas, George (ed.), Everyday Language, 15–21. New York: Irvington.Google Scholar
Sacks, Harvey, Schegloff, Emanuel A. & Jefferson, Gail. 1978. A simplest systematics for the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language 50(4), 696–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schiewe, Jürgen. 2017. ‘Leichte Sprache’ aus der Perspektive von Sprachkritik und Sprachkultur: Überlegungen zur Anwendbarkeit der Kategorie ‘Angemessenheit’ [‘Easy Language’ from the perspective of language criticism and language culture: Reflections on the applicability of the category ‘appropriateness’]. In Bock, Bettina M., Fix, Ulla & Lange, Daisy (eds.), 71–86.Google Scholar
Schriver, Karen. 2017. Plain Language in the US gains momentum: 1940–2015. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 60(4), 343–383.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schriver, Karen & Gordon, Frances. 2010. Grounding plain language in research. The Clarity Journal 64, 33–39.Google Scholar
Selkokeskus. 2021. https://selkokeskus.fi/selkokieli/selkokielen-maaritelma/ (accessed 30 October 2021).Google Scholar
Taylor, Talbot J. 1990. Which is to be master? The institutionalization of authority in the science of language. In Joseph, John E. & Taylor, Talbot J. (eds.), Ideologies of Language, 9–26. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Tiililä, Ulla. 1993. Virkakielikö persoonatonta? Virkakirje on monen kokin soppa [Is the language of authorities really impersonal? Administrative letters have many authors]. Kielikello 2, 18–21. https://www.kielikello.fi/-/virkakieliko-persoonatonta-virkakirje-on-monen-kokin-soppa (accessed 29 July 2022).Google Scholar
Trudgill, Peter. 2000. Sociolinguistics: An Introduction to Language and Society. London & New York: Penguin.Google Scholar
Viertiö, Annastiina. 2011. Hallinnossa kaivataan koulutusta ja laatua viestintään [The administration needs training and quality to improve communications]. Kielikello 4. https://www.kielikello.fi/-/hallinnossa-kaivataan-koulutusta-ja-laatua-viestintaan (accessed 30 October 2021).Google Scholar
Watson, Bernadette M. & Soliz, Jordan. 2019. Communication accommodation theory in institutional settings: Opportunities for applied research. In Harwood, Jake et al. (eds.), Language, Communication, and Intergroup Relations, 242–264. New York & London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Weigand, Edda. 2021. Language and dialogue in philosophy and science. Intercultural Pragmatics 18(4), 533–561.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zurstrassen, Bettina. 2017. Leichte Sprache, eine Sprache der Chancengleichheit? [Easy language: A language of equal opportunities?] In Bock, Bettina M., Fix, Ulla & Lange, Daisy (eds.), 53–70.Google Scholar