flesch readability reading list

Flesch Readability Reading List

B y SANFORD N. HOTCHKISS AND DONALD G. PATERSON, Uni- versity of Minnesota

SINCE introduction of the first Rudolf Flesch readability formula in 1943, a considerable literature has been rapidly accumulating in various books and journals. Early reports of use of the formula came from the Department of Agriculture and other government agencies, followed by prompt application of the principles and formulas to newspapers, journals and newsmagazines. Many of these gave indi- cation of the validity of the formulas in terms of increased readership, and at least one reported proof of reliability.

Industrial communication of all types has been relatively tardy in using the formulas and methods to reach its audiences. But, since the initial article by Paterson and Jenkins in 1948, enough work has been described in this wide area to enable personnel managers, industrial editors, and those charged with reports and surveys, to adapt the design and techniques to their own jobs. The increasing use of the Flesch formulas in all phases of industrial communication makes it imperative that the user have available not only the original formulas but also those studies and articles related to his field. The following reading list based on a search of the literature from 1943 to early 1950, is an attempt to assemble and arrange these sources of information so they may be quickly applied

Sanford N . Hotchkiss i s a teaching assistant and a graduate student in personnel and industrial psychology at the University of Minnesota. He i s primarily responsible for the preparation of the reading list and the annotations in this article. He i s a student afiliate of the American Psychological Association and a member of Psi Chi.

Donald G. Paterson is Professor of Psychology and member of the sta$of the Industrial Relations Center at the University of Minnesota. He i s a fellow of the American Psycho- logical Association, member of Sigma X i and of the Industrial Relations Research As- sociation. He i s editor of the Journal of Applied Psychology and has made many con- tributions to the literature in thejietd of applied psychology.

327

328 SANFORD N. HOTCHHISS AND DONALD G. PATERSON

to the task at hand. For convenience, the 96 articles and books are classified by topic and each item is accompanied by a brief annotation.

Personnel directors, industrial relations managers, industrial editors, personnel psychologists, wage and salary administra- tors and others responsible for originating communications between management and employees, the preparation of suitable selection tests, and the writing of union contracts will be especially interested in the reading lists given under the head- ings of Industrial Communications, The Original Formulas, The Method of Plain Talk, and the final section on Use in Legal Writing. In any event, Flesch’s two books, The Art of Plain Talk and The Ar t of Readable Writing, are indis- pensable.

INDUSTRIAL COMMUNICATIONS BARKER, J. B. A dictation test for quick administration. Per-

sonnel Journal, October, 1949, Vol. 28, pp. 180-184. Uses the new Flesch readability formula as a basis for preparing letters of different levels of difficulty to be used in testing applicants for employment.

FARR, J. N. Readability and interest values of an employee handbook. Journal of Applied Psychology, February, 1950, VOl. 34, pp. 16-21. Discusses the problem of producing a readable handbook for rank and file employees with limited education. Illus- trates how a “difficult to read” handbook was re-written to a simple level understandable to adults with only sixth grade education.

FARR, J. N., PATERSON, D. G., AND STONE, C. H. Readability and human interest of management and union publications. Cornell University Industrial and Labor Relations Review. (In press). Flesch counts of 25 management house organs and 25 union newspapers show both to be written at “too difficult a level” for rank and file employees and to be defi-

FLESCH READABILITY READING LIST 329

cient in human interest appeal. Union newspapers were found to be slightly more “high-brow” than management publications.

JENKINS, J. J. Readability of written communications in industrial situations. American Psychologist, August, 1948, Vol. 3, p. 356. Abstract of report on the use of Flesch formulas with industrial communications.

JENKINS, J. J. Will it be read. . . and understood? Modern Management, 1949, Vol. 9, pp. 7-8. Discussion of present errors in management communications and suggested revision of a sample letter to employees by use of the Flesch formulas.

