As a technical writer, I must always know the intentions and capabilities of my target audiences. Technical manuals and work instructions must be free from ambiguity and misinformation. Failure to make the audience comprehend technical and safety information may result in injury or death.

In all forms of writing, English or any other language, the reader has been targeted to receive and comprehend what the writer has intended.

I have attached a paper which looks at the various aspects of writer/reader interaction regarding misunderstanding and/or misinformation to explain my thoughts on your excellent question.

Prof, I am really grateful for the information. Thanks very much.

Prof, you made a point that 'In all forms of writing, English or any other language, the reader has been targeted to receive and comprehend what the writer has intended.' Fine! But theoretically, this assertion of yours is contestable. Hinds (1987), in his typology, divided languages into writer and reader responsible ones and according to him there are some characteristics that qualify a language as either writer or reader responsible . Now, Prof, if you argue that English is 'purely' a writer responsible language, what will you say about such expressions as ;and so on;, 'etc.', 'among others'? Don't they make the language reader-responsible as well?

This issue is highly contested, at least in the States. Psycholinguistic theories of reading propose that text comprehension is related to the reader's ability to make accurate guesses about the relations between structure and meaning. Goodman called reading "a psycholinguistic guessing game." Schema theories, on the other hand, propose that a text activates schemata that build meaning and comprehension. On these perspectives, English--and indeed all languages--are reader responsible. Rhetorical theories, on the other hand, propose that a text is only comprehensible if the writer knows quite a bit about his or her audience and knows how to structure the text to make it accessible and comprehensible to readers. Then, of course, we have deconstructionists who propose that the meaning of a text is indeterminate, in which case a text is neither reader nor writer responsible. My own view is that the entire notion of reader/writer responsible languages is misconceived. Comprehension is more complex than this notion allows, involving not only the writer's ability to communicate a message but also the reader's knowledge of the subject and, surprisingly, the articulatory musculature of the reader.

If English is not "writer responsible" why do I have to teach my students very strict rules of 'topc sentence' 'thesis statmen't and 'paragraphing'.in academic essay writing? (for example for IELTS). in English we expect that writer guides us thorugh his writing while letting us guess what to expect next, which can really be challenging for many students form different cultural background. I think, English isbeing taught as if it is quite writer responsible since i haven't been taught these rules neither in my Turkish, nor German schooling. I surely understand what Mr. James wrote and agree totally. English shouldn't be taught as if the whole comprehension process is depending on the writer's structuring. I wish the whole writing process, academic or non academic could rather be seen as a 'conversation' between the writer and the reader.Personallly, having been a 'creative' writer in my other languages, I am desperately trying to break some structural rules while writing for academia.

My worry so far is whether a language can be said to be 100% writer or reader responsible. i think that such an idea is quite idealistic. Realistically, we can better work with a 'continuum'. And on this continuum, I think that no language can be at any of the extremes. This is my position.

I find that creative approaches to a philosophical question can often erase the facts in favour of the emotive idea where right and wrong become meaningless. A writer composes text as an outward projection of their intended communication to a pre-determined audience. The targeted reader will analyse that text based on the understanding that they are the intended audience.

Other readers may have a different understanding of that text. It is the writer’s responsibility to ensure that the targeted audience clearly understands what the writer has written, why it has been written and the context in which it applies. Any reader should be left with no uncertainty whether they are part of that targeted audience or not (generally by being published within a genre, specific magazine or other specialised media).

“Expressions such as; and so on; etc.; among others” are examples of poor writing style even if backed up with further information or references within the text. The expressions should be removed from the text to maintain clarity – otherwise many questions can be asked of these expressions – until when?; for how long?; amongst which others?

There's nothing wrong with the deconstruction of writing to enable an analysis of a text based on the givens of a non-targeted audience. However, deconstruction is a psychological tool based on analysing what the writer may have meant - as opposed to the reality of what they really meant, based on the text and other available facts.

The only benefit of deconstruction is to "see" new aspects within the text with which to challenge the original writer as to its truth. As with Barthes "death of the author", the unavailability of the original writer for questioning will only ensure that the deconstruction becomes a new work, targeted to a like-minded new audience.

If a piece of writing is so challenged by deconstruction, then the original writer has done a poor job by not explaining the text and/or not establishing the nature of the intended audience.

The other aspect to the notion of responsibility involves what is meant by the term "responsible writer". Does this also mean socially responsible (now and forever), practically responsible, legally responsible to a wider audience etc.

