Introduction
Overview
Taught according to the conventions of each
society and those of the language one is
learning, writing is a skill learned
consciously through schooling (Uysal,
2008). Therefore, in learning to write a
second language, learners may find it
difficult to attune to the rules of the L2
rhetoric because of deeply rooted L1
conventions. The basic question behind this
research report originated in one such
difference between English and Persian
because Persian learners of English often
avoid attending to audience considerations.
It is often asserted that English is a writer-responsible language (Hinds, 1987) in that
the writer provides the information required
by the intended audience and prepares the
written task through dialogic construction.
However, such a tradition does not exist in
Persian as from centuries ago, Persian
writers wrote surreptitiously due to the
historical background of the country where
written material, even in the form of poetry
and travel accounts, were meant to convey
hidden meanings for the elite. Such a
tradition has now been transferred to the
contemporary generation who lives in the
world of information and need to compete
with other users of English language for
academic and occupational positions
throughout the world. Rooted in the Persian
culture, this tendency in Persian learners of
English, with proficiency levels equal to
speakers of other western languages, is
thought to bring them comparatively lower
scores. However, the possibility of training
cannot be denied, especially when the
difference is highlighted and learners are
sufficiently motivated.
The present study was conducted in a major
university in Iran to help learners develop a
sense of audience awareness when drafting
tasks assigned in a course on Essay Writing.
The paper will have a look at the literature
on audience awareness and models of
audience. Then the methodology of the
research will be presented. Afterwards, the
results of the protocol analysis will be
summarized and compared with Hyland’s
(2001) audience awareness framework.
Finally, we will move toward concluding
remarks on what our study participants
conceived of the different aspects of
audience in their written tasks.
Audience awareness parameters
One of the many things a writer needs to
consider when completing a written task is
the requirements of the intended audience
(Bull & Shurville, 1999); however, its
importance is often overlooked (Kroll, 1999)
at the expense of routinized instruction of
language and mechanics of writing.
Audience awareness training, on the other
hand, may appear difficult since many
writers do not find it easy to alter the
strategies they are used to in writing
(Wyllie, 1993), often preferring one set of
approaches over others (Snyder, 1993).
Indeed, if strategy changes can lead to
success, it is expected that the new strategies
adopted by an individual will render the
desired output.
The existence of audience awareness in
adult learners may appear controversial
because EFL students are often adults, and
they have had the experience of mastering
their first language but whether they enjoy
audience awareness in their writing or not is
not well researched. Research with college
students suggests that at college level, many
students lack the sociocognitive ability to
imagine readers’ perspective and needs
(Hays et al., 1990). On the contrary, some
studies report the existence of audience
awareness in children. For example,
Wollman-Bonilla (2001) claims that even
first graders of 5-7 years old, being at the
beginning stages of literacy, show signs of
audience awareness. Also, Mancuso (1985)
reported strong sense of audience awareness
in fifth graders.
Further to this, previous research has
rendered rather contradictory results on both
gender and overall language ability. For
instance, Hays et al. (1990) and Rafoth
(1989) suggest that writing proficiency and
sociocognitive development can play a role
in student writers’ audience awareness.
However, Wollman-Bonilla (2001) rejects
this view, since she found that first graders,
with underdeveloped writing proficiency,
were able to envision their reader’s needs,
concerns and objections. Also, Quick (1983)
found that writers at four different levels
(grades 4, 8, 12, and college level) were
equally aware of audience awareness.
However, the exact nature of audience
awareness differed, with older writers
exhibiting more abstract audience
knowledge than younger ones. On the
contrary, Thompson (2001) believes that
audience awareness issues can be raised at
all levels of language ability. As for gender,
Mancuso (1985) reports that girls used
interpersonal appeals more than boys; and
that girls used a wider range of request types
in writing to an editor while boys’ requests
appeared in writing to friends and teachers.
