Controlled Language 4-97 (December 1997) by Johan Näsström

In my opinion, the discussion on the Controlled English issue lacks one dimension: the intellectual level of the subject.

Not long ago, French was the language for diplomacy and German for technology. Within the medical world, Latin words are used combined with the native language. And it is unlikely that, for instance, TC-Forum ever will be produced in all languages necessary to cover the INTECOM member languages... So readers of research reports, scientific papers etc will need some knowledge in the main European languages in the future too. And it would be unhappy if these writers should be limited by a restricted and controlled vocabulary.

On the other hand there also is a trend to avoid the language problems. There will be more language-independent instructions using illustrations and symbols (as in "Safety-on-board"-instructions) as well as instructions based on multi-media technology. There are still lots of people unable to read at all...

Somewhere between these two extremes the Controlled Language approach may be useful. But, as Thomas L. Warren writes (CL4): "Should each language have its own version of Controlled Language and if so, who should develop it and maintain it?" And who should keep them syncronized with all the other European languages? That may cause more problems than it solves.  

"transline Deutschland - Übersetzungsdienst für technische Übersetzung"