This html article is produced from an uncorrected text file through optical character recognition. Prior to 1940 articles all text has been corrected, but from 1940 to the present most still remain uncorrected. Artifacts of the scans are misspellings, out-of-context footnotes and sidebars, and other inconsistencies. Adjacent to each text file is a PDF of the article, which accurately and fully conveys the content as it appeared in the issue. The uncorrected text files have been included to enhance the searchability of our content, on our site and in search engines, for our membership, the research community and media organizations. We are working now to provide clean text files for the entire collection.
There was no distinctive shoulder patch for service in the Pentagon during World War II, hut if a contest to design one were held today, a case could be made for including this bloated, ostentatious figure to suggest the overblown language military and civilian employees use to communicate with each other.
From the time we begin training to enter the Navy to the day we leave it, we are constantly reminded of the do’s and don’t’s of writing official correspondence. Some of the criteria of acceptability come from directive publications such as the Navy Correspondence Manual (SecNavInst 5216.5B). Others are contained in writing tips pamphlets such as the 1 X'riting Guide for Naval Officers (NavPers 10009-A). Because only format has been subject to rigid rules, most of our writing standards in the areas of substance and style evolve from painful experience. The kinds of learning experiences we have with respect to style are grounded primarily in tradition and usage, much of which is not particularly admirable.
The following treasure was written some years ago by a major Navy activity to one of its private contractors. Names have been excised to protect the originator from excruciating embarrassment.
From: Commander____________
To: ___________ Corporation
Via: Defense Contract Administration Services
Region, Philadelphia
Subj: Contract No____________
Ref: (a) through (0
1. Reference (b) which forwarded reference (c)
to__________ Corporation for action was hand-
carried to this Command by representatives during reference (a) along with references (c), (d) and (e) requesting clarification of the correspondence.
2. Reviewing references (m), (n), (p), and (q) of reference (c) in light of references (e) and (0 clarification on references (m), (n), (p), and (q) of reference (c) is as follows:
a. Approval for references (m), (n), and (p) is not required. These references are for information only in accordance with reference (f).
b. Reference (q) which was forwarded by reference (d) for approval was approved by reference (e).
3. In light of above no action on references (m), (n), (p), and (q) of reference (c) is required.
By direction
Even the most sophisticated code-breaking equipment would be overtaxed in any effort to decrypt the message hidden somewhere in this jumble. But this letter’s a joke, you say. It’s an unrepresentative example, you say. No one in your ship or office writes like this, you say. Balderdash, I say.
For several years, the U. S. Air Force has advocated an informal, personal style in official writing. Its 1973 Guide for Air Force Writing stated the need as follows:
“In the past, most military writing was at the upper extreme of the formal style. Why this was true is hard to understand; few people ordinarily write or talk that way, but it had become ‘traditional’ to write that way. Actually this style is incorrect because it is not appropriate to our situation. The correct level for us to use is the informal style found in popular magazines—the style that most people find easiest to read and to understand—because it is efficient(Emphasis added.)
Early last year, having realized that many people persist in using inefficient bureaucratese in official writing, the Air Force Chief of Staff instituted a three-hour effective writing course. It has been put on film and is mandatory for all Air Force officers,
'For footnotes, please turn to page 39.
enlisted personnel E-5 and above, and civilians GS-7 and above. The program is based on the following premises:
"Writing Program Philosophy. Good writing faces many obstacles: a supervisor who insists on an outdated, formal style; a clerk who copies an ancient letter or regulation rather than write a better one; any writer who doesn’t consider the reader’s needs. Though real, such obstacles can be overcome. Today’s Air Force writing is informal. It uses personal pronouns and contractions, so it sounds like people talking to people. Clear, concise writing is the mark of good management. And sound organization makes writing efficient and easy to read- Commanders and supervisors, especially, must understand and welcome the modern writing style. No program, no course, no exercise, however well inten- tioned, can work without support from the top.”' (Emphasis added.)
The primary focus, then, of the Air Force approach to official writing is that of requiring an informal, quasi-conversational style. This style is called “spoken writing.” As part of my research for this article, I attended a demonstration version of the Air Force course presented to naval flag officers and civilian Navy Department executives. Given by the chairman of the Air Force Academy’s English Department, the presentation revealed both a remarkably effective teaching tool and the clear superiority of spoken writing over traditional bureaucratese. The instructor flashed slide after slide of excerpt* from typical naval letters on the screen, then reorganized and converted them to spoken writing with quick strokes of his grease pencil. The effect in each instance was remarkable. The familiar stilted bombast gave way to a tight personal prose style which cannot help but improve understanding and responsiveness.