A major difference, she reports, appeared in
establishing context where girls established
context more than boys in writing to an
unfamiliar editor but boys did so only in
writing to a familiar friend or to a teacher.
Also, Midgette and colleagues (2008) found
that girls wrote more persuasively than boys.
Audience awareness training
Another considerable but neglected issue
has been the development of audience
awareness through training. The logic
behind audience awareness training is the
idea that novice writers do not actively get
engaged in the moment-by-moment dialogue
with the reader, and accordingly need
training on playing a double role in the
revision process – i.e. how to write for the
reader what they need by anticipating their
expectations, objections, and questions. In
fact, playing this double role involves
reading one’s own written piece as the
reader. This will find manifestations in the
written output as the writer reconstructs and
portrays the reader in the text through
rhetorical choices (Hyland, 2005).
Thompson (2001) also stresses ‘enacting the
roles of both participants’ by the writer in a
dialogic interaction. Also, Sato and
Matsushima (2006) highlight the importance
of audience awareness training because
merely being told to attend to an audience
cannot improve the quality of texts.
Audience across genres
The way writers conceive of their readers is
chiefly genre-dependent, and may vary form
context to context. In research articles, for
instance, writer-reader relationships are
ostensibly egalitarian (Hyland, 2002);
authors of research articles address their
readers as if they were one’s colleagues,
knowledgeable in the general area, familiar
with the discipline’s forms of argument and
ways of establishing truth, and possessing
similar authority and influences. Another
genre could be textbooks, where two distinct
entities are addressed at the same time:
student consumers and professionals.
However, writers speak principally to
students and only indirectly to colleagues as
material evaluators (Bondi, 1999; Hyland,
2002). A third type can be the undergraduate
final year project report with a clear
audience and a relatively unambiguous
writer-reader relationship. Hyland (2002)
considers this genre as high stakes as it is
open to rigorous assessment for an entire
course, and students have to demonstrate
degrees of intellectual knowledge of the
field.
A fourth type of written genre, established
as a social genre, is the letter, where
audience can range from a friend and a
beloved partner to high governmental
authorities or even still higher in rank,
demanding more formal styles. While letters
may be considered to be cliché-type in
English, L2 writers with diverse cultural
background may perform variously under
the impact of culturally-loaded conventions
which affect their conception of writer-reader relationship. For instance, Vergaro
(2004) reports that Italian business letters
indicate a negative politeness strategy and
tend to use expressions that in a way humble
the writer and put the reader in a higher
position, while English business letters are
more oriented towards positive politeness
through appealing to sameness from the very
beginning.
Still another category of written texts is the
EFL written tasks, which has not been
deeply investigated. It may be conceived
that students’ writing (particularly EFL
written tasks) are much less overtly dialogic
as they are assumed to be addressed to
instructors rather than real readers
(Thompson, 2001). Despite the widespread
agreement about the importance of audience
awareness, there is no general agreement
about which audience student writers should
have in mind when drafting for an
instructional written task (Gunel et al.,
2009). However, the importance of feedback
from teachers has always been stressed (see
Sato & Matsushima, 2006, for example). In
contrast with the teacher-as-the-reader
position, Wollman-Binilla (2001) contends
that teachers cannot be considered as the
readers and the existence of a specific,
clearly defined audience can create a more
authentic situation for studying audience
awareness. Also, Kirsch and Roen (1990)
argue that the perceived disposition of
readers can heighten a writer’s audience
awareness.
Writer-related studies
Writer-related studies seem to be more
frequently conducted with a focus on
different aspects of writers. Focusing on
cultural issues, Hinds (1987) claims that
English uses a writer-responsible rhetoric
versus Japanese uses a reader-responsible
rhetoric. Also, Valero-Garces (1996) reports
the reader-responsible nature of writing in
Spanish writers. It is also shown that Anglo-Americans show a preference for intimate
strategies between interactants immediately
at the beginning of business relationship,
while Italians tend to maintain a certain
distance (Vergaro, 2004). Another
significant interpersonal finding in
Vergaro’s (2004) research is that when
Italians address the reader in sales
promotion letters, they tend to use
expressions that humble the writer and put
the receiver in a higher position. However,
English writers tend to appeal to sameness
from the very beginning (Vergaro, 2004).