By the way I’m not a prof – unfortunately ;)

Dear scholar, I find your contribution quite insightful, as you have tried to situate your argument within a particular theoretical/conceptual framework. However, your remark, '“Expressions such as; and so on; etc.; among others” are examples of poor writing style even if backed up with further information or references within the text. The expressions should be removed from the text to maintain clarity – otherwise many questions can be asked of these expressions – until when?; for how long?; amongst which others? ', is very prescriptive --a position held by scholars in what may be called 'traditional academic discourse/writing'. You and i appreciate the fact that language researchers are interested in what language users employ language for, not what they ought to use language for, or how they have to use it. Such expressions, which I call 'continuants' (listed above) many have implication for language variation, based on some sociolinguistic factors such as gender, age, status, ....

It is better, I think, for researchers to be descriptive rather than being prescriptive. Will you consider a PhD thesis which contains a number of these expression as 'poor writing'?. Remember that supervisors who serve as disciplinary gatekeepers were also mindful of these expressions but they allow them to go. What does this imply to you?

You have considered some very interesting points here Jismine in which I see different frames of reference being used by the supervisors of a PhD.

As a piece of writing the PhD should be assessed not only for the discourse in answering the thetic question posed, complete with bibliography - but also for its standard of precise writing, style, tone, sense of audience, rigorous and unambiguous argument with examples, logic and flow - and other basic necessities such as grammar and syntax.

I would also allow some lenience in the use of "poor writing" for the initial draft.

The student will usually have the thesis professionally scrutinised by a proof-reader, editor (usually the same person) so as to present a quality paper expected of a learned person, before final submission of the paper.

My writing colleagues will always make use of a "critical friend" to read through a text and advise where the text fails, in any respect, in meeting its intention and targeted audience or by suggesting new material to be included which may support the text. This applies to all genres.

As a PhD is an analytical work of research and argument against givens, to prove a new idea, then both argument and language must be used so as to avoid misunderstanding of the text by the intended reader. The bibliography is a set of further reading which may be used by the reader to site the writer's text.

In "everyday" speech and writing, the 'continuants' are acceptable only when they are not considered important by the receiver. The receiver will seek further clarification of the meaning and intention of the communication as required.

Assumptions can mean virtually anything and may cause severe consequences. I liken this to your earlier reference to 'reader responsibility'.

And so on . . . ;)

Leyla,

We have to teach topic sentences, transitions, etc., because our students don't read very much, and when they do, they attend to content rather than form. If we teachers asked students from an early age to read texts and to examine their form as well as content, we might have better success.

Stefan,

My experience with fellow academics is that most are not very good writers. Because their own writing proficiency is so low, it seems wildly optimistic to propose that they should expect dissertations to be well written. My graduate studies committee years ago couldn't understand a word of my dissertation, which suggests that they weren't very good readers, either.

James, I agree with your first reply that "My own view is that the entire notion of reader/writer responsible languages is misconceived" and that not all academics (or engineers or doctors) are proficient at writing.

The proof-reader/editor is essentially a quality assurance inspector with a specialist knowledge of writing communication and who preferably has the same subject knowledge and audience awareness as the writer.

Leyla, Translating a text between different language and cultural mind-sets is a process which may not accurately communicate what the writer of the original text had intended - and the text may have a limited audience unless significant changes are made to target each new audience.

Stefan.. I think you'd agree that if you don't understand what I write, then I've failed to convey my meaning to you - simply because the conversation/argument/discussion started withe me.

On a daily basis, people, in my experience, are in a "writer responsible" mode. Think, for example, of any conversation you have or any reading you peruse. How often, in conversation, do we respond with 'Huh?', "What do you mean?', 'Come again?' How often do we finish reading a paragraph to pause and wonder what the writer is trying to say?

Communication is a learning process. We learn by doing. The more we do, the more we learn and thus understand/know. Effective communication starts and ends with the writer/speaker.

Roger, I agree with your thoughts; "I've failed to convey my meaning to you - simply because the conversation/argument/discussion started with me" and "effective communication starts and ends with the writer/speaker".

Otherwise what do we have - communication that is not understood by the targeted audience and replaced with assumptions and possibilities or even nonsense. Then, what is the point in making such a communication if you knowingly make it open to interpretation?

My reminder note with the words "Hands Up" if handed to the bank teller instead of the person repairing the large outdoor wall clock would need to be explained to a very wide audience at a later date.

It appears that all the foregoing arguments support my stance that a language, particularly English, cannot be said to a 100% writer responsible. Have I been conclusive by stating everybody's mind?

Jisime:

There is always - and obviously - a responsibility on the reader's/listener's part to truly read/listen effectively. That said, the writer/speaker has the greater responsibility to ensure meaning is received and understood.

Stefan:

"Then, what is the point in making such a communication if you knowingly make it open to interpretation?"

