Do you remember those reading comprehension tests we all took in school? You know, those where you had to figure out the meaning of a word from the context of the sentence or paragraph in which the word was used. (I experienced — first-hand — the value of the skill in high school when I was filling out a job application and one question on the form was: Are you bonded — Yes or No? At 17 I certainly didn’t know what bonding was but applying what I thought of as a derivation of the reading comprehension idea, I reasoned: “if I were bonded, I think I would know it”, so the answer must be no. Anyway…)

The skill of figuring out the meaning of a word from the context came to mind this week with all the news reports about how all the pundits got the New Hampshire primary results so wrong. Of course I’d heard the term pundit before, but I never really knew its definition. Given the way it was used before primary day, I figured pundits were those who gave their opinion and who, for a reason that was never clear to me, the media made a big to-do about listening to. I paid close enough attention to realize that some that the media labeled pundits were clearly biased in favour of one party or the other. Indeed, in many cases it seemed that those pundits’ main claim to fame was having worked for a well-known Republican or Democrat in the past. Other so-called pundits seemed to have come to their conclusion based on various “polls”. (Poll was almost the word of the week because it drives me crazy that it can refer to the results of a mere survey of opinions or to an actual tally of votes at an official election.)

After Hilary’s victory, from the way the term was then used, it seemed to me that anyone who had predicted the outcome incorrectly was labeled a pundit. Rather confusing, given that just before the election we’re led to believe that a pundit is someone who knows what they’re talking about!

Eventually I turned to the dictionary. I’m happy to report that my reading comprehension skills didn’t let me down. According to my dictionary (Webster’s New World College Dictionary (4^th Ed)), a pundit is: “a person who has or professes to have great learning; actual or self-professed authority.” So I guess you can say that before the actual primary all those who were treated as though they had great learning definitely qualified as pundits and after the primary they were rightly referred to as pundits because at that point it was clear that what they really had was (merely) professed authority.

Given today’s date — and the fact that the idea of having a regular blog posting called Word of the Week came to me today — I’m tempted to choose epiphany for the word … but that seems a bit self-serving.

Instead, for the premier Word of the Week posting, I’m choosing: subprime. Before continuing – and believing in giving credit where credit is due — I don’t mind admitting that I got this whole idea after reading an article about the American Dialect Society’s (ADS’s) choice of subprime as its 2007 Word of the Year. According to its press release, “subprime is an adjective used to describe a risky or less than ideal loan, mortgage or investment”.

While I think the ADS’s choice is inspired — anyone paying any attention to the news in at least the last quarter of 2007 would surely have read or heard the word — I choose it for reasons that are different from the ADS’s.

I think subprime deserves attention because it’s a great example of a word that, though repeated almost daily, is rarely explained, which, as a communications specialist, drives me crazy. When the word first started gaining popularity, I began wondering what it meant. As a lawyer and a consultant with clients in the financial services industry, I have passing familiarity with things like the prime interest rate and I kind of thought there must be some correlation between prime rates and subprime. But, all I could do was guess at what the term might mean. It took quite awhile before I finally found a (long) business article that explained what the term meant — and, quite frankly, I was so surprised by the explanation, I feel even stronger that anyone using the word in business writing should take the time to explain it!

So, I’m choosing subprime as the first ever Word of the Week because it’s the type of word that business folks and business reporters often use with little or no explanation, leaving readers feeling ignorant or wondering whether the person using the term even really knows what it means …

In case you’ve been wondering what ever happened to contract interpretation issue between Rogers Communication and Aliant — the one that hinged on a comma — well, the latest instalment was delivered Monday by the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).

To briefly re-cap: In 2002 Rogers and Aliant entered into a 5-year, renewable contract under which Rogers would use power poles owned by Aliant. A few years into the contract Aliant wanted out of it, so it sent written notice to Rogers indicating it would terminate the contract in one year. Aliant’s interpretation of the termination clause was that either party could terminate at any time, so long as the other party was given one year’s notice.

Rogers didn’t want the contract terminated and it argued that under the clause in question neither party could terminate the contract within the initial five year period. Rogers said that the plain and ordinary meaning of the words created ambiguity so the CRTC should interpret the contract based on the underlying intent of the parties. (And of course, Rogers argued that the underlying intent was that it could not be terminated in the first five years.)

