Table Of Content<DOCINFOAUTHOR""TITLE"ReadingandWritingPublicDocuments:Problems,solutionsandcharacteristics"SUBJECT"DocumentDesignCompanionSeries,Volume1"KEYWORDS""SIZEHEIGHT"220"WIDTH"150"VOFFSET"4">
ReadingandWritingPublicDocuments
Document Design
Companion Series
document design companion series focuses on internal and external
communicationofmediumsizedtomultinationalcorporations,governmental
bodies,non-profitorganizations,aswellasmedia,healthcare,educationaland
legalinstitutions,etc.
The series promotes works that combine aspects of (electronic) discourse —
written,spokenandvisual—withaspectsoftextquality(function,institutional
setting, culture). They are problem driven, methodologically innovative, and
focusedoneffectivityofcommunication.Allmanuscriptsarepeerreviewed.
document design is ‘designed’ for: information managers, researchers in
discoursestudiesandorganizationstudies,textanalysts,andcommunication
specialists.
Editors
JanRenkema
TilburgUniversity
MariaLauraPardo
UniversityofBuenosAires
RuthWodak
AustrianAcademyofSciences
EditorialAddress
JanRenkema
TilburgUniversity
DiscourseStudiesGroup
P.O.Box90153
NL5000LETILBURG
TheNetherlands
E-mail:[email protected]
Volume1
ReadingandWritingPublicDocuments:Problems,solutionsandcharacteristics
EditedbyDaniëlJanssen&RobNeutelings
Reading and Writing
Public Documents
Problems, solutions and characteristics
Edited by
DaniëlJanssen
UniversityofUtrecht
RobNeutelings
DelftUniversityofTechnology
JohnBenjaminsPublishingCompany
Amsterdam/Philadelphia
TMThepaperusedinthispublicationmeetstheminimumrequirements
8
ofAmericanNationalStandardforInformationSciences–Permanence
ofPaperforPrintedLibraryMaterials,ansiz39.48-1984.
LibraryofCongressCataloging-in-PublicationData
Readingandwritingpublicdocuments:Problems,solutionsandcharacteristics/editedby
DaniëlJanssen,RobNeutelings.
p. cm.(Documentdesigncompanionseries,issn1568-1963;v.1)
Includesbibliographicalreferencesandindex.
1.Governmentreportwriting.I.Janssen,Daniël,1946-II.Neutelings,Rob,1963-
III.Series.
JF1525.R46 R43 2001
808’.066351--dc21 00-067451
isbn9027232016(Eur.)/1588110095(US)(Hb;alk.paper)
©2001–JohnBenjaminsB.V.
Nopartofthisbookmaybereproducedinanyform,byprint,photoprint,microfilm,orany
othermeans,withoutwrittenpermissionfromthepublisher.
JohnBenjaminsPublishingCo.·P.O.Box75577·1070anAmsterdam·TheNetherlands
JohnBenjaminsNorthAmerica·P.O.Box27519·Philadelphiapa19118-0519·usa
<<"<"<"<"<"<"<"<"<"<"<"<"<"<"<"<"<"<"<"<"iijjrrjjjjjjhhjjmmhhaaooaaaaaannTeeoouunnnnnnnnnnnnttaaRRRRRRRRRRAeellrr11223344ss""""""//////////""ooR"">>>>>>"""""""">>>>"">>>>>>>>G>>RRRRRRRRRREEEEEEEEEEETEEEEEEEEEEFFFFFFFFFF"FFFFFFFFFFtoc"DOCINFOAUTHOR""TITLE"Tableofcontents"SUBJECT"DocumentDesignCompanionSeries,Volume1"KEYWORDS""SIZEHEIGHT"220"WIDTH"150"VOFFSET"4">
Table of contents
1. Introduction 1
DaniëlJanssen&RobNeutelings
2. Howresearchcanleadtobettergovernmentforms 11
CarelJansen&MichaëlSteehouder
3. Undercoverresearchintotextqualityasatoolfor
communicationmanagement:ThecaseoftheDutchtax
department 37
JanRenkema
4. Optimizingpublicinformationbrochures:Formativeevaluation
indocumentdesignprocesses 59
MennodeJong&PeterJanSchellens
5. Publicdocumentsinamultilingualcontext 85
JacquelineHulst&LeoLentz
6. Improvingthequalityofpublicdocuments:Or:Whytraining
publicwritersoftendoesn’twork 105
DaniëlJanssen
7. Thelackofclarityinasentence:Thestyleofofficialdocuments
inDutch 125
FrankJansen
8. Convincingcitizens:Theroleofargumentquality 147
HansHoeken
9. Collaborativewritingforthegovernment 171
DaniëlJanssen&NielsvanderMast
10. Strategicrevisionofpublicdocuments:Howpolicywritersrevise
documentsinordertoreachconsensus 211
NielsvanderMast&DaniëlJanssen
<"<"<"<"<"<"<"<"<"<"<"nnnnrraaiitnnoeebbeeeeffddcRRRRR/oouuuu"""ee>>///u/u/1122>xxT""""tt"""">>>>RRRRR>>>>EEEEEAEEEEERGFFFFFFFFFFET
vi Tableofcontents
11. Trustbutverify:Localsuspensionsofthecooperationprinciple
inpoliticalcommunication 233
RobNeutelings&HenkPanderMaat
12. Readingtoassessinprofessionallife:ReadingstylesofDutch
parliamentarians 255
RobNeutelings
References 275
Abouttheauthors 297
Index 301
<TARGET"intro"DOCINFOAUTHOR"DaniëlJanssen&RobNeutelings"TITLE"Introduction"SUBJECT"DocumentDesignCompanionSeries,Volume1"KEYWORDS""SIZEHEIGHT"220"WIDTH"150"VOFFSET"4">
Chapter 1
Introduction
DaniëlJanssen&RobNeutelings
1. Scopeofthisbookanditsinspirations
