Implication versus Inference

Abstract

The narrative concepts of the implied author and implied reader elucidate how business texts represent writers and readers. It is important, though, to distinguish carefully between writers’ implications and readers’ inferences. Instructors should contrast implied versus inferred writers and readers, provide multiple ways to comprehend these concepts, and illustrate them with examples (e.g., those provided in this article from Citigroup, Andersen, and Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia). The meaning-as-event analytical method, from reader-response narrative theory, reveals specific language features through which business texts manifest readers and writers. To help writers plan and readers analyze such texts, instructors may use the teaching suggestions, sample assignments, prewriting heuristics, and evaluation criteria provided in this article.

Keywords

implied reader implied writer inference narrative reader-response theory

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Booth, W. C. (1961). The rhetoric of fiction. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Brown, K. , & Dugan, I. J. (2002, June 7). Andersen’s fall from grace is a tale of greed and miscues; pressured to boost revenues, auditors acted as sellers, warred with consultants. Wall Street Journal, pp. A1-A1, A6-A6.

Eco, U. (1984). The role of the reader: Explorations in the semiotics of texts. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.

Ewald, H. R. , & Vann, R. (2003). “You’re a guaranteed winner”: Composing “you” in a consumer culture. Journal of Business Communication, 40, 98-118.

Fish, S. E. (1970). Literature in the reader: Affective stylistics. New Literary History, 2, 123-162.

Goodwin, J. T. (1996). “Cover your tracks”: A case study of genre, rhetoric, and ideology in two psycholegal reports. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 10, 167-186.

Haney, W. V. (1979). Communication and interpersonal relations(4th ed.). Homewood, IL: R.D. Irwin.

Hayakawa, S. I. (1978). Language in thought and action(4th ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Huettman, E. (1996). Writing for multiple audiences: An examination of audience concerns in a hospitality consulting firm. Journal of Business Communication, 33, 257-273.

10.

Iser, W. (1974). The implied reader. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

11.

Iser, W. (1978). The act of reading: A theory of aesthetic response. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

12.

Jameson, D. A. (2000). Telling the investment story: A narrative analysis of shareholder reports. Journal of Business Communication, 37, 1-38.

13.

Jameson, D. A. (2004). Conceptualizing the writer-reader relationship in business prose. Journal of Business Communication, 41, 1-38.

14.

Russo, D. S. (2002). Talking back with Walker Gibson: Helping students gauge tone. Business Communication Quarterly, 65(4), 114-122.

15.

Shelby, A. N. , & Reinsch, N. L., Jr. (1995). Positive emphasis and you-attitude: An empirical study. Journal of Business Communication, 32, 303-327.

16.

Slatoff, W. J. (1970). With respect to readers: Dimensions of literary response. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.

17.

Spiro, L. H. (1997, September 1). Militant on investments: Travelers taps Tom Jones to run its $120 billion in assets. Business Week, p. 78-78.

18.

Suchan, J. , & Dulek, R. (1988). Toward a better understanding of reader analysis. Journal of Business Communication, 25, 29-45.

19.

Swartz, M. (with Watkins, S. ). (2003). Power failure: The inside story of the collapse of Enron. New York: Doubleday.

20.

Thralls, C. , Blyler, N. R. ,& Ewald, H. R. (1988). Real readers, implied readers, and professional writers: Suggested research. Journal of Business Communication, 25, 47-65.

21.

Toobin, J. (2004, March 22). A bad thing: Why did Martha Stewart lose? The New Yorker, pp. 60-72.