Officially, the Navy already comes close to encouraging informal style, but the scattered paragraphs on style in the Navy Correspondence Manual art both ambivalent and in conflict with usage. The chapter on writing style describes two systems of writing, one called “WRITE,” “. . . which relates to all types of writing,” the other known as “4-S,’ which . . has its greatest applicability in connection with letters to the public.” The “T” in “WRITE” stands for tone, and on this element the manual states: “The letter need not be in an idiomatic, breezy style in order to hold the reader’s interest, but neither should it hide behind a lifeless, flat sort of language.” The last “S” in the “4-S” system stands for sincerity, which the manual states “. . . is further achieved by being conversational. This puts the
c° categories of correspondence, none of which in- ^ es the naval letter. These are a) the “personal,” th ^etter 'urended for signature by an official of tQe ^avy secretariat, and c) the business letter sent someone outside the Department of Defense. A let C t0 ’ntro<^uce personal pronouns into the naval er will probably be resisted for a variety of un- uPportable reasons.
‘rst, both commanders and their subordinates eive their organizations as having two voices, the
reader at ease. One technique for accomplishing this 0 jective is by the use of the personal pronouns, you. y°!/r' and we, or, whenever the chief official is to be the signer, the first person singular.”
The 4-S” system’s plug for personalization sounds av°rable to the use of spoken writing in the Navy, Unt‘l °ne recognizes the implications of the opening caveat: a system which has its greatest applicability ln letters to the public may be perceived as nonaPplicable to the naval letter, and that is the current ? widespread perception. On the other hand, °dule I (Office Management) of the new Yeoman rst and Chief Training Course series encourages sp(>ken writing, specifically the use of personal pro- n°uns and contractions. And, while training publica- tl<)ns such as these can’t be cited as competent au- °nty, surely one should be able to assume they re- tct such authority.
There may be some paranoia in the correspondence ^nual s caution against using outside instructors to e P lrnprove our writing: “. . . some of these instructors may not have had the opportunity to learn avy, military, or even Government standards and Procedures. What they have been teaching students commercial writing or newspaper and magazine )°urnalism does not necessarily apply to official writ- ln8 particularly of directives and intra-Departmental lorrespondence.”3 (Emphasis added.) Could it be that
Wp a
are wary of those who would subvert Pen- tagonese?
spoken writing requires the writer to imagine he r she is talking to the reader. The writer not only a^'S Personal pronouns and contractions, but also ^ s questions, uses small words, keeps sentences rt. avoids the passive voice (like the plague), and 'Tens with the main point.
^se Personal Pronouns. “Avoiding natural references people is false modesty. When speaking for your or for the commander, use we, us, our. When Peaking for yourself—if you’re in charge, for rumple use I. me, my. Balance those pronouns th; eVen more y°uan<^ your< so y°ut reader gets rnost attention.”4 In the Navy, a liberal use of ^ onal pronouns has been traditionally limited to
clud commander’s and the command’s. When the commander wants to emphasize the importance of a subject, he or she is comfortable using the first person in a format not acknowledged by the Correspondence Manual, the “personal.” The more common “voice,” however, is the letter signed by direction of the commander. Here the command tends to speak as an inanimate monolith. And, since the monolith is non-human, both the drafter and signer shrink from using personal pronouns.
Second, some commanders and subordinates come to regard the expression of personality as a kind of exclusive perk one gets from having attained the highest rung in the ladder. Both may also be concerned that permitting officials to use we when writing on behalf of the commander would weaken the effect of the commander’s /, when he or she chooses to use it. Some may even believe that the 1-we contrast could cause recipients to give undue weight to the boss’s apparent lack of personal involvement in most official correspondence. The commander regards the non-human image of his or her command as epitomizing authority and as less vulnerable than any one of its subordinate members. This commander is concerned that giving the command personality at subordinate levels would expose drafters and releasing officers to potential resistance from the recipients of their letters.
Third, there are the professional obfuscators and those who are infected with terminal cases of bureaucratic timidity. They perceive the use of personal pronouns as an unfair narrowing of accountability and seek refuge in the language of bureaucratese.