Other writer-related variables may include
their age, gender, and level of language
ability and literacy. Scholars (e.g. Wollman-Bonilla, 2001) admit that audience
awareness exists in younger students.
However, Quick (1983) warns that children
either lack the skill to adapt writing to the
readers’ needs and expectations, or do not
see the necessity for audience adaptation. An
important issue raised by Mancuso (1985) is
the student writers’ previous experiences,
which can be related to their writing
proficiency by extension (Thompson, 2001).
Proficient writers are said to anticipate the
kind of information that readers might
expect to find at each point in the unfolding
text, and proceed by anticipating their
questions about, or reactions to, what is
written. Thompson (2001) explains how
writers can use textual clues such as
connectives (e.g. therefore) or predictable
text patterns (e.g. problem-solution), in
order to guide readers as to the way the
interaction unfolds.
A more interesting aspect in the writer-related features of audience awareness,
particularly applicable to the EFL context,
can be the existence or absence of audience
awareness in student writers and the idea of
audience awareness training. Many assume
the reader of EFL written tasks to be the
teacher but this may appear too simplistic as
far as the ultimate goal of instruction is
concerned (i.e. preparing the students to
perform real-world tasks). Learners cannot
deny the importance of authentic, non-instructional and real-world tasks in future,
and this bears implications for teaching
theory and practice, syllabus design, testing
and material development. In line with
audience awareness training, Thompson
(2001) claims that effective writing strikes a
balance between more monologic
argumentation and the more dialogic
collaborative kind. Although this may
require training, students respond well to the
exploration of how this balance can be
achieved (Thompson, 2001). Undoubtedly,
the ability of writers in establishing an
effective writer-reader rapport – whether
egalitarian, dominant or humble – builds on
the use of appropriate rhetorical choices to
meet the interpersonal expectations.
However, writers take almost similar
strategies to serve different audience
requirements at the stage of revision (Wong,
2005).
Audience engagement framework
Based on his study of the academic writing,
Hyland (2001) has proposed that there are a
number of devices that provide potential
surface-feature evidence of reader
engagement. These features include the
following:
(1) Questions, both real and rhetorical;
e.g. What would you do in this
situation?
(2) Inclusive first person, indefinite, and
second person pronouns and items
referring to readers; e.g. As we can
see, You should consider this, etc.
(3) Directives including imperatives,
obligation modals referring to
actions of the reader; e.g. Note that,
A distinction must be made between,
and adjectival predicates controlling
Audience awareness of Persian 09
a complement to- clause; e.g. It is
important (for you the reader) to
consider the distinction…).
(4) References to shared knowledge; e.g.
As we all know, the obvious relation
between…….; and
(5) Asides addressed to the reader,
marked off from the ongoing flow of
text; e.g. This – it may suggest –
makes a difference …, This - to my
surprise – makes a difference.
Methods and materials
Procedure
A group of 35 Persian students of English
(age ranging from 18 to 22 years) in a major
university in Iran were taught by the first
author on a course of Essay Writing with a
focus on process-oriented instruction.
However, the intended task for this study
was in the form of a letter where the student
writers were asked to write a letter to the
Iranian Minister of Science, Research and
Technology, i.e. we moved toward a genre-process approach. Following the submission
of their first drafts, they received training on
attending to audience parameters for a
couple of sessions enriched with teacher
feedback, classroom discussions, student
comments and analyzing sample written
tasks in class as part of this training. After
that, they were asked to revise the drafts for
style and audience considerations, and to
resubmit the final drafts for scoring.
Topic selection
For the information of readers, Dr. Z.