JOHNSON, R. H. AND BOND, G. L. Reading ease of commonly used tests. Journal of Applied Psychology. (In press). Flesch counts of selection and counseling tests (directions and items) in common use indicate the need of re-evalua- tion of past and present practices to insure that a given test is appropriate in terms of readability for the persons to whom it is to be applied.

LAMBIE, J. M. Financial reports can be written so people can understand them. Journal of Accountancy, 1947, Vol. 84, p. 40. A readability consultant applies the Flesch principles to financial reports.

PASHALIAN, S. AND CRISSY, W. J. E. How readable are cor- porate reports? Journal: of Applied Psychology. (In press). Flesch counts of 26 annual financial reports of corpora- tions intended for stockholders and employees show them, on the whole, to be written at a “difficult” level and in terms of human interest to be “dull.” The language used is beyond the comprehension of 75 per cent of the U. S. adult population.

PATERSON, D. G. Development of a general information sheet for potential applicants. Personnel, March, 1948, Vol. 24, pp. 317-320.

330 SANFORD N . HOTCHKISS AND DONALD G . PATERSON

Content of many management-to-employee communications is shown to be too difiicult. Revision of an information blank by means of the Flesch formulas and methods is described, bringing the sheet within comprehension of 86 per cent of rank-and-file employees.

PATERSON, D. G . AND JENKINS, J. J. Communications between management and workers. Journal of Applied Psy- chology, February, 1948, Vol. 32, pp. 71-80. Review of literature on the problem of industrial communications, and application of the Flesch formulas and method to revise worker bulletins, with example of an information blank rewritten to the sixth grade level.

PATERSON, D. G. AND WALKER, B. J. Readability and human interest of house organs. Personnel, May, 1949, Vol. 25, pp. 438441. A check of 34 Minnesota house organs entered in the 1948 NIEA contest revealed poor Flesch counts and content written over the head of the average employee.

PATERSON, D. G. AND WALKER, B. J. Experts review NIEA publications. Reporting, December, 1949, Vol. 2, pp. 12- 14. A comparison of Minnesota house organs entered in the 1948 and 1949 NIEA contests shows a slight improvement in Flesch counts and content, but vast room for improvement continues to exist.

RANEY, E. T. How readable is your employee publication? Personnel Psychology, Winter, 1949, Vol. 2, pp. 437459. Flesch analysis of 27 house organs published by General Motors Corporation shows that 65 per cent of the material was written above the head of the average employee. Four competing union papers read by the same employees had even poorer Flesch counts. This report includes charts, graphs, step-by-step outline of method, and short-cuts, to be used by industrial editors.

WEARNE, D. The readability of house magazines. Bulletin of


Industrial Psychology and Personnel Practice, December,

A Flesch count of 83 Australian house organs showed three-fourths to be difficult or fairly difficult to read. Com- pany information to employees did not score as well as “personals.”

1949, VO~. 5, pp. 29-32.

THE OLD AND THE NEW FORMULAS FARR, J. N. AND JENKINS, J. J. Tables for use with the Flesch

readability formula. Journal of Applied Psychology, June, 1949, Vol. 33, pp. 275-278. Two-fold tables for quick calculation of reading ease and human interest scores with the revised formulas.

FLESCH, R. F. Marks of Readable Style; A Study of Adul t Education. New York : Teachers College, Columbia Uni- versity, 1943, pp. 70. The original formulas, summary of the field, and exten- sive bibliography. Ph. D. thesis.

FLESCH, R. F. Readability : a new yardstick. Library JournaZ, Vol. 68, October 1, 1943, pp. 777-778. A short summary and announcement of the original formula.

FLESCH, R. F. Marks of readable style; a study in adult education. Teachers College Record, March, 1944, Vol. 45, pp. 422423. Abstract of Flesch’s Ph. D. thesis.

FLESCH, R. F. The Ar t of Pla in Talk . New York: Harper and Brothers, 1946, pp. 210. The first full treatment of the Flesch formulas; illustrations and directions for use plus a discussion of language style, simple and complex.

