William writes:

"Where [Cheerskep and I] differ is the division of
responsibilities between speaker and hearer or writer and reader.   I think 
the responsibility is more or less equal and Cheerskep seems to assume that 
it's primarily one-sided, that of the speaker or writer.   This presumes 
that the passive one, the hearer or reader,   has a full storehouse of word 
meanings on display as it were and is simply pulling up whichever ones are 
very clearly asked for."

No, William - just the opposite. The trouble with ambiguous words is that 
no single "meaning" is very clearly asked for. So all sorts of possibilities 
tumble into mind. And yes, I do feel it's the non-fiction writer's 
responsibility to do what he can to channel and restrict the processing by the 
reader's mind, with the aim of heightening the chances that the writer's 
intended 
notion is the one that comes - albeit roughly -- to the reader's mind. To do 
this the writer must, among other things, work to prevent unwanted 
alternative "meanings" from gaining entrance. 

(I have to reject your implication I feel it's wrong if the reader can't be 
a passive bloke who sits back and has knowledge, understanding, etc poured 
into his brain with no effort on his part. I had to bend long and hard over 
some textbooks in college, and not always because the writers were 
inadequate. Some ideas in physics, math, chemistry and philosophy are 
intrinsically 
difficult. No matter how well written they are, they take effort, time, and 
concentration while the receiving apparatus in my head processes the ideas. 
In other words a good writer may do all he can, but the material is so 
difficult that learning it can never be simple.) 

William also writes:

"When Cheerskep says he has no idea what a writer has in mind when using a 
particular word, I say he most certainly does have something in mind, that 
he too creates a meaning in tandem with the writer although there's no 
guarantee that they both have the same meanings in mind."

I did not say that no idea whatever comes to my mind. In fact, the trouble 
with ambiguous words is that too many interpretations come to mind. What I 
said was that I have no surety about what the WRITER has in mind.    

Reply via email to