(Pseudonym) the Iranian Minister of
Science, Research and Technology at the
time we conducted the present research was
a male PhD of around 60. The ministry
governs and controls all Iranian universities
except for medical universities which are
governed by the Ministry of Health. The
admission to universities in Iran is filtered
by a nationwide national exam (Konkoor in
Persian); normally state university seats are
limited and the competition is highly
motivated; state university graduates feel
superior to other counterparts but there is no
rule for such a distinction. However,
employment opportunities are usually
allotted to the former. At that year, the
minister announced that they will admit
remarkably more applicants to the
universities. Therefore, increasing the
number of university seats in that year
meant an unemployment catastrophe for the
graduates after a short period, as well as
many other social and economic problems.
Assigning a task on this topic seemed to
motivate the participants in our study to
write effectively.
We decided to provide the learners with a
topic of high social concern in the native
society. A curious topic for the university
students in Iran is the decisions made by the
ministry governing the universities and other
ministries formulating rules of employment
and life supporting organizations. In 2007,
the Ministry announced that for the next
educational year, there would be more
university seats than the previous years.
Normally, one out of 5 used to get admitted
to state universities, and the rest had to
choose Azad (Persian word for the Open
University), Payame-Noor (Persian word for
the University of Distance Learning), Non-Profit or other institutes. However, the
announcement stated that 90% of the
applicants could enter state universities in
that year. This decision caused a lot of
worry among the university students and
lowered their motivation to follow the
learning route in courses; there were
Students Union objections in the form of
rallies and strike at universities. The topic in
Appendix 1 was felt to trigger such
emotions to enrich a persuasive writing
addressed to a specified reader, i.e. the
minister. Although the intended reader was
artificially selected to be the minister, during
the training, they were requested to consider
the reader to be original and the training was
somewhat successful, evidenced by the
interview contents.
Data Collection
The results of the present paper are not
based on the scores; rather, we interviewed
the participants on how they considered the
reader in the written text, how they engaged
the reader in the text, and what strategies
they used for the task accomplishment. The
interviews were conducted in their native
language because this was considered as
enriching the elicited answers. The questions
of the interview are presented in Appendix
2. The interviews were transcribed verbatim,
and double checked for the accuracy of
protocols. They were typed and checked for
the accuracy of typing too.
Data analysis
For the analysis, a grounded theory
approach was adopted. In other words, the
obtained protocols were coded in three
levels of open, axial and selective coding. In
other words, the information was analyzed
through the application of open coding
techniques, or line-by-line analysis (looking
for words and sentences in the text bearing
some meaning), which helped to identify
provisional explanatory concepts and
categories. These concepts and categories
were then enriched, modified and verified in
the transcribed protocols of other
participants. The primary goals of open
coding are to conceptualize and categorize
data, achieved through two basic analytic
procedures: making comparisons and asking
questions. This type of coding begins the
process of labeling many individual
phenomena. In time, a number of
individually labeled concepts are clustered
around a related theme. The individual
concepts are gathered together to form more
powerful and abstract categories. Once
categories are formed in open coding, they
are fleshed out in terms of their given
properties and dimensions. The properties
are “characteristics of a category, the
delineation of which defines and gives it
meaning” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p. 101).
Dimensions illustrate how each property can
vary along a continuum. Open coding is
achieved by examining the transcripts by
line, by sentence, or by paragraph, and
sometimes by eyeballing the entire
document.
Axial coding, the second stage, is the
process of relating categories to their
subcategories . . . linking a category at the
level of properties and dimensions” (Strauss
& Corbin, 1998, p. 123). A coding paradigm
involving conditions, actions and
interactions, and consequences actualizes
this process. The focus of axial coding is to
create a model that details the specific
conditions that give rise to a phenomenon’s
occurrence. In axial coding, four analytical
processes occur:
a) Continually relating subcategories to
a category,
Audience awareness of Persian 09
b) Comparing categories with the
collected data,
c) Expanding the density of the
categories by detailing their
properties and dimensions, and
d) Exploring variations in the
phenomena.