FLESCH, R. F. A new readability yardstick. Journal of Applied Psychology, June, 1948, Vol. 32, pp. 221-233. Simplification and revision with the two new formulas and illustrations of their use.

332 SANFORD N. HOTCHKISS AND DONALD G . PATERSON

FLESCH, R. F. The Art of Readable Writing. New York: Har- per and Brothers, 1949, pp. 237. A full-scale treatment of the new formulas and directions for use along with illustrations of how to prepare readable COPY *

Apostle of plain talk. Business Week, April 12,1947, pp. 22-24. Treats the original formulas plus listing firms who make commercial readability and Flesch studies.

How to say what you mean. Science Digest, November, 1946,

A brief summary of the main points of The Art of Plain Talk.

Vol. 20, pp. 37-39.

BACKGROUND FOR THE FORMULAS DALE, E. AND CHALL, J. S. A formula for predicting readabil-

ity. Educational Research Bulletin, Ohio State University, January, 1948, Vol. 27, pp. 11-20. A critical review of the Flesch, Dale-Chall and other formulas with especial reference to statistical considerations and cautions to be observed in use.

ELLIOT, C. J. A critical analysis of the objective method of measuring reading difficulty. Pittsburgh Schools, May- June, 1941, Vol. XV, pp. 201-209. A critique of readability measurement prior to Flesch; including Pressey-Lively, Patty-Pintner , Washburne-Vo- gel, Yokam, and the Gray-Leary formulas.

FLESCH, R. F. What can you do about readability? Wilson Library Bulletin, May, 1941, Vol. 15, pp. 752-754. Discusses the limitations of formulas for grading literature as to reading levels.

FLESCH, R. F. Readability,-a new approach. Library Journal, March 1, 1942, Vol. 67, pp. 213-215; Correction, p. 278. Progress towards shorter methods of measuring readability-prior to Flesch’s first formula.

FLESCH, R. F. Estimating the comprehension difficulty of mag-

FLESCH~READABILITY READING LIST rn azine articles. Journal of General PsychoZogy , Janu- ary, 1943, Vol. 28, pp. 63-80. Based on work to date, Flesch discarded morphenes as predicators and claimed diversity of vocabulary had less importance in comprehension as style dif€iculty increased.

GRAY, W. S. Summary of reading investigations. Journal of Educational Psychology, June 30, 1945, Vol. 38, pp. 422- 431. An annual annotated listing of research in the field.

GRAY, W. S. AND LEARY, B. E. What Makes A Book Readable. Chicago :University of Chicago Press, 1935. The Gray-Leary formula, used as a basis by Flesch and others for developing simpler measures of readability.

KITSON, H. D. The Mind of the Buyer. New York: The Mac- millan Company, 1921, pp. 58-63. Made sentence length and syllable length counts of a “high-brow)’ magazine and newspaper and of a “low- brow” magazine and newspaper to show quantitatively the difference between “high-brow” writing and “low- brow” writing. This is essentially equivalent to the new Flesch formula.

LORGE, I. Predicting reading difficulty of selections for children. Elementary English Review, 1939, Vol. 16, pp. 229- 233. Part of the groundwork for the Flesch and the Lorge formulas.

LORGE , I. Predicting readability. Teachers College Record, 1944, Vol. 45, pp. 404419. Describes the Lorge formula in detail with instructions for use and including the Dale word list.

LORGE, I. Word lists as background for communications. Teachers College Record, May, 1944, Vol. XLV, pp. 543- 552. Significance of words as a means of communication; basic limitation and consideration of frequency counts, and problems in the study of word meanings.


LORGE, I. The Lorge and Flesch readability formulas; a correction. School and Society, 1948, Vol. 67, pp. 141-142. Errors of the original Lorge and Flesch formulas are cor- rected and new weights given.

LORGE, I. AND BLAU, R. The reading comprehension of adults. Teachers College Record, December, 1941, Vol. 43, pp. 189- 198. A study of adult reading levels and comprehension from age 20 to 70.