Apart from some word games and jokes, I agree. Which supports my final comment to Jisime, above (games and all) ;)

If we observe how British and English speaking writers have influenced other writers in the world, we can probably say that English is really a writer-responsible language. Writers such as Faulkner, Hemingway, Shakespeare, Dickinson, Toni Morrison, etc., have transmitted a well-crafted writing tradition to non English speaking writers.

Jose...

I find it difficult to imagine a wholly reader-responsible language. I don't know of any. Can you provide any relevant information (e.g. name of language, online links, journal articles) about such a language? Many thanks.

I have heard from my Japanese peers that Japanese is considered a rather reader-responsible language. Can that be confirmed?

Burker, read Hinds, J. (1987). Reader versus writer responsibility: A new typology.

Thx, Jisime. I'll look it up. FYI, from this link, http://www.uri.edu/iaics/content/2007v16n3/12%20Xiukun%20Qi%20&%20Lida%20Liu.pdf, it appears that Chinese - presumably Mandarin - is a reader-responsible language.

I have really found our engagement a fruitful and insightful one. Hope we will continue to engage in a generative intellectual discourse that widen the frontiers of knowledge. But I think that there is a writer-reader responsibility continuum where no language would be at any of the extremes, in that, no language can be said to be 100% reader or writer responsible. At best, one language may be more writer or reader responsible than the other. So English can be said to be more reader responsible that Japanese.

Jismine,

First, let me apologize for misspelling your name.

As to "...no language can be said to be 100% reader or writer responsible. ", well, yes, that makes sense. On the other hand, I see English as a more writer-responsible language than most. Indeed, I've treated it as such for as long as I can recall.

Always happy to discuss language and its quirks - although I concentrate on English homonyms, homophones and homographs.

Colleagues, I think that English language's writer-reader responsibility can be looked at from at two main levels. In terms of coherence, the onus lies solely on the writer. Meanwhile, in terms of information or what Halliday may call the ideational materials, the onus lies on both the writer and the reader, though greatly on the writer. I have found from my analysis of postgraduate theses that academic writers draw on the background knowledge of their reader, thereby acknowledging the readers as co-information providers. This accounts for the use of such expressions as 'among others', 'and so on', 'to mention but few', 'as we know', 'etc;, 'the use of ellipsis (...).

Roger, never mine! I perfectly agree with you that English is more writer responsible than being reader responsible. This has been confirmed in my submission above.

The idea that coherence is solely the writer's responsibility is reinforced in handbooks and writing classes, both of which emphasize the importance of transitional and connecting devices. Research that I conducted many years ago, however, indicates that this idea is a bit simplistic (Williams, J. D. (1985). Coherence and Cognitive Style. Written Communication, 2, 473–491). I found that discourse conherence is judged by readers, and that a reader's judgment of the level of coherence varies among readers. My experience as a writing teacher has, furthermore, convinced me that writers are not good judges of their own coherence.

I also would mention that the analysis-by-synthesis model of reading comprehension, as well as the research in covert linguistic behavior, indicates that notions of a language being "reader responsible" or "writer responsible" fail significantly to consider the complex psychophysiological factors associated with reading and writing.

I find this discussion absolutely fascinating. I teach academic writing and research to both native and non-native speakers of English. I have always considered American English to be a writer-responsible language in that our rhetoric demands that the writer assume responsibility for specific points, evidence, and elaboration of the connection between points and evidence. With discourse markers, transitional phrases, and other coherence devices, English writers lead the readers to the views and attitudes espoused by the writer. ENglish does not rely much on pragmatics as does, for instance, Arabic.

To me, Arabic is more reader-responsible in that Arabic rhetoric tends to persuade rather indirectly in contrast to American English that is much more direct, even "rude" (according to my Arabic and Chinese-speaking students). With Arabic's inclusion of more oral discourse in the written language, there is a social interaction between writer and reader, in which the writer depends upon the reader's identification of the discourse situation (the real-world pragmatics). While no language is wholly reader or writer responsible, there are strong differences among the rhetorical demands of many languages. Those demands completely alter the methods of addressing the instruction needed to teach academic and research writing to students from another language outside our own. The cultural and psychological complexity involved in these differences is immense, thus demanding that instructors delve into these matters before undertaking the presentation of these skills to their students. Often, what seems to be a simple grammatical problem in translation may, in reality, be a complex cultural mind shift that is quite difficult. A simple shift of pronoun from the more familiar to the more objective, third-person preferred by American academic and research writing may involve a huge mental shift from the more "social" discourse models of languages like Arabic and Persian/Farsi. The more often I work with these EFL students preparing for graduate study in the U.S, the more I learn about just how complex these differences in languages really are.

Aysha Bey

University of Alabama at Birmingham

Bey, I find your submission very insightful.