The final stage of data analysis in grounded
theory is selective coding, which builds
upon the foundation of the previous coding
efforts. Selective coding is “the process of
selecting the central or core category,
systematically relating it to other categories,
validating those relationships, and filling in
categories that need further refinement and
development” (Strauss & Corbin, 1998, p.
116). Strauss and Corbin (1998) state that
this central or core category should have the
analytic power to “pull the other categories
together to form an explanatory whole” (p.
146).
Results
The transcribed protocols were studied
carefully three times at least (and many
times in cases) to look for recurrent patterns.
Reference to participants in the study is
given in parenthesized numbers (e.g. p33; 'p'
standing for the participant) for anonymity.
However, it should be reminded at the
beginning that these are provided as
examples, and do not necessarily mean the
frequency of the relevant strategy.
Labeling individual phenomena occurs in
the first stage where individually labeled
concepts are clustered around a related
theme, and the individual concepts are
gathered together to form more powerful
and abstract categories. In the second stage,
we attempted to relate categories to their
subcategories and to link a category at the
level of properties and dimensions. Finally,
two core categories (i.e. linguistic and non-linguistic considerations) were
systematically related to other categories.
These core categories pulled the other
categories together to form an explanatory
whole.
Linguistic considerations
Language
It is quite reasonable that the way we
communicate with different readers affects
our language options too. In the words of
our participants, it was evident that most of
them avoided contracted forms (e.g. doesn’t
or isn’t) and short informal sentences (p26);
instead, many of them looked for
expressions suitable for communication with
a high position government authority to
minimize the probability of
misunderstanding (p4). Almost all
participants stressed the need for formal and
respectful expressions, lexis and structures
(p13); some referred to dictionaries to check
the labels of the words (i.e. formal, informal,
derogatory, etc.) they carefully selected
(p23). All participants preferred to address
the minister through suitable structures both
in the beginning of the letter (e.g. Dear Dr.
Z) and through in-line addressing (e.g. As
you know, Dr. Z., …). In many cases,
participants used questions, both real and
rhetorical (p20), both direct and indirect
(p7). Also, pronouns were often used as a
sign of interaction between the writer and
reader in dialogic structures such as I
appreciate your concern…, and to refer to
the shared knowledge between the reader
and the writer, e.g. As we all / you know….
Style
Participants expressed their attitude in
selecting a more formal and polite style in
writing to a high position in government by
avoiding complexity of content, lengthy
writings (p7) and occluded and ambiguous
content (p33). Instead, they preferred a short
letter type communication (p17); they also
drafted more carefully, choosing to be
concise, assertive and outspoken (p5); some
opted for a simple and fluent style to avoid
complexity (p8). The generally accepted
style among the participants was a formal
and polite type moving towards simplicity
and strength.
Tone
The tone of the writer came up to be very
important in the words of participants.
While they avoided sarcastic tones (e.g. p9)
and being rude (p1), they were mostly
critical but respectful, and expressed their
discontent. For instance, p24 viewed the
problem realistically, and others treated the
reader as if he will be willing to reply (p30).
All in all, they adopted a respectful but
critical tone.
The formation of thesis statement
The existence of a topic sentence in a
paragraph and a thesis statement in the
whole text were conceived to be an example
of the writer’s concern of the audience.
Topic sentences and thesis statements are in
fact hooks to which we attach our
arguments, evidence and examples to
support the main idea. Readers need to
recognize and grasp such sentences easily so
that they follow the line of argumentation
and organization. Therefore, we asked the
participants’ attitude to developing such
guiding sentences to readers. Interestingly,
some of them had already constructed thesis
statements in their written task because ‘the
instructor considered it as important’ (p2),
because ‘it was important' (p32), and
because ‘it was important for the participant
as well as being the core of his words’ (p22).
Some of them produced the thesis statement
early at the beginning of the text, in the first
paragraph, or in the last paragraph.