As I noted here on Aug. 10, 2006, in its decision of July 28, 2006 (CRTC 2006-45) the CRTC disagreed with Rogers’ interpretation of the clause in question. The Commission concluded that the wording is clear and unambiguous and that “… based on the rules of punctuation, the comma placed before the phrase ‘unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party’ means that that phrase qualifies both the phrases …”. So, according to the CRTC in 2006, the contract could be terminated at any time by either party so long as the required written notice was given.

As I noted here on Oct. 16, 2006, Rogers appealed the decision and argued (among other things) that the French version of the contract is clear (and in favour of Rogers’ interpretation) so the 2006 decision should be overturned.

Well, Monday the CRTC issued a decision in which it said that there was “substantial doubt” about the correctness of its 2006 decision with regard to the interpretation of the termination clause. In CRTC 2007-75 (Para. 63), the Commission said:

“… between the two versions, it is appropriate to prefer the French language version as it has only one possible interpretation, and that interpretation is consistent with one of the two possible interpretations of the English language version.”

The underlying contract dispute between Rogers and Aliant isn’t necessarily settled once and for all with this CRTC decision, however, because the CRTC also concluded that it does not have jurisdiction over granting access to these poles (power poles) for communication purposes. So, we may not have heard the last of this issue. (It will depend on whether Rogers wants to assert its claim in another venue.)

There’s one other issue related to this case that’s worth raising again — it relates to a comment I posted on Aug. 20, 2006 about “boilerplate” language used in the contract. In that posting I noted I wasn’t too sympathetic about the use of boilerplate language. As I said, just because boilerplate language has been around, and used by many, doesn’t mean it is sacrosanct. Well, I still think that principle holds and I’d warn: use boilerplate at your own risk.

But, in this case, it turns out the contract language in question wasn’t really boilerplate — it was language that had, apparently, been “blessed” by the CRTC. The contract used by Rogers and Aliant was based on a model agreement the Commission had previously “… approved both English and French language versions of…” (Para. 58 of 2007-75). And,given that the Commission made it clear in other decisions that it favours uniformity for such agreements, unfortunately the parties must have felt they did not have authority to depart from the wording of the model agreement. Pity.

If you’re interested in reading the latest CRTC decision you can find it at: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2007/dt2007-75.htm?Print=True

I can’t resist…

A friend (who happens to own a motorcycle) e-mailed me the following “ad” from the Auto Trader web site for a 2006 Suzuki GSXR 1000. (I specify the details of the make and model out of deference to my friend and other bikers).:

Fourways, Johannesburg
This bike is perfect! Only done 7000 kms and has had its 1500 km dealer service. No falls/scratches. I use it as a cruiser/commuter. I’m selling it because it was purchased without proper consent of a loving wife. Apparently “do whatever the f*!# you want” doesn’t mean what I thought. Call me. Steve…

Apocryphal? Likely, but it’s a good reminder that no matter how plain the words, communication between humans is rife with the possibility of misinterpretation!

A couple weeks ago I heard a story on the evening news that didn’t make sense to me. It concerned a statement in a letter sent by the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi to candidates for immigration to Canada.

Part of the story that was “news” to me is the fact that Sikh boys are given the name Singh and Sikh girls are given the name Kaur when they are baptized. According to the news stories I’ve read about it since, Sikh children are given these names to symbolize unity and to remove other names that could be used to identify social standing in India’s caste system.

Though that information was interesting to me, that was only part of the story that was intriguing. The other part was about the wording of the letter itself. Here’s an excerpt of the letter in question (as it appeared on page A23 of theToronto Star on July 26, 2007) — it was sent to Singh Jaspal:

This refers to your application for permanent residence in Canada. In order to continue the processing of your application, please send the following documents and RETURN THIS FORM WITH THE REQUESTED DOCUMENTS.

1. ORIGINAL passport for yourself after getting your surname endorsed on it (submit only after medical examination is completed). Please note that your surname must be endorsed on your passport. The names Kaur and Singh do not qualify for the purpose of immigration to Canada. Please note that a request for your passport(s) at this time is not a guarantee of visa issuance …

What on earth does it mean that a name does not qualify for the purposes of immigration? The sentence makes no sense.

The wording of the letter became a news story when the husband of a Sikh woman living in Calgary sought to join his wife here. According to the news story, the woman’s husband was forced to legally change his name in India so his immigration application would be processed in time for the birth of their child here in Canada.

The issue behind the letter is the policy that the Canadian High Commission in New Delhi had been applying for about 10 years that required people to legally change their name. (As many commentators noted, a likely reason few complaints about the policy have been publicly registered is that would-be immigrants might fear that a complaint could jeopardize their chances of being granted immigration.)