Fourth, those who occupy the “chop chain” between the drafter and the signing official are apt to presume that the latter will reject personal pronouns. Therefore, most drafts that are personalized are returned for conversion back to Pentagonese before they are allowed to reach the top of the chain. The commander may, in fact, prefer an informal style, but is willing to tolerate impersonal, stilted language so long as it’s intelligible.
Fifth, there is an argument that goes something like this: whereas the pronoun / can be precisely identified with the signer, we is imprecise and could, therefore, be misconstrued for reasons I’ve yet to hear clearly expressed. We would obviously encompass the drafter and signer, as well as all those who “chopped” or coordinated on the letter. What is important, however, is that the identity of the we is totally irrelevant to the letter’s authority. Even after all the we have been transferred elsewhere, the authority of the letter remains unassailable.
Sixth, and finally, there are those guardians of
accordingly concur do not ensure expedite
fatuous numbskull in accordance with it is
it is recommended it is requested personnel
Figure 1 Simpler Words and Phrases Instead of Try
so
agree don’t make sure
hurry, rush, speed up jerk*
by, under (leave out)
I/we recommend please
people, staff *This example appeared in the original Air Force list (AFP 13-5), but does not appear in the Joint Administrative Instruction.
Figure 2 How to Find Your Reading Ease Score
Multiply average sentence length by 1.015
Multiply average number of syllables/100
words by .846
Add:
Subtract this sum from 206.835
Score:
The Reading Ease Score will put your writing on a scale between 0 (practically unreadable) to 100 (easy for any literate person).
From Rudolf Flesch, How to Write, Speak and Think More Effectively.
Pentagonese who suspect that informal will lead to casual (the hard stuff!). They already write the way the Prussian army marched. They falsely equate personality with emotion and think that bland is beautiful. They will contend that writing like a person talking to other people will detract not only from authority and precision, but also from the dignified tone characteristic of the military style. But, in fact, personal pronouns do not influence tone. They simplify language and syntax in the interest of efficiency. While their overuse can admittedly leave a ridiculous impression, when used with discretion personal pronouns establish a link between the writer and the reader. This link improves comprehension and conveys a sense of human concern which elicits increased responsiveness.
Writers should avoid making an erroneous connection between style and tone in presuming that a dignified tone requires what the Writing Guide for Naval Officers calls a “formal style of utterance.” In fact, there are few circumstances which would not allow a personal style. Officers who perpetuate the use of impersonal language, for whatever reason, are reinforcing a practice which detracts from good communication.
► Use Contractions Freely. “Only a few subjects, like reprimands or funeral notices, are too solemn for the informality of contractions. Day-to-day [Navy] writing should be informal enough for contractions to fit naturally.”4 Contractions aren’t folksy; they’re efficient, and that’s one of our primary objectives in the naval letter.
► Ask More Questions. The Navy avoids question marks. Instead of “how much ammunition do you have?” we persist in writing, “It is requested that a summary of ammunition on hand be provided.”
► Use Small Words. We don’t start things; we initial them. We don’t end things; we terminate them- When presidential inflation fighter Alfred Kahn was Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics Board, he sent memos to his staff on the business of writing clear, human English. His emphasis on the avoiding of high-sounding words is best expressed in this extract from one of them:
“If I never see the word implement again, I will die happy. Another word I hope I never set again—almost never—is addressed. Some of you would, apparently, have all the people in the world do nothing but address things. I would not object if you confined your addressing in the future to envelopes, audiences, and golf balls. Then there’s indicate. You evidently consider it indeli' cate to say that somebody said something. Oh no, people always indicate things, obliquely, presumably with their eyes averted.”
The Joint Administrative Instruction (5711.6F) used by the Joint Staff has a section on writing tip5 which incorporates the Air Force-developed list of simplified word substitutes. Figure 1 is an extract- Use the small words and come across as a sensible person, someone who knows good English is ordinary English.
► Keep Sentences Short. The Navy Correspondence Manual and the Writing Guide for Naval Officers already cover this element of clear writing. Readability experts suggest that, for the most effective communication, a sentence should rarely exceed 20 words. The writer should mix short and long sentences for variety, but the average should stay below 20 words, of about two typed lines. (See Figure 2.)