However, there were participants who could
not have made such a sentence initially in
their tasks because ‘she had forgotten as she
often postponed writing thesis statements to
the end of the task’ (p13), or ‘did so on the
advice of the instructor in classroom
discussions’ (p11). Some of them even
could not have managed producing thesis
statements because they did not consider it
as important (p1), or ‘put it in the second
paragraph and displaced it in the first
paragraph after consulting the teacher
feedback’ (p7). Some paraphrased the thesis
statements in the revision stage (p19), or
refined a better and effective sentence in the
last draft (p18).
In sum, all participants came to the
understanding that the existence of a thesis
statement in their texts can provide a clear
account of the text for the reader. All in all,
short but effective topic sentences and thesis
statements were desired in the words of
participants.
Non-linguistic considerations
Playing double roles
For most participants, reading one’s own
text, initially, meant revising them until it
was clarified in classroom discussion, and
the participants came to agreement that the
possibility of playing a double role (the role
of the writer and the reader) is not out of
reach. However, those who could not have
practiced it had their own reasons (or
excuses). For instance, the main reason was
that the task was not authentic (p25), or the
majority had developed a false concept of
playing double roles because they felt that it
just meant reading as the reader for editing
and revising purposes. Some of the less
diligent participants forgot the issue in their
last draft; some did not take it serious. Some
could not imagine the minister reading it;
rather, they read it as a general reader.
Although these participants were not
successful in playing the role of the minister,
they felt the task had been effectively done
because in preparing the task they had been
careful and convincing (p16). However, a
less frequent case occurred when the
interviewee was trying to convince the
interviewer (the instructor of the course and
the rater of the tasks at the same time) that
she had played the role of the minister at the
revision stage but after a challenge of ideas,
she admitted that what was done has been
only her own revisions rather than playing
double roles (p21, p28).
On the contrary, those following the
classroom discussions found interesting
outcomes in their tasks. Some were satisfied
with the texts and felt that the minister liked
the idea, and that the minister would read
the whole letter to the end and would revise
the decision. For P17, the result was that the
letter was quite convincing for the minister.
P30 had found that the letter was too long
and the minister might not have the time to
read the whole letter, so she shortened the
letter to a reasonable size. P30 had found
that the tone was sarcastic and may insult
the reader; p31 had found some of his
arguments absurd for the minister; they both
made a substantial change to the content of
their letters afterwards.
Interactiveness
The idea of playing double roles for two
participants (p20 and p11) developed in the
form of online playing double roles. In other
words, p11 played the role of the reader
concurrently when she was drafting and felt
the presence of the minister in the moment-by-moment preparation of the letter. For her,
there was no sense in doing the same after
the task was finished. P20 did almost the
same and conceived a reaction on the part of
the reader when he presented an idea or an
argument (particularly against the decision);
he mainly tried to make a mental picture of
what the minister would say or react against
his words. Both of them (p20, and p11)
refrained from playing double roles after the
letter was ready to submit.
Expecting the reader to reply
Although the task was not authentic in the
sense that the minister was not obliged to
read the letters, some student writers said
that they expected the minister to answer
because the letter had been well prepared
and strongly reasonable. However, some
doubted if the minister would read it at all;
some believed that every suggestion would
make sense to the minister and he may apply
their 'solution to the problem’ (p14). On the
contrary, some did not expect a reply since
they were totally hopeless that the minister
had the time to read it, and even if he had
the time to read he might be reluctant to
reply a student’s letter. A general feeling
was that the government authorities are
never eager to communicate with people let
alone to reply a letter. But p35 believed that
a young minister would have been more
likely to respond than an old one (the
minister in question is around 60).