Sincethe1980s,therehasbeenashiftoffocusonthepartofresearchersand
teachers in the fields of reading and writing studies from a purely academic
settingtobusiness andorganizationalcontexts.The mainreasonforthis has
beenagrowingawarenessthatweneedtopreparestudentsfortherealworldof
business communication that many will enter after graduation. Writing
academicessaysmayhelpthemdevelopgeneralwritingskills,butiftheyareto
becomeskilledwritersoflegalortechnicaldocuments,forinstance,theyneed
tobecomefamiliarwithdifferentgenres,organizationalcontexts(“thework-
place”)andcultures,nottomentionfunctionalwritingprocessesordocument
designprocessesinwhich“writers”collaboratewithanumberofotherstake-
holders and experts within an organization. The same is true of students’
readingskills.Studentsusedtobeprimarilytrainedinreading-to-comprehend
(atypicalacademictask),notinreading-to-assess(seeNeutelings,thisvolume)
orreading-to-do(Ummelen,1996).
Itwasnotlong beforeweall realized,however,that weourselvesdid not
know enough about professional reading and writing processes to be able to
teachcoursesinbusinesswriting,managementcommunication,professional
writing, and the like — at least, not to the standards we would normally
consideracceptable.Organizationalcommunicationisamuchmorecomplex
affairthanacademiccommunication,andweneededtostudyitthoroughlyin
ordertounderstandhowtheydiffer.Thespin-offoftheresearchgeneratedby
this practical teaching need has been far greater than we could ever have
imagined.Itnotonlygaverisetoanew,separatefieldofbusinesscommunica-
tion consultancy, but it also fundamentally changed our notions of texts,
readingandwriting.
2 DaniëlJanssen&RobNeutelings
Theresultsofthisresearchcanbefoundinnumerousbooks(seeRainey,
1999 for an overview), plus an ever-increasing number of journals, the most
prominentofwhichatthemomentareundoubtedlyTheJournalofTechnical
Communication, The Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, The
Journal of Business and Technical Communication, The Journal of Business
Communication,ManagementCommunicationQuarterlyandIEEETransactions
onProfessionalCommunication.WeexpectthenewjournalDocumentDesignto
soonfindaplaceamongthem.
We drew our direct inspiration from volumes such as Odell & Goswami
(1985),Kogen(1989),Ede&Lunsford(1990),Bazerman&Paradis(1991)and
Lay&Karis(1991).Otherworksthatdeservementionincludethemagnificent
casestudybyBarabas(1990),aswellasSpilka(1993),Reynoldsetal.(1995),
and, most recently, Bargiela-Chappini & Nickerson (1999). Contributors to
theseworksshowedclearlytherelevanceofstudyingwritingcontexts,profes-
sionalgenresandcollaboration,anddemonstratedthatprofessionalwritingis
notjustaquestionofwritingtexts,butis,rather,acomplexprocessofdesign-
ingandtestingdocuments.
Thisbookcontinuesthetraditionofcollectingtogetherdetailsofrelevant
research and making it available to those who are interested in document
design, genres, collaborative writing, functional reading, business prose, text
evaluation, and translation studies. In eleven chapters, we report on recent
research into the roles played by written texts in the internal and external
communication activities of government departments. The common factor
unitingthesestudiesisthusthefactthattheyfocusoncommunicationprocess-
eswithinasinglespecificcontext,onethathas,moreover,sofarreceivedscant
attentionintheinternationalliterature.
Governmentscommunicatethroughforms(e.g.,toelicitinformationabout
citizens’ incomes), through brochures (e.g., to warn the public about the
dangers of alcohol), through letters (e.g., to inform taxpayers that a given
deductionisinadmissible),throughpolicypapers(e.g.,totriggeradebateon
theprivatizationoftherailsystem),andsoon.Allthesetypesoftextshavean
importantparttoplayinamoderndemocracy.Andthedegreetowhichthey
perform their function in the community successfully affects how well the
government can perform its tasks. In the Netherlands, document designers,
linguists and other experts on written communication have been studying
publicdocumentsintensivelyfordecades.Inthisbook,themostprominentof
theseresearcherspresenttheresultsoftheirwork.Theyofferinsightintohow
thelargestorganizationinthecountrycommunicateswithitspublic,andthey
Introduction 3
discussthesortsofproblemsthatoccuranddescribesolutionsthathavebeen
implemented.Inshort,theyaddressthefollowingquestions:
– Howarepublicdocumentswrittenanddesigned?
