Posts
Plain Language
The series' complete finding: what seven posts of forensic grammar produce as a structural conclusion — and why plain language is not a stylistic reform but a constitutional one that institutions will not choose to make
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 requires federal agencies to use "clear, concise, well-organized" language in documents directed at the public. The Office of Management and Budget has issued guidance on plain language. The Federal Plain Language Guidelines run to 118 pages. Dozens of federal agencies have plain language programs, plain language coordinators, and plain language compliance reports. The plain language movement in American government is not new, not small, and not without institutional infrastructure.
It has not changed the grammar of authority.
Consumer-facing documents — the instructions on a tax form, the notice accompanying a benefit determination, the summary of rights in a loan agreement — have, in many cases, become more readable. The plain language movement has accomplished real improvements in the legibility of documents that ordinary people must navigate. This is genuine progress. It is also precisely not the domain where the grammar of authority does its consequential work.
The grammar of authority does not operate in consumer-facing summaries. It operates in the operative provisions of statutes, in the substantive sections of regulations, in the holdings of judicial opinions, in the directives of executive orders, and in the enforcement documents of administrative agencies. These are the documents where passive voice erases the agents of consequential decisions, where nominalization converts political choices into institutional conditions, where modal asymmetry encodes the power differential between institutions and individuals, and where defined-term shells compress entire chains of command into words that subsequent sentences deploy without unpacking. The plain language movement has largely left these documents untouched — not because the reformers did not notice them, but because changing them would require something more than a stylistic reform.
This series has documented four grammatical mechanisms through which institutional language concentrates power while diffusing accountability. The series has applied those mechanisms to the full range of American institutional documents — regulatory text, judicial doctrine, executive orders — and demonstrated their consistent operation across administrations, across jurisdictions, across subject matters, and across centuries of legal drafting. The finding is structural. The grammar is not incidental to how institutions exercise power. It is the medium through which power moves.
What would have to be true — structurally, institutionally, constitutionally — for that grammar to change? This is the question Post VIII addresses. Not as an abstract reform proposal, but as a forensic examination of what plain language would actually require: what it would expose, what it would prevent, and why the institutions that would have to adopt it have every structural incentive not to.
Plain language is not a stylistic preference. It is a demand that power name itself — that the agent appear in the sentence, that the decision appear as a decision, that the standard appear as a standard. Institutions resist plain language for the same reason they developed the grammar of authority in the first place: because visible power is accountable power.
The Grammar of Authority · Series AnalysisThe Plain Writing Act of 2010 explicitly exempts regulations from its core requirements. The Act applies to documents that "explain to the public how to obtain a benefit or service, how to comply with a requirement, and other such matters." It does not apply to the operative provisions of statutes. It does not apply to the substantive language of regulations. It does not apply to judicial opinions. It does not apply to executive orders. The law requiring plain language was written, in its operative provisions, to exclude precisely the documents where the grammar of authority does its consequential work.
This is not an oversight. It is the conversion function operating at the level of the reform itself. The plain language movement was permitted to succeed in the domain where it would improve legibility for ordinary people navigating government processes — a genuine good — and was structurally limited to that domain. The operative language of institutional power was exempted. The grammar of authority converted the plain language reform into a consumer service improvement and left the power architecture untouched.
The insulation of the grammar of authority is, finally, the genuine complexity of the institutions it describes. This is the series' most important acknowledgment and its most important limit. The grammar of authority is not wholly pretextual. Institutions are genuinely complex. Legal relationships are genuinely multidimensional. Regulatory frameworks are genuinely intricate. The passive voice sometimes accurately reflects the absence of a single responsible agent. The nominalization sometimes accurately captures a process with no individual author. The defined term sometimes genuinely simplifies a document that cannot otherwise be navigated. The modal "may" sometimes accurately reflects a discretion that the structure of the institution requires.
The forensic claim of this series is not that the grammar of authority is always fraudulent. It is that the grammar is systematically deployed beyond the range of cases where it is accurate — into precisely the cases where it is most consequential, where the agent is identifiable and is being hidden, where the decision is human and is being presented as inevitable, where the discretion is structurally unlimited and is being presented as bounded, where the shell's contents are determinate and are being kept closed. The genuine cases provide the insulation for the consequential ones. The complexity is real. It is also a cover.
