Writers and editors
need to be trained in STE’s rules.

One of the unique features of STE is that it encourages the use of hyphens to prevent perplexing noun strings or clusters, even when doing so results in awkward constructions such as second-valve-outboard-window-lever. If you’re writing STE, you accept such awkwardness as the price you pay to avoid confusing readers about the relationships among words in a noun string.

Another feature of STE is that each word has only one meaning. Consider the following STE-approved sentence: “Put the set in the empty place.” STE doesn’t allow “Place the set in the empty place” because place can be used only as a noun.

Similarly, “Empty the set” is not an approved usage since empty can be only an adjective in STE. The word close can be used as a verb but not as an adjective. You can’t tell your users to “Loop the wire around the central unit” because loop can be used only as a noun.

Restrictions on verb usage in STE are minimal. The most important rule is to avoid the present progressive and gerund forms—in other words, don’t “-ing” your verbs. Words that end in “-ing” are confusing to non-native speakers because they can fill many different grammatical roles in English. Gerunds, for instance, can function as nouns and occupy the same position as nouns in a sentence (subject, direct object, subject complement, or object of a preposition).

One final distinguishing feature of STE is that it limits sentence length to twenty words, although an average of one sentence in ten can be up to twenty-five words long.
Technical communicators in a wide variety of industries modify the existing STE standards to fit their needs, and you can do the same. You don’t have to be an STE literalist. In fact, STE is likely more used in modified forms than in its official form.

Challenges and Questions

Despite the benefits of STE, questions about its effectiveness remain. While STE does rein in some of the wild ways of English, there is no guarantee that non-native speakers will find STE easier to read than standard English. Given that an excellent command of English is not exactly rare, is STE correct in assuming that most non-native speakers haven’t already mastered the challenges of English? And do non-native readers really find it that challenging to distinguish between verb and adjective forms? Although English does have grammatical peculiarities, its grammar and structure are far less complex than those of most European languages.

Another complaint about STE is that it sometimes makes writing sound dry and lifeless—characteristics that many technical writers struggle against. In its zeal to simplify, STE can take the humanity out of written communication. Given these criticisms, managers should consider the following challenges before directing their technical writing staff to use STE:

• Writers and editors must be trained in STE.
• In-house dictionaries and style guides must be developed and reviewed. If your company has strict rules about adhering to an in-house style guide that conflicts with STE’s standards, then STE probably isn’t a good choice.
• For some writers, conforming to a new set of writing rules can interrupt the normal and automatic flow of the writing process.
• Rewriting to conform to new standards is time-consuming.
• STE’s principles may not be appropriate for all applications. Some applications and/or procedures may be too specialized for STE.

To ensure consistent use of the right words, you need to create your own company-or department-specific dictionary of custom terms. This dictionary should be carefully produced and then double-checked for completeness and accuracy.
You might also consider purchasing an STE checker tool, which checks text for compliance against the rules of STE and can be integrated with your in-house list of approved words. Some industry-specific and configurable checker tools are available at the Web sites listed in the sidebar.

A Helpful Model
Simplified Technical English clearly offers benefits to technical writers interested in improving the readability of their work. Although strict adherence to all official STE rules is practically impossible, and not even helpful in some organizations, STE serves as an interesting and practical model.

Since experienced technical writers already apply the basic rules of STE when writing procedures, STE may be more useful when writing explanatory sections or highly technical documents like applications specifications or software requirements documents. STE might also work best for new writers or technical professionals who aren’t usually writers. But even experienced writers can benefit from using STE as a model for ensuring consistency and clarity in their writing.

SUGGESTED READING
Thomas, Margaret, Gloria Jaffe, J. Peter Kincaid, and Yvette Stees. “Learning to Use Simplified English: A Preliminary Study.” Technical Communication, February 1992.
(This article is available for purchase and download from Amazon.com.)