The initial response by Immigration Canada was that applicants were asked for a different name simply to help speed up application processing and to prevent cases of mistaken identity due to the commonness of Singh. A day or so after Immigration Canada’s initial response, the World Sikh Organization raised the issue with the Canadian government.

Ultimately, Immigration Canada announced it was dropping the policy, calling the whole thing a misunderstanding based on a “poorly worded” letter. Poorly worded is quite an understatement! Not only does the sentence, “The names Kaur and Singh do not qualify for the purpose of immigration to Canada” not make sense (names do not immigrate — people do), it also left most readers with the belief (allegedly mistaken) that persons with the surname Singh or Kaur must legally change their name in order to seek immigration to Canada.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada eventually released a formal statement explaining it administrative process regarding applications filed in New Delhi. The information set out in this public statement was much clearer. Besides noting the confusion caused by the earlier correspondences, the statement (excerpted below) offers an explanation of the rationale behind the earlier policy and makes it clear that applicants are not required to legally change their name, they are merely encouraged to include a family name in addition to Singh or Kaur.

Not only was the bad press surrounding the wording in the letters from New Dehli well deserved from a an immigration policy and procedural perspective, it clearly shows the perils of sacrificing accuracy for brevity.

[Here’s the except from the statement printed in the Toronto Star under the heading: WHAT THE GOVERNMENT SAYS

Citizenship and Immigration Canada, in response to recent media interest in our administrative process regarding applicants for permanent residence in New Delhi using the surnames Singh or Kaur, provides the following information:

Permanent resident applicants with the surnames Singh or Kaur are not required to change their names in order to apply.

In no way did CIC intend to ask applicants to change their names. The letter that was previously used to communicate with clients was poorly worded. We are making changes to ensure there will be no misunderstandings in the future.

* * *

Asking applicants to provide a surname in addition to Singh or Kaur has been an administrative practice used by our visa office in New Delhi as a way to improve client service and reduce incidents of mistaken identity. This was not a mandatory requirement. There is no policy or practice whereby people with these surnames are asked to change their names.

* * *

Most applicants affected have a family name in addition to Singh or Kaur, even if it is not used, that can be easily added to their passport. …

CIC’s visa office in New Delhi receives a high volume of permanent resident applications from people with the surnames Singh and Kaur.

We hope that this will provide the information you require. Our media line is available at 613-952-1650. Thank you.

(Toronto Star, page A23, July 26, 2007)]

So, the saga of the interpretation of the contract with the comma, which has been the subject of my last two postings, continues and it’s just too juicy a story to pass up.

Rogers — the party arguing against the plain language — or should I say, plain English — interpretation of a clause in a contact it entered into with Alliant, is once again going before the regulator (the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) to argue its case. This time, however, Rogers is arguing that the French translation (which was separately signed) does not use the same punctuation and so the decision should be overturned. (The basis for Rogers’ argument is that, because Canada is officially bilingual, documents in both languages are equally valid.)

So there you go. When in doubt about how to interpret rules of English grammar, the solution is simple: abandon English for French!

I’ll certainly be keeping a close watch on this case because if other companies follow Rogers’ lead and start relying on French contracts, my livelihood as a plain English consultant could be in jeopardy. After all, why bother trying to write clearly in English when you can rely on French rules of grammar instead?

A news report last week after the ruling regarding the decision against Rogers Communications Inc. that hinged on the use of a comma (I reported on it in a previous blog post) explained, in the words of columnist Beppi Crosariol of the Globe and Mail, an “an ironic twist”. Apparently, the contract was not drafted by the parties (Rogers or Aliant). According to Crosariol, it was “a boilerplate document used by all Canadian cable and telephone companies … hammered out between the Canadian Cable Television Association and … the former alliance of phone companies.”

Personally, I don’t find the fact that Rogers’ problems can be attributed to the use of boilerplate language particularly ironic. So-called boilerplate language has been around for years and has been used in many contexts and has been subject to criticism by many who have tried to interpret it. Boilerplate language is often used and accepted without much thought or analysis. Indeed, much of the criticism rightly levelled against so-called legalese comes from the un-questioned use of boilerplate language, which some argue is intentionally confusing or drafted in such a way that it can be understood by few.

The twist Crosariol seems to refer to is that usually boilerplate language ends up being problematic (in terms of both interpretation and application) for those not in a position to negotiate a customized contract. In other words, boilerplate wording usually shows up in contracts that are more-or-less “take it, or leave it”, like credit card “agreements”, auto leases, apartment contracts, etc., where the parties do not have equal bargaining power.

