We carried out two studies in which several genre conventions were tested on professional readers to verify the usefulness of applying genre
conventions to business proposals. In the first study, 39 male business clients of the company IBM Netherlands compared an authentic busi ness proposal with a modified version that conformed to genre con
ventions of document structure. Readers' preferences and reading
behavior were noted and observed. In the second study, the same
group of IBM business clients compared fragments of proposals that
differed in stylistic genre conventions. Readers' preferences were noted
and verified. Results of the first study indicated that applying genre
conventions to document structure improved the readers' selection of
information. Results of the second study revealed that readers disap
proved of persuasive style shifts, while opinions differed with respect
to shifts from impersonal to personal style.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bailey, E.P. (1999). Writing and speaking at work. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
2.
Bell, A. (1984). Language style as audience design. Language in Society, 13, 145-204.
3.
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T.N. (1995). Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum .
4.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. (1987). Politeness. Some universals in languageCambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
5.
Burke, K. (1950). A Rhetoric of Motives. New York: Prentice-Hall.
6.
Cheney, G. (1983). The rhetoric of identification and the study of organizational communication. Quarterly Journal of Speech , 69, 143-158.
7.
Comprone, J.J. (1993). Generic constraints and expressive motives: Rhetorical perspectives on textual dialogues. In N. R. Blyler & C. Thralls (Eds.), Professional communication: The social perspective (pp. 92-108). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
8.
Dijk, T. A. van, & Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of discourse comprehension. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press.
9.
Elling, R., Andeweg, B., Jong, J. de, & Swankenhuisen, C. (1994). Rapportagetechniek [Reporting techniques]. Groningen, Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhoff.
10.
Freed, R.C., & Broadhead, G.J. (1987). Discourse communities, sacred texts, and institutional norms. College Composition and Communication, 38(2), 154-164.
11.
Freed, R.C., Freed, S., & Romano, J. (1995). Writing winning business proposal: Your guide to landing the client, making the sale, persuading the boss. New York: McGraw-Hill.
12.
Hartley, J., & Jonassen, D.H. (1985). The role of headings in printed and electronic text. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), The technology of text. Principles for structuring, designing and displaying text (Vol. 2, pp. 237-263). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications .
13.
Hoeken, H. (1995). The design of persuasive texts: Effects of content, structure, and style on attitude formation. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Tilburg University, Tilburg, Netherlands.
14.
Jans, R. (1995). Een goed rapport: schrijven van beleidsnota's, evaluatierapporten, verklarende en beschrijvende nota's en instructierapporten [A good report: Writing policy documents, evaluation reports, explanatory and descriptive papers, and instructional reports]. Baarn , Netherlands: Nelissen.
15.
Keithley, E.M., Flatley, M.E., & Schreiner, P.J. (1995). Manual of style for business letters, memo's and reports. Cincinnati, Ohio: South-Western Publishing Co.
16.
Lagerwerf, L. (1998). Causal connectives have presuppositions. Effects on discourse structure and coherenceDen Haag, Netherlands: HAG (available in LOT Dissertation Series, 10, www.lot.let.uu.nl).
17.
Lentz, L.R., & Pander Maat, H.L.W. (1992). Evaluating text quality: Reader-focused or text-focused? In H. L. W. Pander Maat & M. F. Steehouder (Eds.), Studies of functional text quality (pp. 101-114). Amsterdam: Rodopi.
18.
Meyers, D. (1996). (Book review of) Richard C. Freed et al. (1995), Writing winning business proposals: Your guide to landing the client, making the sale, persuading the boss. Technical Communication, 43(3), 302-303.
19.
Meyers-Levy, J., & Malaviya, P. (1999). Consumer's processing of persuasive advertisements: An integrative framework of persuasion theories. Journal of Marketing, 63, 45-60.
20.
Miller, C.R., & Selzer, J. (1985). Special topics of argument in engineering reports . In L. Odell & D. Goswami (Eds.), Writing in nonacademic settings (pp. 309-341). New York: Guilford Press.
21.
Neutelings, R. (1997). De eigenzinnige lezer. Hoe Tweede-Kamerleden en gemeenteraadsleden beleidsteksten beoordelen. [The willful reader. How Representatives and councilmen judge policy documents]Den Haag, Netherlands: Sdu uitgevers.
22.
Petty, R.E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York : Springer.
23.
Ramsey, R.D. (1980). Grammatical voice and person in technical writing: Results of a survey. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication , 10(2), 109-113.
24.
Steehouder, M., Jansen, C., Maat, K., Staak, J. van der, Vet, D. de, Witteveen, M., & Woudstra, E. (1999). Leren communiceren. Handboek voor mondelinge en schriftelijke communicatie [Learning to communicate. Handbook for oral and written communication]. (4th ed.). Groningen, Netherlands: Wolters-Noordhoff.
25.
Swales, J.M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
26.
Ummelen, M.M.N. (1996). The selection and use of procedural and declarative information in software manuals. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication, 26(4), 475-488.
27.
Ummelen, M.M.N. (1997). Procedural and declarative information in software manuals: Effects on information use, task performance and knowledge. Amsterdam: Rodopi.
28.
Waller, R. (1982). Text as a diagram: Using typography to improve access and understanding. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), The technology of text: Principles for structuring, designing, and displaying text (Vol. 1, pp. 142-153). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publications .