MCCALL, W. A. AND CRABBS, L. M. Standard test lessons in reading, Books 11, 111, IV, and V. New York: Bureau of Publication, Teachers College, Columbia University, 1926. An outstanding study used by Flesch and Lorge as criteria.

THE METHOD OF PLAIN TALK Note: The basic principles and methods of plain talk are best

set forth in R. F. Flesch’s two books, The Ar t of Plain Talk and The Art of Readable Writing listed above under the heading The Old and the New Formulas.

BENTLEY, P. Some Observations o n the Ar t of the Narrative. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1947. The factors that make a narrative interesting.

FLESCH, R. F. How basic is Basic English? Harper’s, March,

Criticizes the use of “Basic English” and advocates his own methods for plain talk.

FLESCH, R. F. AND LASS, A. H. The W a y to Write. New York: Harper and Brothers, 1947. A full treatment of the Flesch method of simplicity and style written as a text for courses in grammar and com- position.

FLESCH, R. F. AND LASS, A. H. The way to write. Scholastic, (excerpts) How to save words. May 3, 1948, Vol. 52, p. 23; Don’t puzzle your reader, May 10, 1948, Vol. 52,

1944, VO~. 188, pp. 339-343.

PLESCH READABILITY READING LIST 335

p. 27; and How to give it punch, May 17, 1948, Vol.

Summary of The Way to Write adapted to the high school level.

SANFORD, F. H. Individual Diflerences in the Mode of Verbal Expression. Unpublished Ph. D. thesis, Harvard Univer- sity, 1941. Listed by Flesch as one of the background works for his formulas.

WHITE, D. M. Are our ‘American Scriptures’ readable? School and Society, September 4, 1948, Vol. 68. 151-155. A survey of famed early American documents found poor readability for all but Paine’s “The Crisis,” the leaflet which was widely read by rank-and-file. Revision by the Flesch method would bring the others to the understanding of the average reader.

52, pp. 18-19.

CRITIQUE BY EXPERTS FLESCH, R. F. Dissenting opinion on readability. Elementary

English, October, 1949, Vol. 26, pp. 332-334. In rebuttal to advocators of word lists and specific formulas for specific content, Flesch replies to Lorge, Chall and Dale.

KEARL, B. A closer look at readability formulas. Journalism Quarterly, 1948, Vol. 25, pp. 344-348. A review of what the formulas will and will not do: a bad score on both the Flesch and Dale-Chall indicates difficulty but the author believes that good scores won’t guar- antee good reading.

ROSENZWEIG, S. The Flesch and the spirit. American Psychob- gist, November, 1947, Vol. 2, pp. 523-524. A criticism of the Flesch “human interest” score as related to the style of James’ and Boring’s texts in psychology.

STEVENS, S. S. AND STONE, G. Further comment. American Psychologist, November, 1947, Vol. 2, pp. 524-525.

’


Answer to Rosenzweig’s criticisms. They urge use of the Flesch formulas despite some irregularity in their pre- vious study.

VALIDITY AND RELIABILITY FELD, B. Empirical test proves clarity adds readers. Editor

and Publisher, April 17, 1948, Vol. 81, p. 38. A parallel readership and Flesch readability survey of the Birmingham (Ala.) News found easy-to-read stories pull 20 to 70 per cent more readers, with content and length held constant.

FLESCH, R. F. New facts about readability. College English, January, 1949, Vol. 10, pp. 225-226. Difficulty levels by the Flesch formula closely parallel the measured increase in rate of blinking, fixation, and regression as measures of readability.

GETZLOE, L. U. S. press does well in foreign news volume, but less readable than 1945. The Ohio Newspaper, Ohio State University, November, 1946, Vol. 28, p. 2. Validity of the Flesch formula is indicated when news magazines and Sunday supplements read easier and have more human interest after re-write.

GILINSKY, A. S. How valid is the Flesch readability formula? American Psychologist, July, 1948, Vol. 3, p. 261. The Flesch scores and readability of copy as judged by 75 judges correlate plus .61 to .84 thus indicating satisfac- tory validity.

