Plain language
Anne Ketola: Plain language
* embedded from the Panopto platform at Aalto University (privacy policy)Plain language addresses how contractual requirements and commitments are expressed. Where wording is unnecessarily complex, abstract, or indirect, it can obscure meaning and make it harder for users to understand what is expected of them.
Writing in plain language means ensuring that information in a contract is
- relevant,
- easy to find,
- easy to understand and therefore
- easy to use.
Plain language sometimes raises concerns particularly in legal and compliance teams. Some worry that “simplifying” contract text will make it less precise or less legally reliable. Others fear that important nuance will be lost. These concerns are understandable, but they often reflect misunderstandings about what plain language actually does.
Plain language does NOT mean dumbing a text down.
It does not eliminate necessary terminology, nor does it replace specialised concepts with vague or colloquial alternatives. In some situations, legal certainty, predictability, or intended legal interpretation may require the careful use of specific terms. Precision remains important.
What plain language does is remove unnecessary complexity: the features of contractual communication that obscure meaning without clearly supporting legal, operational, or implementation objectives. Such complexity may include complex sentences, hidden or abstract operational expectations, meaning fragmented across definitions and cross-references, indirect formulations, or overloaded document structures. In many situations, these features are drafting conventions rather than strict legal necessities. Legal certainty and plain language can often coexist.
At the same time, implementation-oriented communication does not necessarily require that all contractual clauses be rewritten or simplified. In some situations, legally robust drafting may still require complementary implementation-oriented communication approaches that help different users identify, understand, and operationalise contractual expectations in practice.
Most “plain language contracts” will not (and do not need to) follow every plain language guideline perfectly. But even small plain language adjustments can transform a contract from a document that people fight with to a document people can work with. This is important especially because contracts rarely serve only one function or one audience. The same contract language may simultaneously
- support implementation and operational coordination,
- structure governance processes and supply-chain relationships,
- communicate obligations, expectations, and aspirations,
- support monitoring and auditing,
- support dispute prevention and resolution, and
- increasingly enable machine-assisted processing and analysis.
Different users may therefore require different levels of detail, abstraction, and representation in order to identify, understand, and use contractual content effectively in practice.
Plain language and clear, implementation-oriented communication support better business.
A clear contract is a business tool. Plain language:
Reduces misunderstandings and disputes by making expectations, responsibilities, and monitoring requirements obvious rather than implicit.
Improves supplier relationships, especially with SMEs that may not have the legal capacity to interpret dense or ambiguous requirements.
Speeds up negotiations, because fewer clauses require interpretation, internal consultation, or “translation” between functions.
Supports the implementation of sustainability-related requirements and commitments by making them more actionable and easier to operationalise (people actually understand what they must report, provide, or change in their operations).
Spot the problem
Contract language often becomes unclear not because the content is complex, but because the language choices make it harder to understand.
This minigame helps you recognize typical problem patterns in traditional contract writing and shows how small changes can make contract clauses clearer. Each round presents a clause and asks you to spot specific issues that reduce clarity.
Round 1. Archaic expressions
Archaic expressions are old-fashioned legal or formal expressions that persist in traditional contract language even though they are no longer part of everyday language.
Spot [click/highlight?] the archaic expressions you find in the following clause
The clause contained three archaic or old-fashioned expressions that are still common in traditional contract language but add unnecessary complexity:
| Jargon | Why this is a problem |
|---|---|
| forthwith | an old-fashioned term meaning “immediately” or “without delay.” |
| herein | a formal way of saying “in this Agreement.” |
| thereof | an outdated referential word meaning “of that.” |
These expressions create friction for readers because they are not part of everyday English. They force users to mentally translate the contract language before understanding the actual obligation. This slows down comprehension without adding legal precision.
Same clause in plain language:
“The Supplier must deliver the documentation referred to in this Agreement without delay and notify the Buyer.”
Think about which words in the following sentence are archaic expressions and click here to see the solution: "The Supplier shall forthwith deliver the documentation referred to herein and shall notify the Buyer thereof." Then click here.
The clause contains three archaic or old-fashioned expressions that add unnecessary complexity:
| Jargon | Why this is a problem |
|---|---|
| forthwith | an old-fashioned term meaning “immediately” or “without delay.” |
| herein | a formal way of saying “in this Agreement.” |
| thereof | an outdated referential word meaning “of that.” |
These expressions create friction for readers because they are not part of everyday English. They force users to mentally translate the contract language before understanding the actual obligation. This slows down comprehension without adding legal precision.
Same clause in plain language: “The Supplier must deliver the documentation referred to in this Agreement without delay and notify the Buyer.”
Round 2. Where did the verbs go?
Nominalizations are nouns formed from verbs (for example, to determine -> the determination of; to verify -> the verification of). They make text stiff and wordy. Replacing them with clear verbs usually improves readability and precision.
Boom! You cleaned up that clause like a pro!
Almost there!
The clause contained four nominalizations that make the sentence heavier:
Implementation: a noun masking the verb implement.
Provision: a noun masking the verb provide.
Submission: a noun masking the verb submit.
Monitoring: a noun masking the verb monitor.
Turning such nouns back into clear verbs helps readers quickly understand the obligations and reduces ambiguity without changing the meaning.
Same clause in plain language:
“The Supplier must implement appropriate corrective actions and provide all documentation needed to verify compliance. The Buyer may ask the Supplier to submit additional information and may require the Supplier to monitor subcontractor performance during the contract period.”
</div>
Round 3. Sentence length
Feedback text:
Look at you, language untangler extraordinaire! This long sentence contains at least four separate ideas, each expressing a different obligation or step in the process:
First, the Supplier must carry out a comprehensive sustainability risk assessment.
Second, the Supplier must submit a written report of that assessment to the Buyer within 30 days.
Third, the report is subject to the Buyer’s review.
And finally, the Buyer may request adjustments if the proposed measures are not sufficient.
Dividing the sentence at these points makes each idea easier to see and helps the reader understand what needs to happen and in what order.
Same clause in plain language/shorter sentences:
The Supplier must conduct a comprehensive assessment of any actual or potential sustainability risks in its operations and supply chain. The Supplier must submit a written report of this assessment to the Buyer within 30 days, describing the identified risks, the proposed mitigation measures and indicative timelines. The report is subject to the Buyer’s review. The Buyer may request adjustments if the proposed measures are not sufficient to meet the agreed standards.
Alternatively, the sentence can be further structured to improve its visual layout, making it even easier to scan:
The Supplier must conduct a comprehensive assessment of any actual or potential sustainability risks in its operations and supply chain.
Within 30 days, the Supplier must submit a written report to the Buyer describing:
identified risks,
proposed mitigation measures, and
indicative timelines.
The report is subject to the Buyer’s review. The Buyer may request adjustments if the proposed measures are not sufficient to meet the agreed standards.
As the exercise shows, contract clauses often combine several actions, conditions, timelines, and consequences into a single sentence. This can make it difficult for users to identify what needs to happen, by whom, and in what sequence. This recurring pattern can be addressed systematically using what we call the [NAME OF METHOD] method.
</div>
Plain language, however, addresses only part of the broader communication challenge. Even clearly written contractual requirements and commitments may remain difficult to identify, navigate, or implement if the information itself is poorly organised, visually hidden, or disconnected from related content across the contract stack. This is where information design becomes important.
Information design next page