► Avoid the Passive Voice. “Avoid the overuse of it h and there are. [But], if you really want to ‘waffle a statement,’ that is avoid a direct commitment, use the indirect style. Otherwise, make forthright, posi'
tIve statements. . . ,”[1][2] [3] [4] [5] It’s ironic that this good ad- Vlce’ which is undermined by the taboo on personal pronouns, comes from the Writing Guide for Naval Jitters. No two words hurt Navy writing more than * e innocent-looking it is. They stretch sentences, e ay your point, and encourage passive verbs. Uncss it refers to something mentioned earlier, try to Vfrite around it is. For example, "It is recommended lat you write economically” can become “We recom- "tend that you write economically.”
Open with the Main Point. Don’t force readers to search for your main point. Reveal it by the end of P e ^rst paragraph. You can often place it in the very lrst sentence, in a paragraph by itself for added clar- lty- ^ut requests before justifications, answers before explanations, solutions before problems, and conclusions before evidence.
In The Washington Post, columnist William aspberry praised former U. S. Commissioner of ncation Ernest Boyer’s contribution to the demise 1 oureaucratese and offered the following explana- tU)n for its entrenched position:
Why d0
so many bureaucrats use the cold, st‘ff, muddy language that Boyer deplores? Partly °ut of laziness; it’s easier tb toss acronymic salads rhan to craft clear sentences. Partly, too, as a way 0 seeming competent. Familiarity with the jargon °f a trade suggests, in some people’s minds, tech- jyeal competency in the trade. But a major reason, onyer believes, is self-protection. ‘Very often, rhere is no clear level of accountability,’ he said in an interview with The New York Times, ‘and as a <-l)cument goes from lower to higher levels, everyone tends to want to add some protection, and no one edits what the previous person ■ [Such ambiguity adds to] the sense that government has something to hide. When you aren t quite sure what the bureaucrat has said, you are likely to believe a) that the bureaucrat didn’t 'now either or b) that he has deliberately chosen n<>t to convey any information or to commit him- to anything.”[6]
ne Navy has been remiss in not recognizing the
inefficiencies of what we have resignedly called Pen- tagonese. We must muster the support and the will to scrap this style and adopt spoken writing for use in the naval letter. This should not be an evolutionary conversion. The Secretary of the Navy can mandate the changeover now, seeking full support from the Chief of Naval Operations. The means for doing so is a revision to the Navy Correspondence Manual. Its chapter on writing style should be rewritten to incorporate all of the elements of spoken writing as defined by the Air Force. But, most important, the style section must be directive in the same sense that the chapters on format are. The Writing Guide for Naval Officers should be cancelled and its good points included in the new manual. Training materials should be prepared from those already in use by the Air Force; completion of a Navy spoken writing course should be mandatory. Once the informal style is officially sanctioned and directed, reviewers who receive correspondence not written in that style should reject it rather than sign it, just as they now tend to reject personal style. Pentagonese can be cured in our lifetime.
Lieutenant Commander Fliegel was graduated from Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota, in 1961 and was commissioned at Officer Candidate School in June 1962. He has served in the USS Shelton (DD-790), USS Semmes (DDG-18), USS Ramsey (DEG-2), USS Dewey (DLG-14), and USS Koelsch (FF-1049). His shore duty assignments have included service as naval liaison officer at the U. S. Embassy in Nassau, Bahamas (which he described in his June 1977 Proceedings article, "The Most Enjoyable Non-Career Enhancing Billet in the Navy”), and as political advisor and plans officer for Commander Iceland Defense Force, at Keflavik. He is now manpower planning officer in the Security Assistance Division (OP-63) of the Office of the Chief of Naval Operations.
Alphabet Soup--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On my first day of CMS school, Naval Station San Diego, I stood outside the BOQ waiting for the bus. A navy ensign was standing nearby, so I thought by chance he might be attending the same school as I.
"Are you here for CMS?” I asked.
“No,” he replied, “I’m just TEMDU at FLTTRA GRU with CINCPACFLT waiting for ACPITS.” “Oh,” I said, not wanting to be outdone, “I had that last week."
Ensign Clifford K. Comer, USCG
Uoce
‘AFP 13-2, 1 November 1973, p. 36.
[2]Air Force regulation 13-1, 20 February 1980.
“SecNavInst 5216.5B, p. X-2.
“AFP 13-5, 2 January 1980, p. 21.
[5]Writing Guide for Naval Officers, NavPers 10009-A, p. 48.
“"Just Plain Talk," The Washington Post. 29 June 1979, p. A15.