HAYES, P. M., JENKINS, J. J. AND WALKER, B. J. Reliability of the Flesch readability formulas. Journal of Applied Psychology, February, 1950, Vol. 34, pp. 22-26. Comparison of Flesch counts on identical articles from house organs by experienced and inexperienced analysts shows high reliability of the formulas.

LUDWIG, M. C. Hard words and human interest; their effect on readership. Journalism Quarterly, 1949, Vol. 26, pp. 167-171.

FLEGCH READABILITY READING LIST 337

Split-run trials and Flesch counts indicate readability is related to readership ; dull levels of “human interest” may even repel readers; but both hard words and human interest of copy count less when interest in content is al- ready high.

LYMAN, H. B. Flesch count and the readership of articles in a midwestern farm paper. Journal of Applied Psychology, February, 1949, Vol. 33, pp. 78-80. Actual trial through field surveys shows that as Flesch scores improve, readership increases.

MURPHY, D. R. Test proves short words and sentences get best readership. Printer’s I n k , January 10,1947, Vol. 218,

Split-run tests with a farm journal prove increased readability increases readership; a check showing high validity.

MURPHY, D. R. How plain talk increases readership 45% to 66%. Printer’s I n k , September 19, 1947, Vol. 220, pp. 35-37. Application of the Flesch method increased readership of farm magazine articles; a complete report of the test and results.

SWANSON, C. E. Readability and readership; a controlled experiment. Journalism Quarterly, December, 1948, Vol. 25, pp. 339-343. Split-run tests using 5 formulas with a statistical analysis of each show the Flesch methods increase readership among university students.

pp. 61-64.

BOOKS AND SCIENCE WRITING FIHE, P. J., WALLACE, V. AND SCHULZ, M., compilers. Books

for Adult Beginners; Grades I to VI I . Chicago: American Library Association, 1946, Rev. Ed. Adult education books regraded by the Flesch formulas so that librarians may recommend books appropriate for the educational background of a given group.


MILLER, L. R. Reading grade placement of the first 23 books awarded the Newbury prize. Elementary School Journal,

The results of Flesch formulas applied to a select list of children’s books agree with other objective criteria in plac- ing these prize winners above the comprehension level of elementary school children.

STEVENS, N. E. The moral obligation to be intelligible. Scien- tific Monthly, February 1950, Vol. 70, pp. 111-115. Lecture of the late Dr. Neil E. Stevens, Professor of Bot- any at the University of Illinois, before a Graduate Sem- inar on Scientific Writing, in which he refers favorably to Flesch’s work and urges scientific workers to aim at clarity and simplicity in presenting their research findings.

STEVENS, S. S. AND STONE, G. Psychological writing, easy and hard. American Psychologist, July, 1947, Vol. 2, pp. 230-235. A comparison of 24 psychological texts rated by the Flesch method.

STRANG, R. Principles of readability applied to reporting research. Teachers College Record, 1948, Vol. 49, pp. 444- 451. Advocates the use of plain language in reporting research.

1946, pp. 394-399.

USE BY GOVERNMENT AGENCIES COWING, A. G. They speak his language. Journal of Home

Economics, 1945, Vol. 37, pp. 487489. The work of the Readability Laboratory in the Extension Service of the U. S. Dept. of Agriculture in using the Flesch and Lorge formulas to reach more farm readers.

COWING, A. G. Readability for farm families. Land Policy Re- view, Spring, 1947, Vol. 10, pp. 29-31. The U. S. Dept. of Agriculture uses plain talk, Flesch formulas, and actual surveys to reach more farm families.


FLESCH, R. F. The science of making sense. The American Mercury, 1945, Vol. 60, pp. 194-197. Urges revision of government forms and regulations by the Flesch method.

FLESCH, R. F. Teaching bureaucrats plain English. College English, May, 1946, Vol. 7, pp. 470-474. A discussion of the principles Flesch taught for employees in the U. S. Dept. of Agriculture and other government agencies.