– Whatarethemaincharacteristicsofpublicdocuments?
– Whyarepublicdocumentsoftenhardtoread?
– Howarepublicdocumentsread?
– Howdotextualcharacteristicsaffectreadingbehavior?
– Howcanpublicdocumentsbeoptimized?
– Howcanthewritersofpublicdocumentsbetrainedtobecome
betterwriters?
Wehopethatthedescriptionsofcommunicationresearchintoactualgovern-
mentpracticecontainedinthisvolumewillinspireotherscholarstoundertake
comparable research. Professional writers or managers responsible for text
qualitymayfindhereatheoreticalandpracticalbackgroundagainstwhichthey
can improve texts, or explanations of why certain texts fail. Last but by no
meansleast,thisbookisalsointendedforstudentsofrhetoric,communication,
publicrelationsandtechnicalwriting.Theywillfindinthisbooktheprincipal
theoriesrelatingtowrittencommunicationprocessesappliedinresearchthat
uses pioneering techniques to find solutions to immediate and pressing
communicativeneedswithinsociety.
2. Rationaleforthisbook
Thisbookbringstogethertheworkofresearchersfromfiveuniversitiesinthe
Netherlands.Inthemethodologicalandtheoreticalapproachestheytake,inthe
subjectmatteroftheirresearchandinthesolutionstheyoffer,theirworkhas
muchincommon.ReadingandWritingPublicDocumentsisthefirstcompre-
hensive overview of their research into the production and reception of
governmenttexts.
Researchintothequalityofpublicdocumentshasalongtraditioninthe
Netherlands. In 1973 a “Committee on Clear Language” was set up. This
consisted of the Speaker of the Lower House of the Dutch parliament, civil
servants and journalists, who were advised by communication researchers.
TogetherwiththeSpeaker,oneoftheseresearchersrewrotetheSpeechfromthe
Throne(theequivalentoftheStateoftheUnion)in“plain”language(Vondeling
& Renkema, 1975). Six years later, Renkema published a study (his doctoral
4 DaniëlJanssen&RobNeutelings
dissertation) on the language used in written communication between
parliamentandthegovernment(Renkema,1981).Inthisstudy,Renkematried
toanswerthequestionofhowthelanguageofofficialpublicationsdiffersfrom
otherrelatedvarietiesoflanguage,specificallythelanguageofnewspapersand
scientificprose.Hedistinguishedfourcharacteristicsofbureaucraticlanguage:
impersonal, complex, diffuse, and traditional. Renkema reformulated these
qualitativejudgmentsinlinguistictermsinordertoformhypothesesconcern-
ingthedifferencesinlinguisticusagebetweengovernmentpublicationsonthe
one hand and newspapers and popular scientific publications on the other.
Renkema’sstudyonlypartlyconfirmedthethencurrentopinionsconcerning
bureaucraticlanguage.Hefound,forexample,thatgovernmenttextsdoindeed
containmorepassiveconstructionsandlongersentencesthannewspapers,but
he also found that they contain fewer finite verbs and fewer adverbs than
expected(seeJanssen&VanderMast,thisvolume,formoredetails).
Anotherimportantmilestoneinresearchintogovernmentdocumentswas
Jansen&Steehouder(1989).Inthatwork(again,adoctoraldissertation),the
authors’goalwastoprovidegreaterinsightintothequalityofwrittenmaterial
issuedtotellthepublicaboutlegislationandregulations.Focusingontwotypes
of documents, instructional texts and forms, they studied the problems that
users(i.e.,readers)offormsandleafletsencounteredwhileapplyingforarent
rebate.Theyfoundconsiderablediscrepanciesbetween(a)thebehaviorthatthe
designersoftheformshadintendedtotriggerinthosefillingouttheformsand
(b)whatpeopleactuallydidinpractice.Theythereforedevelopedaprocedure
tomakeiteasierforwriterstochooseappropriateoptionswhendesigningsuch
documents.TheytestedthisprocedureonformsproducedfortheMinistryof
EducationandfortheInlandRevenueServiceandconcludedthattheproce-
durewasusefulandresultedinabettertext,withbothusabilityandapprecia-
tionbeingenhanced(seeJansen&Steehouder,thisvolume,formoredetails).
Jansen&Steehouder(1989)triedtoimproveinstructionalleaflets,andDe
Jong(1998)continuedwhereJansen&Steehouderleftoff.Inhisdissertation,
DeJongstudiedinstructionalandpersuasivegovernmentbrochurestotestthe
validity of a well-known pretesting method, the plus-minus method. This
methodisprimarilydesignedtodetect,atthedraftphase,problemsthatreaders
encounter in brochure texts. While reading the brochure, readers indicate
points they like by placing a “+” alongside them, and mark problems they
encounterbymeansofa“−”.Afterwards,inaninterview,theyareaskedabout
thereasonsfortheirmarkings,thestructureofthebrochure,anyinformation
theyfeelwasmissing,etc.
