TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:controlled English From:Dickie Selfe <rselfe -at- MTU -dot- EDU> Date:Fri, 5 Nov 1993 09:38:49 -0600
This is a issue that came up on the CAP-L that I have permission to repost.
Ralph was asked by a student:
>>To Ralph Calistro:
>>
>> Now you have me interested. What is controlled English? And how is
>>it different from regular English?
>>
>I am assuming that since you did not ask about Simplified
>English you have an idea of what that involves. In any
>case, I have found that many who want to talk about a
>form of restrictive writing, i.e., a restrictive syntax,
>restrictive writing rules and a limited lexicon, will usually
>call that form of writing "Simplified English", and will
>equate controlled English with Simplified English. However,
>I usually distinguish the two, since "Simplified English" for
>me means A.E.C.M.A. Simplified English, i.e., the set of
>writing rules and limited vocabulary developped by the
>Association Europeenne des Constructeurs de Materiel Aerospatial
>(sorry, no accents) for aircraft maintenance documentation.
>There are, in addition, forms of controlled writing developped
>by companies such as Xerox (Multinational Customized English (MCE))
>and Caterpillar (Caterpillar Technical English (CTE)). Strictly
>speaking, these are not "Simplified English", and that is why I
>prefer the term "controlled English".
>It is clear that these forms of controlled English constitute
>a subset of "regular" English. They rule out what regular
>English would accept. To take a popular example, the
>following sentence is not acceptable in AECMA Simplified
>English:
> Test for leaks.
>Since the word test may be used only as a noun, one
>would have to say:
> Do a leak test.
>There is obviously much more here, but thank you, Peter,
>for giving me the opportunity to say something about it.
>Personally, I think that controlled forms of English
>are the future of technical writing.
>Ralph F. Calistro
>Northern Telecom
>Ottawa, Canada
>calistro -at- bnr -dot- ca
Dickie Selfe 102 Walker
rselfe -at- mtu -dot- edu Michigan Technological U.
906-487-3225 Houghton, MI 49931
Feel free to cross-post my messages, but please get permission before
quoting them in printed publications.