IRVINE, P. Plain talk for government writers. Public Person- nel Review, July, 1949, Vol. 10, pp. 140-147. Points out that the writing of government agencies has been called “gobbledygook” because of the incomprehen- sible character of much of it. To overcome these deficien- cies, the State of Alabama has established a government writers’ workshop in which editors of government communications learn to apply the Flesch principles and methods. Numerous examples are given of the simplified writing of government bulletins, merit system handbook, job descriptions, etc.

Gobble-de-gook or Plain Talk? Dayton, Ohio : The Personnel Analysis Office, Personnel and Administrative Depart - ment, Headquarters Air Materiel Command, Wright-Pat- terson Air Force Base, AMC Manual 11-1, January, 1950, pp. iv + 34. A manual to implement plain talk in all AMC publications, based on R. Flesch’s The Art of ReadabZe Writing.

How Does Your Writing Read? U. S . Civil Service Commission. Washington, D. C.; Supt. of Documents, U. S. Govern- ment Printing Office, 1946. The Flesch method applied to government reports.

Readability Unit Reports. U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Division of Field Studies and Training, Extension Service. Publications and articles are constantly being checked and analyzed-should be a fertile source of information.

340 SANFORD N. HOTCHKISS AND DONALD G. PATERSON

Similar work is also being done in the U. S. Soil Conserva- tion Service.

USES IN ADVERTISING ALDEN, J. Lots of names - short sentences - simple words.

Printer’s I n k , June 29, 1945, Vol. 211, pp. 21-22. The original formulas applied to Saturday Evening Post ads with hints for revision and improvement by using the Flesch methods.

BURTON, P. W. AND SWANSON, C. E. Can mass audiences read institutional advertising? Journalism Quarterly, June, 1948, Vol. 25, pp. 145-150. An Iowa University survey shows that the average idea contained in this type of advertising is written over the head of the reader.

FLESCH, R. F. How to write copy that will be read. Advertis- ing and Selling, March, 1947, Vol. 40, p. 113ff. Flesch’s preliminary report to the Macfadden Women’s Group of his measurement and comparison of the readability and readership of ads.

USE IN BROADCASTING CHALL, J. S. AND DIAL, H. E. Predicting listener understand-

ing and interest in newscasts. Educational Research Bulle- tin, Ohio State University, September 15, 1948, Vol. 27,

Using both Chall-Dale and Flesch formulas, a controlled experiment shows a positive relation of readability, listen- ing, and understanding. Applied to actual broadcasting, material written at the 5th to 8th grade level is understood by 80 per cent of listeners. This study is an illus- tration of how the Flesch formulas and methods can be applied to spoken words, speeches and the like, as well as to written communications.

pp. 141-153.


NEWS REPORTING BARNES, A. M. Is your paper easy to read? Iowa Publisher,

The Iowa University School of Journalism backs the Flesch method and illustrates use of the original formulas with small papers.

FLESCH, R. F. How copy writers can use readability tests. Printer’s I n k , August 31, 1945, Vol. 212, pp. 85-86. The original formulas plus 5 examples of application to everyday newspaper writing tasks.

FLESCH, R. F. Readability formula in practice. Elementary English, October, 1948, Vol. 25, pp. 344-351. A summary of current practical applications of the Flesch formulas plus suggestions for their future use, especially in news reporting.

GUNNING, R. Gunning finds papers too hard to read. Editor and Publisher, May 19, 1945, Vol. 78, p. 12. A commercial Flesch analyst discusses his work with newspapers and the United Press.

GUNNING, R. Some misconceptions about readability. Editor and Publisher, September 13, 1947, Vol. 80, p. 38. Gunning answers the criticisms of the “short sentence mania,” the “moron phobia” and the “lack luster lament.”

LOSTUTTER, M. Some critical factors of newspaper readability. Journalism Quarterly, December, 1947, Vol. 24, pp. 307- 314. A comprehensive survey of items from the Lansing (Mich.) Star Journal, by the Flesch formula shows them to be too difficult for the average reader.

