This article aims to introduce new insights to further the understanding of easy language (EL) and plain language (PL) as examples of tailored language and place them within a broader context of linguistic varieties. We examine EL and PL in relation to standard language, and we consider the degree of conscious effort required in tailoring and the compliance with the codified norms of standard language. Both EL and PL are used in asymmetric communication: PL to mediate between specialists and the general public and EL in communication with people with language barriers. We argue that while these varieties have similar purposes and methods, they also have significant differences; for example, the tailoring moves in opposite directions, as PL seeks general comprehensibility and EL aims to reach special and vulnerable groups. The differences between PL and EL are primarily linked to social prestige and the potential risk of stigma related to their use.
Selkokielen tarve on viime vuosina kasvanut Suomessa. Samalla on herännyt tarve määritellä aiempaa tarkemmin selkokielen vaikeustasoja ja eroa muihin kielimuotoihin. Miten helppoa tai vaikeaa selkokieli voi olla erilaisille lukijoille ja eri teksteissä, ja voiko tekstien selkokielisyyttä arvioida? Tässä artikkelissa pohditaan, millaisia vaikeustasojen määritelmiä selkokielelle voitaisiin antaa. Selkokieltä on Suomessa aina tuotettu monella vaikeustasolla, mutta näitä tasoja ei ole aiemmin määritelty. Niinpä selkoaineistojen käyttäjät eivät ole voineet tietää, millaista vaikeustasoa jokin selkokielinen aineisto on. Käytännössä erilaisille vaikeustasoille on Suomessa tarvetta, sillä osalla selkokielen kohderyhmistä kielen ja lukemisen vaikeudet ovat erittäin suuria ja osalla taas melko pieniä. Artikkelissa hahmotellaan alustavia kriteerejä kolmelle selkokielen vaikeustasolle, helpolle selkokielelle, perusselkokielelle sekä vaativalle selkokielelle. Selkokielen tarpeen kasvaessa selkotekstien arviointiin ja määrittelemiseen tarvitaan myös uusia työvälineitä. Selkokeskuksessa on viime vuosina kehitetty selkokielen mittaria, jonka avulla on tarkoitus arvioida, onko jokin teksti perusselkokieltä vai ei. Mittari sisältää toistaiseksi tarkimman kuvauksen selkosuomen tekstuaalisista, sanastollisista ja rakenteellisista piirteistä, mutta soveltuuko se tekstin selkokielisyyden mittaamiseen? Tätä kysymystä lähestytään artikkelissa mittarin kehittämistyön ja testaustulosten valossa.
Purpose: This article examines how persons with intellectual disabilities and professionals working with them manage interactionally challenging situations in which they negotiate epistemic authority. In each situation, the topic of the talk concerns something the person with intellectual disability knows best, such as their plans and hopes. Persons with intellectual disabilities are, thus, expected to show more knowledge about the topic than the professionals. Method: The database for this study consisted of qualitative analysis of 16 videorecorded dyadic conversations between 12 persons with intellectual disabilities and 11 professional co-participants. The methodological approach taken was conversation analysis. Results. Epistemic negotiations turned out to be quite difficult for the interactants. In these situations, the professionals resorted to three practices called renewed requests for confirmations, indirect challenging, and open challenge, which had different impacts on the epistemic authority and full participation of the persons with intellectual disabilities. Discussion and conclusion: None of the practices proved to be unequivocally better or worse than the others, but all had features that seemed both to strengthen and to weaken full participation. The results of the study can also be used to foster professionals’ practical knowledge of how to deal with interactionally challenging situations in conversations with their clients.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.