Objections from the Reader
The feeling that what a writer writes would
cause the reader’s objection in one way or
another was not inconceivable for the
participants. For example, p3 expressed that
this might happen as he had been too critical
in the third paragraph. However, the
majority did not have such a feeling because
they knew that the reader was not in fact the
minister, and the task specified the minister
as the reader for practice purposes. Also,
some believed that when expressing
opinions you need not be worried about the
reactions of the reader (p15), especially
when it is respectfully expressed (p34),
logical (p29), and not political (p27). P24
believed that when you express your
opinion, it is not important if the reader is
resented because these days, people express
themselves and authorities barely ever care
about the suggested ideas.
Asserted requests directed to the reader
To make sure that the writers had imagined
the presence of the audience in their task, a
question was put forward on the writer’s
asserted request directed to the reader as a
sign of completing their dialogic interaction.
Some had done so in the last paragraph (e.g.
p22) or the last sentence (p26) and had
expressed their dislike toward the decision
(e.g. p19) or had requested a revision to the
decision rather than total disagreement
(p12). On the contrary, those who failed to
put forward a direct request said that the
request was in a general form of discontent
rather than disagreement (p11), or indirectly
expressed their desire for being respectful
(p10). In one case, the request was totally
abandoned in favor of being dissatisfied not
expecting an action on the part of the reader.
In fact, requestive speech act was frequent in
the letters where the participants asked the
minister to take action for either revising or
stopping the decision.
Discussion
The present study was conducted to help
Persian learners of English develop a sense
of audience awareness when drafting for
writing tasks. Models of audience awareness
and engagement are already proposed but
some are based on data from research
articles (Hyland, 2001) or business
promotion letters (Vergaro, 2004). The
significance of the research reported here
lies in the fact that it focuses on the
participants’ verbal protocols, the results of
which were presented in the previous
section. Like Japanese and Spanish, Persian
rhetoric is mainly of a reader-responsible
nature; consequently, Persian learners often
transfer this mode to English writing.
However, through training, they were given
the opportunity to practice on how to engage
the reader in the text. While attending to
audience can happen at any stage of the
writing process, the model arising from the
data highlighted a model of audience
awareness strategies in three phases: pre-task, on-the-task, and post-task strategies.
Pre-task planning stage
Participants determine the language, the tone
and the style of the written task in this stage,
based on their understanding of the audience
parameters including age, gender, status,
power, and attitude. As Kirsch and Roen
(1990) argue, the perceived disposition of
the reader can heighten sense of audience
awareness in writers. However, this can
occur both mentally and physically by
collecting information from internet,
libraries, etc. Before starting the task, some
participants say, they plan for the task, e.g.
by choosing a number of key words related
to the topic and developing them into cogent
arguments; this in turn allows them time to
determine examples and reasons for the
position they adopt in relation with the task
prompt. As for the layout and organization
of the written task, some of the participants
(p4, p7, p23, etc.) decided which argument
should come first and which last, i.e. they
decided on the ascending or descending
order of their reasons. Some described their
arguments as effective (p19), adequate (p1),
and realistic (p11), which are indeed a sign
of attending to audience who may not easily
accept commonplace arguments.
Although many considered the minister as a
highly-esteemed (superior) authority in the
government and their own as an inferior
student, others stated that this was not a
barrier to hamper their flow of
communication in writing (p9), and did not
allow this feeling to keep some words
unsaid (p6). However, such a finding seems
to oppose Vergaro’s (2004) finding that
Italian business promotion letters usually
keep the reader highly esteemed and humble
the writer; such a feeling seems to have
diminished in the current culture of Iranian
youth while it was customary in the past.
Also, some participants resorted to finding
good and convincing reasons in order to
compensate the authority gap between the
reader and the writer by referring to the
hidden aspects of the decision proposed by
the ministry to catch the attention of the
reader and to highlight their own informed
concern about the decision (p34).
