Abstract
Plain language is used to make information findable, understandable and usable (International Organization for Standardization 2023:1; Plain Language Federation 2025). Plain language texts are not written for the general public, but rather for a specific audience. Plain language texts use content, language, structure and design for the audience to have the best chance of unlocking the information in the text (Cheek 2010:5). But it is not only the characteristics of the text that influence findability, understanding and usability; characteristics of the audience also play a role. Burger (2023) investigated how aspects of participants’ characteristics influenced their interaction with plain language texts. Although the results of the study determined several (predictable) relationships, they also determined one unpredictable relationship, namely that people with higher qualification levels experience plain language texts more negatively. Burger suggests that participants with a higher level of qualification have more experience with the types of documents tested, and therefore have more knowledge to evaluate the documents critically (Burger 2023:310). In the current study this hypothesis is tested using qualitative data to analyse carefully the nature of this relationship.
One of the two theoretical frameworks of this study is psycholinguistics. Specifically, it looks at the processing mechanisms of participants and how their qualification level influences these processing mechanisms, which in turn influences participants’ interaction with plain language texts. In the current research, emphasis is placed on the behaviourist assumption (within psycholinguistics) that the higher someone’s qualification level is, the better their processing mechanisms will be. Matveeva, Moosally and Willerton (2017:338) also indicate that qualification level influences people’s appreciation of plain language. The results of a study by Trudeau (2012:142–3) indicate that the higher people’s qualification levels, the more they prefer plain language texts. This is in contrast with Burger’s (2023) results, which indicate that the higher people’s qualification level, the more negative their experience of plain language documents.
In the current study, Burger’s (2023) findings are further analysed using qualitative data to determine why the results do not correspond with Trudeau’s results. In the current study only one document is tested, which makes it possible to look more deeply at characteristics of the text to determine whether these characteristics have an influence on the experience of participants. Here, the second theoretical framework, namely text linguistics, comes into play.
The research question of this study is: What is the explanation for Burger’s (2023) finding that indicates that there is a relationship between participants’ experience of plain language documents and their qualification level?
To answer this question, qualitative interviews were used to collect data. Participants were identified using convenience sampling with a specific focus on qualification level. Two participants had matric (group 1), two had a diploma or certificate (group 2), two had a bachelor’s degree (group 3), two had an honours or master’s degree (group 4) and two had a doctorate (group 5). All the participants were home language speakers of Afrikaans. The participants were asked to read the “Neem jou besigheid na die volgende vlak” document from Sanlam. This document was one of the plain language documents tested in Burger (2023) and was identified as the document with which respondents had had the worst experience in that research. After respondents had read the document, they were asked a series of questions to gauge how they felt about the document; specifically whether they had had a positive or negative experience with it.
Interviews were transcribed and then manually coded. To conduct sentiment analysis, phrases that indicate a positive (“I like…”), neutral (“It is normal …”) or negative (“I don’t like …”) attitude were colour coded. These coded texts were then checked by a third party to counter possible bias.
The results of the study indicate that despite the differences in qualification levels, there were certain similarities in the observations of all five groups. In each group, participants made positive comments about elements in the document that made it easier to read, for example, the use of clear headings, bold text, bulleted lists and visual elements like photos and icons. At the same time, all groups also expressed criticism of the document regarding aspects that could make reading difficult, for example too much text on a page, too small font, and too much unnecessary and irrelevant content.
However, there is a clear shift in focus as qualification level increases. Groups 1 and 2 mainly assessed the document’s practical value and visual appeal. Their criticism was mostly directed at physical readability (for example, font size and text length) and the accessibility of the vocabulary. Group 3, however, began to question the quality of the text itself. This group pointed out copy-editing errors, strange translations and superficial content. In groups 4 and 5 the focus shifted even further, to a more critical evaluation of the language, style and structure. These participants made extensive comments about the text’s translation, which may have been done by a translation bot, inconsistent style, illogical flow and superficial content. Group 5 was particularly vocal about the document’s shortcomings, offering more technical and detailed criticism and placing less emphasis on general readability or visual appeal. These patterns suggest that higher qualification levels are associated with greater sensitivity to quality aspects such as content reliability, editing and linguistic accuracy, while lower qualification levels tend to focus more on accessibility and usability.
When participants were asked directly whether they thought there was a relationship between their qualification level and experience, most participants indicated that they did not think there was. What did emerge, especially in groups 1 to 3, is that participants felt that the type of qualification (rather than qualification level) had a significant influence on how they had experienced the document. However, participants in groups 4 and 5 highlighted a clearer connection between their qualification level and a more critical, analytical reading experience.
From this discussion it can be concluded that the relationship between participants’ experience of documents and their qualification level is likely related to the development of critical reading skills. Participants with lower qualification levels focus mainly on the tangible aspects of the text (like font size, structure and conciseness) because their learning experience is more focused on accessibility and practical usefulness. As qualification level increases, so does participants’ ability to identify and evaluate errors in language, style, structure and content development. These results are therefore consistent with the behaviourist assumption (within psycholinguistics) that the higher people’s qualification levels, the better their processing mechanisms. Increased processing mechanisms can be accompanied by critical thinking.
These findings can be further illuminated from a text-linguistic perspective. De Beaugrande and Dressler (1981) indicate that the success of a text is determined by the standards of cohesion, coherence, intentionality, acceptability, informativeness, situationality and intertextuality. The results indicate that participants with higher qualification levels are more likely to notice and judge these underlying text features, while participants with lower qualification levels rather base their experience on immediately visible or practical properties of the document. The results of the current study indicate that Burger’s (2023) findings are supported to some extent, as participants with higher qualification levels do read texts differently from participants with lower qualification levels and that this influences their experience of texts. However, it is not necessarily the use of plain language techniques that fully influences this experience, but rather the non-compliance with text-linguistic principles. Despite the fact that plain language texts are intended to empower lay readers to access information, the current research indicates that if text-linguistic features are absent, it negatively affects the impact of plain language techniques. Plain language writers and editors should pay attention to creating plain language texts carefully, taking into account text-linguistic principles, in order to achieve the intended goals of communication. This is especially important in a country like South Africa, where the majority of people need plain language to access information.
Future studies could investigate the relationship between text linguistics and experience. In the current study, some of the participants indicated that they thought that parts of the text had been created by a translation bot, and that this negatively affected their experience of the text. These studies could look at the acceptability (or unacceptability) of similar texts created with artificial intelligence.
Another aspect of the study that could be further investigated is the relationship between type of qualification and experience of texts. Future studies could determine whether participants with qualifications that are related to the content of the document have better experiences than those with other qualifications.
Keywords: negative experience; plain language; positive experience; qualification level; sentiment analysis