I define language as a structured set of signs for expressing and communicating information. I mean signs in a broad sense. For example, I include spoken words, written words, symbols, gestures, and sounds. In requirements engineering, I use the concept of language to describe how I document needs. Therefore, I choose the most appropriate form of language early in the project. Moreover, I explain the common types below.
First, I use natural language for most stakeholder communication. People use natural languages such as English, German, or Spanish every day. Consequently, many stakeholders read requirements without special training. Furthermore, natural language remains extremely expressive and flexible. For example, I can describe user needs, business rules, and context in one sentence. However, natural language also causes problems. Because people speak it interactively, written text may contain ambiguities, omissions, and inconsistencies. Therefore, I write short and well-structured sentences. In addition, I express one requirement per sentence when possible. Also, I apply templates and structured formats. For example, I use phrase templates such as “THE SYSTEM must PROCESS VERB.” Finally, I review and edit actively to reduce misunderstandings.
Second, I use modeling languages when I need clearer visual structure. Modeling languages use a limited set of notation elements and stricter rules. Thus, I reduce ambiguity and omission risk. I often use UML, BPMN, EPC, SysML, ERM, or Petri nets to represent processes, data, or system structure. Moreover, I gain a higher potential for automated analysis and traceability. For example, I map use cases and process flows to tests and design artifacts. However, I also note that stakeholders may need training to read models. Therefore, I balance models with textual explanations.
Third, I adopt formal languages when I require mathematical precision. Formal languages focus on unambiguous descriptions. For example, I use logical operators, set theory, or algebraic specifications. Consequently, I enable rigorous analysis and automated verification. In addition, formal languages help me detect contradictions early. Nevertheless, I avoid formalization for every requirement. Instead, I formalize critical or safety-related requirements first. Otherwise, I keep formal work manageable.
As a requirements manager, I define which language form to persist in the documentation. Also, I decide the required level of detail and the solution dependency early. Therefore, I make the documentation manageable and maintainable. For example, I keep high-level goals in natural language. Next, I capture use-case structure with models. Then, I formalize constraints where necessary. In addition, I tag each requirement with type and level of formality.
I follow simple rules to improve quality; I write short sentences; I use active voice; I prefer consistent templates; I validate requirements with stakeholders; I use modeling when it helps clarity; and I formalize when precision matters. Consequently, I reduce ambiguity and lower cost for later corrections. Finally, I remain careful when context is thin. In that case, I ask clarifying questions and document assumptions explicitly.