In this case, presumably, the parties were sufficiently equal in terms of bargaining strength and so they could have (and clearly should have) drafted wording that properly described their intentions. In other words, they didn’t need to rely on wording drafted by someone else. I realize the argument is that the contract was “standard” in the industry, but standard isn’t a synonym for clear, nor does it necessarily mean that it represents what the parties have in mind. (In fact, in this case I think the wording was clear — and the CRTC thought so too — it just so happens it might not have properly expressed Rogers’ and/or Aliant’s intention.)

Boilerplate language is often used because people think it is so standard that it is somehow safe to use it. The argument seem to rest on the idea that it’s been around for years and therefore it has withstood scrutiny over time. This is a dangerous assumption, since in many cases the language hasn’t, in fact, been tested in a legal proceeding. So, uncritical application of boilerplate language is actually quite perilous.

As much as I’d like to dream that this case might be the beginning of the end of the use of boilerplate language, I’m sure it isn’t. But, it might cause a few more to critically analyze boilerplate language with a view toward ensuring it is clear and that it expresses what the business intends.

There’s an old adage that basically says that when you’re talking to someone, it’s not just what you say that matters — it’s how you say it. Things like tone and body language play a big role in face-to-face communications.

Though no pithy adage comes to mind to describe how people interpret written communications, a recent Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) decision interpreting a section of a written agreement proves that it’s not just words that matter — rules of grammar matter too.

The contract the CRTC had to interpret was between Rogers (a large Canadian telecommunications company) and Aliant Telecom. Here’s the portion of the agreement at issue:

“[the agreement] shall be effective from the date it is made and shall continue in force for a period of five (5) years from the date it is made, and thereafter for successive five (5) year terms, unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party.”

The agreement was entered into on May 31, 2002. On February 1, 2005 Aliant gave Rogers written notice and on February 1, 2006 Aliant terminated the agreement. Unhappy with the prospect of the agreement being terminated, Rogers brought the matter before the CRTC for interpretation of the provision.

Rogers argued that the agreement could not be terminated within the first five years. To make this argument, Rogers had to assert that the last part of the sentence — the words that come after the second comma (“unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party”) — applies only after the initial five year term.

Given that application of standard rules of grammar pretty clearly dictate a different conclusion (see Aliant’s argument below), Rogers had to be a bit more creative. Rogers argued that the plain and ordinary meaning of the words resulted in ambiguity or absurdity and so the CRTC should interpret the contract by looking at the specific intent of the parties (which it argued should be determined by examining the words of the contract together with the circumstances surrounding entering into the contract).

Aliant argued that the second comma closed the clause (“and thereafter for successive five (5) year term”) and so the information that followed it (“unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party”) qualified all the words preceding the comma-enclosed clause.

In other words, Aliant argued the intent was clear and the grammatical structure reflected the parties’ intent. Indeed, to rub it in a bit further, Aliant added that had it been the intention to limit the right to terminate the contract only after the end of the initial five years there would have been no comma placed before the word “unless”.

The CRTC found in favour of Aliant. The Commission concluded that the wording is clear and unambiguous and that “… based on the rules of punctuation, the comma placed before the phrase “unless and until terminated by one year prior notice in writing by either party” means that that phrase qualifies both the phrases …”. So, the contract could be terminated at any time by either party so long as the party wanting to terminate gives written notice one year in advance.

Clearly the CRTC’s interpretation is correct. The easiest way of thinking about it is that setting off a clause in two commas is like putting parentheses around the clause, which means the information is parenthetical. Parenthetical information is additional information that is not necessary to understanding the rest of the sentence.

If you wonder whether to set off a clause in two commas, read the sentence to yourself omitting the information that you are considering setting off in commas. If the meaning of the sentence is correct (in this case, correct means “what the parties intend”) without the parenthetical information — then use two commas. If omitting the clause changes the meaning, don’t use two commas and consider recasting the sentence (or perhaps splitting it into two sentences) to reflect what you mean.

In contract interpretation cases, parties often argue for the “plain and ordinary meaning” of the contract. The CRTC’s decision is a welcome one for someone in my business because it makes the point that the plain and ordinary meaning is derived not just from the meaning of the words, but also from the grammar used to express the intent.