What this series has demonstrated, across eight posts and the full range of American institutional language, is that the grammar of authority is a system — not a collection of bad habits or stylistic conventions that could be reformed by a drafting guide. It is a system because its mechanisms reinforce each other: the passive erases the agent that the nominalization has already abstracted, the modal grants discretion that the shell prevents anyone from measuring, the shell conceals the chain of command that the passive has already rendered invisible. The mechanisms work together. They have been refined together over centuries of institutional practice. They are reproduced together in every domain of institutional language because they accomplish together what none of them could accomplish alone: the movement of power through language while the language appears to be describing something other than the movement of power.
The grammar of authority is not a style. It is a technology — developed over centuries of legal and bureaucratic practice, refined across the full range of American institutional forms, and reproduced in every domain where institutions exercise consequential power over individuals. It accomplishes specific functions that plain language cannot accomplish: it makes power invisible at the moment of exercise, makes decisions appear inevitable rather than chosen, makes accountability unassignable, and makes the challenge to power harder to frame than the exercise of power itself.
The four mechanisms operate as a system. The agentless passive removes the actor from the sentence. Nominalization removes the act itself, converting it into a condition. Modal asymmetry encodes the power differential between institutions and individuals at the level of auxiliary verbs. The defined-term shell compresses entire accountability architectures into words that subsequent sentences deploy without unpacking. Together they produce language in which power moves without appearing to move, decisions are made without appearing to be made, and accountability attaches to no one in particular.
Plain language is a constitutional demand, not a stylistic one. To require that agents be named, that decisions appear as decisions, that standards be specified, and that shells be unpacked is to require that power be visible at the moment of exercise. Visible power is accountable power. The institutions that developed the grammar of authority did so because accountable power is constrained power — and constrained power is the point of constitutional government. The grammar of authority is, in this sense, the permanent counter-reformation against constitutional accountability. It is written in every statute, every regulation, every judicial opinion, and every executive order. It predates every specific political conflict. It will outlast every specific reform. It is the water in which American institutional power swims.
What changes when the grammar is read forensically is not the power. The power remains. What changes is the reader's relationship to the language that describes it. The passive construction that once read as neutral bureaucratic prose now reads as a decision about where accountability goes. The nominalization that once read as technical precision now reads as the conversion of a human choice into an institutional condition. The modal that once read as standard legal drafting now reads as the grammar of asymmetry between institutions and individuals. The shell that once read as definitional economy now reads as a container whose contents the institution controls and the reader cannot see. Sub verbis · vera. Beneath the words, the truth. The grammar has always been there. Now it can be read.
The Plain Writing Act of 2010 (Public Law 111-274) is public law; its scope, exemptions, and compliance structure are as described. The Federal Plain Language Guidelines are published by the Plain Language Action and Information Network (PLAIN) and are publicly available. The observation that the Act exempts operative regulatory and statutory text is a documented feature of the Act's scope provisions, not a contested interpretation. The claim that the plain language movement has not materially changed the grammar of operative institutional language — statutes, regulations, judicial opinions, executive orders — is the series' analytical judgment, based on examination of those documents across the period of the plain language movement; it is not a claim that no improvement has occurred in consumer-facing documents. The series' forensic grammatical analysis — applying the mechanisms of agentless passive, nominalization, modal asymmetry, and defined-term shells to American institutional language — builds on the scholarly traditions identified in earlier FSA Walls (critical discourse analysis, systemic functional linguistics, legal linguistics) and extends them into a cross-institutional forensic application. The characterization of the grammar of authority as a "system" rather than a collection of conventions is the series' central analytical claim; it is a structural inference from the documented co-occurrence and mutual reinforcement of the four mechanisms across the full range of institutional documents examined. The series does not claim that all uses of these mechanisms are improper, that all institutional language is fraudulent, or that plain language is achievable without genuine cost to institutional function. It claims that the mechanisms are systematically deployed beyond the range of cases where they are functionally necessary, and that the excess deployment serves the accountability-diffusing functions documented across eight posts.
No comments:
Post a Comment