On-the-task strategies
These constitute the major part of the
endeavor by attending to the task content
and organization (paragraphing, thesis
statement formation, etc), language
(addressing, questioning, dictionary work
for word labels and connotations, requests,
etc), and interactiveness (sensitizing the
reader by questions). Addressing the
minister directly (using pronouns such as
you), and naming him (as Dr. Z.) were the
primary strategies that almost all of the
participants did. Also, most of them
introduced themselves at the beginning and
put their signatures at the end as a sign of
taking the responsibility of the content.
However, some preferred to apologize first
for taking his time (p2), which is a sign of
respect originated in the Oriental culture.
An effective strategy was the dialogic aspect
of the written tasks where writers felt the
presence of the reader by, for example,
giving answers to the questions they raised
throughout the text (p36) in order to
sensitize the reader to what they wanted to
discuss (p33), or by giving the email address
for further communication to further clarify
the writer’s position (p34). P34 asserted that
he felt the presence of the minister while
drafting the task and maintained a dialogic
tone to avoid monotony in his style. The
balance between the monologic and dialogic
aspects of writing is a key factor for the
success of written communication
(Thompson, 2001). In fact, interactiveness
necessitates finding the right balance
between the monologic and dialogic aspects
of the writing (Thompson, 2001); however,
this seems to be a genre-dependent attribute,
where the amount of shared information
between the writer and the reader can help
determine the effective borderline. For
instance, in a letter to a friend, to a teacher,
to an authority in the government, or in
research articles, textbooks, and many other
genres, the amount of shared knowledge is a
determining factor, and this may develop in
proficient writers (Thompson, 2001).
Post-task stage
The final phase consists of playing double
roles (of reader and writer) and revisions (of
tone, language and style). While playing
double roles is neither easy nor seemingly
practical, some participants were right to
some extent in that when a writer makes
effort to produce the best possible and
effective task, there is no need for reading it
twice, particularly as the reader. This is in
lie with the claim that learners need skill to
adapt their writing to the reader’s needs and
expectations and feel the necessity of
audience adaptation (Quick, 1983). Many
preferred reading the completed task as the
writer for further revision; their revision
strategies after classroom discussions led
some participants to modify the letters (p25)
or to soften the requests and criticisms
(p31). For example, p26 had changed the
order of presenting her reasons so that the
more convincing reasons were posed first
and the request was made at the end for
rhetorical intensity; such a strategy, as p26
stated, was effective since the reasons were
going to speak for her because she was
unable to meet the minister face to face.
Conclusion
The findings indicated that training Persian
learners of English resulted in their
enhanced awareness of what strategies they
can adopt for audience considerations, and
that they consciously verbalized what steps
they took after analyzing peers’ written task
in classroom discussions and getting teacher
feedback. This will hopefully transfer to
their future performance in writing to
different readers, which is in line with Quick
(1983), but has not been attended in their L1
rhetoric.
The findings provide hints for practical
implications in the instruction of writing,
and stress the inclusion of audience
awareness training in syllabuses for writing
courses. Also, investing more on the
dialogic nature of the writing skill
(Thompson, 2001), rather than its
mechanical or formal aspects is emphasized.
Therefore, it is expected of the assessment
profession to take a pragmatic view of
audience parameters in assessing EFL
writing tasks. Although authentic tasks and
authentic data can further highlight the
claims of the present study, these can
certainly be considered as potential uses and
applications.
In general, this study was intended to shed
light on the reality of what EFL writers
conceive of audience engagement when
writing EFL tasks. Finally, a reference to
audience parameters in passing may not help
culturally-affected learners develop a
practical sense of audience awareness;
rather, a reasonable time for training and
practice is required to be integrated to the
writing syllabi in EFL contexts. Being a
qualitative study, this study did not take the
Audience awareness of Persian 099
analysis of linguistic measures and other
variables such as age, gender, and language
proficiency into considerations; instead, it
focused on the post-task mental experiences
of the participants to develop a model of
audience awareness strategies.
Acknowledgement
This research is conducted as a PhD thesis
project at the University of Isfahan, Iran. We
wish to thank the students of the Department
of English for their cooperation and patience
in being part of this study.
