Introduction
In academic writing, particularly within English 102 courses, understanding how to engage with scholarly sources is essential for developing critical reading and writing skills. Karen Rosenberg’s essay “Reading Games: Strategies for Reading Scholarly Sources” (2010) provides practical guidance on approaching complex texts, emphasising rhetorical reading strategies. This essay focuses on one key concept from Rosenberg’s reading: the notion of ‘audience’. It explains what audience means in the context of rhetorical reading, analyses its application through examples from the text, and demonstrates why it matters for academic writers. By considering audience, students can better navigate scholarly materials, which often assume specialised knowledge, thereby improving comprehension and participation in academic conversations. The discussion will draw on Rosenberg’s insights alongside supporting academic sources to highlight the concept’s relevance, ultimately arguing that awareness of audience enhances effective academic communication.
Understanding the Concept of Audience in Rhetorical Reading
Audience, as discussed in Rosenberg’s essay, refers to the intended readers for whom a scholarly text is written, influencing how the content is presented and interpreted. Rosenberg (2010) explains that when reading academic works, it is crucial to identify the primary audience, which is often other academics rather than general readers or students. For instance, she notes that scholarly sources, unlike popular magazines, do not aim to ‘hook’ readers with engaging tactics; instead, they assume a knowledgeable audience familiar with jargon and prior debates. This concept aligns with rhetorical theory, where audience shapes the writer’s choices in language, structure, and evidence.
In broader terms, the idea of audience stems from rhetorical studies, such as Lloyd Bitzer’s framework of the rhetorical situation, which includes audience as a core element influencing communication (Bitzer, 1968). Bitzer argues that effective rhetoric addresses an audience capable of being influenced, which in academic contexts means peers who can engage with and critique the arguments. Rosenberg applies this practically, advising readers to examine publication details—like journal titles or volume numbers—to infer if the text targets experts. For example, she contrasts academic journals with popular outlets like Newsweek, pointing out that the former prioritises depth over accessibility (Rosenberg, 2010). This awareness helps students, who are typically not the primary audience, to adjust their reading strategies, such as tolerating unfamiliar references without immediate lookups.
Analysing audience in this way reveals its role in demystifying scholarly texts. Without considering it, readers might feel overwhelmed or ‘dumb’, as Rosenberg describes her own undergraduate experiences (Rosenberg, 2010). By recognising that texts are not written for novices, students can focus on extracting key ideas rather than every detail, making reading more efficient.
Analysing How Audience Influences Reading Strategies
Rosenberg’s essay illustrates audience through specific strategies, showing how it affects both comprehension and engagement. She suggests that once the audience is identified—often via the publication venue—readers can anticipate challenges like assumed prior knowledge. For instance, phrases like “as Durkheim has so famously argued” assume an audience versed in sociology, leaving outsiders confused (Rosenberg, 2010). Here, analysis shows that audience dictates the text’s density; writers prioritise advancing debates among experts over explaining basics.
This concept matters because it encourages active reading. Ede and Lunsford (1984), in their study on audience in composition, argue that writers invoke an ‘addressed’ audience (real readers) and an ‘invoked’ one (imagined within the text), which readers must navigate. Applying this to Rosenberg, students can ‘enter the conversation’ by discussing texts with peers or professors, bridging the gap when they are not the intended audience. For example, if assigned a dense article on political science, understanding it targets specialists allows students to skim for main arguments rather than bog down in details, as Rosenberg advises (Rosenberg, 2010).
However, there are limitations. Rosenberg’s approach assumes readers can easily identify audience through clues like journal formats, but this may not hold for interdisciplinary or excerpted texts (Rosenberg, 2010). Indeed, in English 102, where readings span literature and theory, students might struggle if the audience is ambiguous. A critical evaluation reveals that while audience awareness aids navigation, it requires practice; over-reliance could lead to superficial reading if not balanced with deeper analysis. Nonetheless, it empowers academic writers by highlighting how texts are constructed for specific groups, fostering a more critical stance.
Why Audience Matters for Academic Writers
The concept of audience is vital for academic writers because it directly impacts how they produce and interpret texts, promoting clearer communication and critical thinking. For students in English 102, mastering audience helps transition from passive reading to active participation in scholarly discourse. Rosenberg (2010) emphasises that recognising oneself as outside the primary audience prompts questions like “Why is my professor assigning this?”—leading to better contextual understanding and motivation. This matters as it prevents disengagement; instead of falling asleep over texts, as Rosenberg did initially, writers learn to adapt, making reading productive.
Furthermore, audience awareness enhances writing skills. Bartholomae (1985) discusses how students must ‘invent the university’ by approximating academic discourse, which involves understanding expert audiences. By analysing audience in sources, writers can synthesise ideas effectively, avoiding common pitfalls like assuming universal knowledge. For instance, when drafting essays, considering the audience (e.g., professors expecting evidence-based arguments) leads to stronger revisions and logical structures. This is particularly relevant in UK undergraduate contexts, where assessments value broad understanding informed by sources (Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education, 2014).
Critically, while audience fosters inclusivity in academic conversations, it can exclude non-experts, highlighting limitations in scholarly accessibility. Yet, for writers, it encourages ethical communication—tailoring arguments to persuade specific groups without oversimplifying. In problem-solving terms, identifying audience helps address comprehension issues, drawing on resources like class discussions to resolve ambiguities. Overall, it equips writers with specialist skills for engaging complex materials, essential for academic success.
Conclusion
In summary, the concept of audience in Rosenberg’s “Reading Games: Strategies for Reading Scholarly Sources” (2010) is a cornerstone of rhetorical reading, enabling students to decode scholarly texts by recognising their expert-oriented nature. Through explanation and analysis, this essay has shown how audience influences strategies like examining publication clues and adjusting reading depth, with support from sources like Bitzer (1968) and Ede and Lunsford (1984). Its importance for academic writers lies in fostering efficient reading, critical engagement, and effective writing, though it requires awareness of its limitations. For English 102 students, embracing audience can transform challenging readings into opportunities for growth, ultimately contributing to broader academic discourse. Implications include the need for educators to guide students in this area, ensuring equitable access to knowledge.
References
- Bartholomae, D. (1985) Inventing the university. In: Rose, M. (ed.) When a writer can’t write: Studies in writer’s block and other composing-process problems. Guilford Press, pp. 134-165.
- Bitzer, L. F. (1968) The rhetorical situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 1(1), pp. 1-14.
- Ede, L. and Lunsford, A. (1984) Audience addressed/audience invoked: The role of audience in composition theory and pedagogy. College Composition and Communication, 35(2), pp. 155-171.
- Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education (2014) Subject benchmark statement: English. QAA.
- Rosenberg, K. (2010) Reading games: Strategies for reading scholarly sources. In: Lowe, C. and Zemliansky, P. (eds.) Writing spaces: Readings on writing, vol. 2. Parlor Press, pp. 210-220.
