Clarity, the essence of communication

We learn so many subjects in our lifetime and try to disseminate our knowledge either orally or in writing. It is questionable whether we have succeeded in speaking to the point or writing clearly. When communication fails, it leads to numerous problems. When an Act of Parliament is ambiguous, it is referred to the Supreme Court for interpretation.

The fault lies not in the Parliament, but in the legal draughtsman. Even in educational institutions, most students are not trained to write to the point. This has led to a generation of speakers and writers who produce gobbledegook.

To maintain clarity, there should be a sequence in what we speak or write. When ideas are not fitted together, the final product becomes meaningless. The communicator has to address the mind of the reader or the listener when he uses words. Most of us tend to use high-sounding words to impress the reader or the listener. Unfortunately, they are not bothered to pass judgements on the communicator’s vocabulary. They simply want to understand what the communicator says.

Circumlocution

The time spent on the telephone can be halved if callers know how to speak to the point without circumlocution. Many callers want to know how we are getting on the state of the weather. They ask the most important question or pass the vital information after such preliminaries.

Some writers follow the same practice. The first paragraph of an article or a chapter in a book has nothing to do with the main topic. Such an attitude contributes nothing to a conversation or a piece of writing. For instance, many students fail examinations because they do not know how to write to the point.

Once a caller phoned the editor of a newspaper, “You see, I have written a very interesting book. I think it will be a best-seller. Is it true that you have a book review page? You know some reviewers will not appreciate what I’ve written...” The editor did not lose his cool although he had to write catchy headlines and follow deadlines. The caller could have simply said he was sending a book for review.

Frustration

There is no logical reason why we should spend 300 words when we can convey the same message in 30 words. Norman Cousins said, “...recent medical research indicates that a wide variety of maladies, including rheumatoid arthritis and adrenal exhaustion, are sometimes directly related to the intense frustration and restlessness a man suffers when subjected to mindless and predatory assaults on his time by people who don’t know how to come to the point.”

Sometimes people refuse to accept change. For instance, once a caller asked a columnist why he was writing “on the bus” and “on the train” instead of “in the bus” and “in the train”. The columnist explained that in modern English, “on the bus” and “on the train” are standard expressions in British English. Before asking such silly questions, the caller could have referred to the Cambridge Advanced Learner’s Dictionary.

Correspondence

Newspaper editors are inundated with feature articles rambling into 2,500 to 3,000 words. Such articles have to be pruned and edited before publication. Dr Albert Schweitzer, at the age of 84, spent most of his time struggling with his correspondence. Once he said, “My correspondence is killing me. Most of the time, I don’t really know what my letters are trying to tell me. They wander so, ach!”

If our education system cannot produce clear thinkers, who else can do it? It is unreasonable to waste a man’s time by producing material that no one can understand.

Although Mass Communication is taught at some universities, the students are not trained to communicate clearly. Producing clear thinkers can be painstaking because it requires time and proper planning. Another drawback is that today’s students are running a rat race and under pressure. They probably will not bother to practise clear writing and speech.

In written communication, no better advice can be offered than to quote the favourite six-word question of Harold Ross, the late editor of the New Yorker. He said, “What the hell do you mean?” Under his editorship, the New Yorker became a model of clear, effective writing.