AI writing – fancy or highfalutin?

 

[rainbow over my parents' house]

I had the peculiar experience of seeing my parents’ house advertised for sale after my mother died. I have to admit that I found it difficult match the description of the property to the actual house. It read:

“Nestled within the Encino Hills, near Mulholland Dr, in the acclaimed Lanai Road Elementary school district, sits this charming mid-century 4 bedroom, 2 bath 2,202 sq. foot home ready for its new owner. Don't miss the chance to reimagine this nearly 16k lot surrounded by flourishing foliage and citrus. Enter through double doors into a foyer which connects to a spacious vaulted ceiling formal living room with a fireplace and adjoining dining area….”

In reality, it was an expanded but simple aging wooden house but clearly the AI-created description makes it seem far more attractive to buyers.

This personal example highlights the strength as well as the dangerous temptation of AI writing. On the one hand, it is an expert-system, creating a text that only highly experienced and talented copywriters can write. On the other hand, in many cases, the resulting text is not actually effective in communicating the message as many English speakers consider overly fancy language either exaggerated or intended to deceive.

To be clear, AI produces text according to the prompts that the writer enters. The parameters include, among other, level of vocabulary, purpose of the document and educational level of the reader. Thus, in theory, AI should be able to produce a text that is tailored for the intended goal. Accoridingly, the skill of the programmer has a dominant influence on the relevance of the text.

One of the major problems is that a significant percentage of those using AI to write their texts are not fully fluent in the language and often unaware of the nuances of communicative language. Thus, based the concept that more the better or, as in the case of writing, the higher, the better, users tends to aim to write highly sophisticated texts. The resulting copy thus chooses the elegant and indirect route instead of the simple and direct approach. For example, compare “visitors have the possibility of observing a myriad of animal species at the local zoological center” and “visitors can view a wide variety of animals at the zoo.” Clearly, the first shows a far richer level of vocabulary but many adults, even some native speakers, not to mention children, would struggle to understand the meaning or find it off-putting.

The cultural background affecting this reaction to high-level language partly stems from a preference in English for content over style. For many English speakers, using sophisticated language in terms of vocabulary and structure is viewed as an attempt to prove personal superiority or hide the truth. In simple terms, English speakers often expect to a person to say something directly and not decorate it. Americans in particular expect their leaders to “tell it like it is” and value that type of communication even if the form is rather simplistic, even crude. For example, many voters truly respect Trump because of his manner of answering questions but he is not the first president to be overly direct. Even modern legal language strives to be simple and direct and drop its pretensions as many modern scholars consider the use of legalese as an elitest and dangerous practice.  See my previous post.

This insistence on clarity at the price of elegance is contrast to the situation in many other countries and cultures. In France, for example, listeners are often quite willing to forgive a complete lack of content if the language is elegant enough. Almost all French politicians and even masters of ceremonies sound almost royal in their speech. It is hard to name one French president that was not an elegant speaker. Thus, AI creates more benefit in some languages than in others.

Thus, an AI user without the knowledge of when high-level language is appropriate can unintentionally create an artificial and/or ineffective text. People seeing a marketing text with such language know that it is not written by a human as almost no one can or wants to write in that style. Thus, the alien text only highlights the fact that they cannot write. Even worse, if the purpose of the copy was to sell or persuade, the AI-generated copy will tend to create distrust, the exact opposite.

To give a concert example of power of short direct speech, note that most Americans know by heart at least a part of Abrahams’ Lincoln’s Gettysburg address  (1863), which totals 272 words, while nobody remembers a single word from the preceding two-hour speech by Edward Everett. English speakers prefer, to paraphrase Lincoln, English “of the people, by the people, for the people.” It does not mean that that there is no place of AI texts. My parents’ house sold quite fast in fact. However, direct plain English, edited until it is clear and smooth, often produces better results. Simply put, highfalutin AI English is often not an appropriate manner of expression.

Tradition vs. Clarity – The Legal Writing Conundrum

As a legal translator, I am by definition a legal writer.  As such, I apply my history, learned tendencies, and natural instincts every time I tap that keyboard.  In my case, the following are the most dominant:

a     .      My father was a journalist and instilled me with the love of brevity, i.e. why use three words when one will suffice.

b     .      I went to law school (the University of Oregon) but never practiced law, meaning I understand but have never written original legal documents.

c     .       I am also an English teacher with a thorough knowledge and respect of grammar rules, making me someone inflexible in regards to starting sentences with but and and, to name a few.

This background places me in a dilemma when I translate contracts, my favorite type of document because it actually tries to say something even in omission.  On the one hand, I want to adopt the American “plain language” initiative.  I love to eliminate extra prepositions, archaic shall’s, and redundant legal phrases such as last will and testament.  In short, I want the average educated person to quickly read and understand what s/he is signing.

  On the other hand, I may be wrong.  I recently participated in an ATA webinar on French and English legal translating.  The speaker emphasized the importance of reiteration in English legal writing as a means of avoiding ambiguity.  For example, in the following sentence, the second, underline will should be retained to ensure clarity: The Service Provider will provide the required materials and will guarantee their appropriateness for the intended use.  The second helping verb screams at me, albeit silently.  Still, if it is more important to be precise than concise, it should remain in the sentence.

So, after listening to the excellent webinar and reading Brian Garner’s opposite thinking book, Legal Writing in Plain English (2001), I find myself struggling to determine a policy when editing other people’s translation.  Should I correct them when they are wordy and old-fashioned?  Should I change my proletariat style and learn Dickens-like English? 

In all probability, I will stick to my beliefs and prefer the informal styling of legal writing.  I may adjust my editing to be more tolerant to those that have more respect for tradition.  Still, the ideal way is the most difficult, involving two proverbs: there are many ways to skin a cat (figuratively, of course); moderation in all matters, including moderation.  In other words, I will strive to accept the individual differences in writing style as long as it does not break some holy rule, such as beginning a sentence with and.

I happily invite reactions from translators, lawyers, and others.