SCHRAMM, W. Measuring another dimension of newspaper readership. Journalism Quarterly, 1947, Vol. 24, pp. 293- 306. Greater readability by the Flesch method seems to en- courage greater depth of reader understanding.

July, 1947, Vol. 19, pp. 3-7.


Foreign news written over the heads of readers. Editor and Publisher, December, 1946, Vol. 79, p. 28. A summary of the Getzloe (Ohio State U.) study of foreign news agency releases and editorials of leading U. S. papers for summer, 1945, with results of Flesch counts.

Formula 14W. Time, January 30, 1950, Vol. 55, pp. 59-60. News-item reporting difficulties that reporters on metro- politan dailies have in writing under the order : “Let’s keep the sentences under 15 words.” Illustrates that college trained journalists find plain talk is “hard work.”

Readability in News Writing; Report on an Experiment by United Press. New York: United Press Associations, 1945. A manual for U. P. writers and editors, attempting to set standards for the general output of the writing staff. Fea- tures were adopted by the Chicago Daily News, New York Times, and others.

News item reporting that Flesch acts as advisor to Asso- ciated Press.

Some add shortening to 5-W lead recipe. Editor and Publisher, February 22, 1947, Vol. 80, p. 24. A survey of 18 American dailies by Northwestern Univer- sity found a trend to shorter sentences, more and shorter paragraphs, and more concise reporting, in line with Flesch principles.

What ‘Newsweek’ Wants! A Blueprint for the Sta$ and Corre- spondents. New York : Newsweek, undated publication. Directions and experiments in rewriting by the Flesch method, parallel to work by the Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, Look, and others.

Say it simply. Time, February 16, 1948, Vol. 53, p. 52.

USE IN LEGAL WRITING BENNET, S. S. The lawyer’s use of words. Georgia Bar Journal,

February, 1943, VoI. 5, pp. 5-10.


A plea for fewer words and more concise wording by law- yers with stress on clarity, less ambiguity, and less repetition in the use of words.

CAVERS, D. F. The simplification of government regulations. Federal Bar Journal, July, 1947, Vol. 8, pp. 339-356. An argument for the adoption of plain talk by the legal profession.

CHAFEE, Z., JR. The disorderly conduct of words. Columbia Law Review, March, 1941, Vol. 41, pp. 381404. Scholarly discussion of the problem of “word meaning” and sematics in legal writing.

EVANS, A. E. Words, words, words. Kentucky State Bar Jour- nal, December, 1946, Vol. 11, pp. 19-20. A plea for a pleasing style so that people like to read the product. Criticizes opinions of judges in which frequent repetition of the same word may be boresome. Cites an opinion which contained the word ((said” twenty-two times in one paragraph.

FLESCH, R. F. AND KHEEL, T. W. Plain talk for the rank-and- file. Conference Board Management Record, December, 1948, Vol. 10, pp. 565-566. Revision by the Flesch method makes labor contracts understandable by the average employee.

LAUER, J. Readability of Union Contracts. Unpublished paper, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota, No- vember, 1949. pp. 23. Flesch counts of 20 union contracts, show 12 to be at the “very difEcult” level and 8 to be at the “difficult” level. Includes illustrations of how contract clauses may be rewritten at the “fairly easy” level without loss of preci- sion.

ROBINSON, F. P. The effect of language style on reading per- formance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1947, Vol. 38, pp. 149-156.

344 SANFORD N. HOTCHKISS AND DONALD G. PATERSON

Experiments show that legal style gives more errors in reading than plain style.

Ordinary language. Justice of the Peace, London England, No- vember, 1948, Vol. 112, p. 744. A plea for the use of simple, ordinary language in legal forms.

The language of the law. The Scot’s Law Times, 1940, pp. 129- 130; 137-138. A plea to drop words given in dictionaries as obsolete from legal terminology.