If you’re interested in reading the actual CRTC decision you can find it at: http://www.crtc.gc.ca/archive/ENG/Decisions/2006/dt2006-45.htm

Though I don’t blog as often as some (ok, as often as most) bloggers — I do believe blogs are a great tool for businesses. I’ve come around to this conclusion both through personal experience and as a result of the arguments and ideas put forth by others who’ve been at this long enough to truly understand the nature — and therefore the power — of business blogging.

I’m compelled to write about this now because of an insight about business blogging I gained from: Naked Conversations: how blogs are changing the way businesses talk with customers, by Robert Scobel and Shel Israel.

You may recall that I commented on Naked Conversations in an earlier posting about why jargon should be avoided. Despite being turned off by Chapter 2 of the book, I got over my irritation and continued reading. I must say, I’m glad I did because it drove home a point about business blogging that I had previously overlooked.

The most important point I took away from the book was that the power of business blogging is the ability to have a conversation with clients, customers and others in your field. Though there are many good reasons to do a business blog (for example, it’s a place where you can showcase your passion and expertise), the idea of a blog as a tool for engaging in conversation is quite a revelation, I think.

Anyone who has been in business for any length of time knows that conversations are the building block of relationships — and relationships are the foundation on which businesses are built. For example, though I might have an idea of what types of communications services someone might benefit from, it’s through conversation I actually learn about their needs and at the same time explain to them how what I do might help them. But to build a long-lasting business relationship conversations have to be on-going and their underlying purpose must be about getting to know and trust the other person. When you think about it, blogging is all about on-going conversations.

Another way of looking at it is that business blogging is a cost efficient — and effective — way of developing rapport with people you might never have had the opportunity to meet (in person) through traditional channels and to engage in conversation. Looked at like that, how can you not find blogging an amazing business tool?

I thought it time to return to my Top 5 reasons for avoiding jargon. So, here’s Reason #3: using jargon can alienate your audience.

When you’re communicating with someone for business purposes — whether you’re writing, making a presentation, or just speaking — you consciously and subconsciously make an assessment of the audience’s intellect and level of expertise. Indeed, to create “reader-focused” writing (or listener-focused speaking), which should always be one of your business communication goals, you must make such assessments.

But, even when you think your audience is very bright or highly educated, it’s a good idea to avoid using jargon because if folks don’t understand what you’re saying, you risk alienating, or irritating, them.

I can share a recent experience I had with something I read that left me feeling stupid and, ultimately, irritated. On Sandy Kemsley’s recommendation (Sandy’s blamed — or credited — with being the friend who persuaded me that business blogging’s a good thing), I decided to read Naked conversations: how blogs are changing the way businesses talk with customers, by Robert Scoble and Shel Israel.

While I found most of the book quite interesting, I nearly stopped reading after Chapter 2, which is titled, “Everything never changes”. I don’t mind admitting that when I’m reading, I often gloss over chapter titles — especially when they don’t say much to me. I usually don’t get too bothered by a title I “don’t get”, because I figure it’s just a title.

So, though the title didn’t make much sense to me, I continued reading. It quickly became apparent that the title refers to a conversation Shel Israel had with futurist-philosopher John Naisbitt (author of Megatrends). Israel had commented to Naisbitt that he felt that as a result of September 11th, everything had changed. To this statement, Naisbitt apparently replied:

“Everything never changes,” he said. “Something has changed and it impacts everything else. Your life is the same. People go to the same jobs, in the same places. They go home to the same families and watch the same TV programs. Everything never changes. Something changed and that something will impact a great deal. But life as we know it will continue”.

My initial reaction was “say what?” I had to reread the quote and the chapter a number of times before I even got a sense that I might have an inkling of what Naisbitt was saying.

Though the words themselves are pretty ordinary, the statement “everything never changes” basically amounts to jargon because it’s intended as a short-hand way of making a particular point. In this case, it seems the author coined this seemingly clever catchphrase in hopes it will ring true and be memorable.

Unfortunately, my reaction to the cleverness was not particularly warm. Indeed, the need to reread it and puzzle over it irritated me to the point that I almost put down the entire book. In such cases, I figure either the authors don’t care enough about the audience to explain things in such a way that an otherwise interest reader (me) had a hope of getting through it in one read, or, worse, that the authors hadn’t refined their thoughts to the point that they could make it understandable.

Fortunately, Chapter 2 is one of the shorter chapters in the book. I soldiered on and finished the book, the rest of which was straightforward and interesting. Maybe in future editions the authors will re-think that chapter, realizing that yielding to Naisbitt’s jargon is a strategy that could backfire.