In this situation, by far the most frequent, the responsibility for clarity is not obvious. It is often difficult for translators who are aware of the Plain Language requirements and often judged on the clarity of their production not to reproduce, however, in the target text some stylistic defects that result from deficiencies in the source text. Overuse of Latin or archaic phrases, for example, is condemned by both supporters of clarity in French and supporters of Plain English. If a translator chooses to avoid using Latin phrases or archaic expressions (in French or in English) in order to make the translation more readable, that decision, while ensuring the quality of the target text, has usually no bearing and does not improve the source text. In law, as the substance of the original text is not to be diverged from, there are cases where the formal aspect is so important that even the number of periods in a paragraph may be imposed to the translator. Can translators then be held accountable for clarity?

In the fourth and last instance, neither the writer nor the translator are supporters of Plain Language. The translator still has an obligation of clarity, due to professional standards, but the search for quality in this case will take place within the strict structural and lexical parameters of the source text. The readability level is usually higher in this case in the translated product but the contrary may very well happen, as an unplain text may be difficult to understand, even for the translator who then must consult the writer to clarify meaning. However, meaning in this case is not the only variable because structural and syntactical choices may also cause problems.

We therefore see how important it is for the non-English translators to be aware of the Plain English model requirements in order to offer at least the same level of clarity in the target language and, failing the cooperation of the source language writer in that respect, of the limitations encountered. Source texts play a decisive role in the quality of translations and texts that reflect Plain Language solutions allow for a greater quality in the target languages. The original situation of Canada comes from the fact that the French language is also a source language in many instances and its clarity, or lack thereof, is key for the English translator.

3. The universal appeal of the Plain Language model

Plain English writers have developed a body of knowledge that refers, for a major part, to common universal rules for good writing, and legal writing in particular. English and French legal writers, regardless of the legal system in which they operate, do agree on some writing principles. The resistance encountered in an English-only or multilingual setting stems mostly from the fact that the examples put forward to establish some principles of clarity are rather extreme cases of poor writing. True enough, good writing techniques are universal and it could be very useful to reiterate them and draw a common protocol in that respect, along with a thorough examination of diverging rules.