Assessing writing for workplace purposes: Risks, conundrums and compromises

Abstract

Since the development of cuneiform script in Mesopotamia for keeping tallies of grain and sheep, written language has been used to document workplace transactions as a safeguard against the unreliability of human memory or deceit. Modern workplaces continue this reliance on written language as a means of mitigating the risk that some important aspect of work will be missed, misunderstood, misrepresented or contested. In most workplaces, a great deal of effort is expended on the documentation of actors, timelines and processes. The sale of livestock nowadays demands accreditation and form-filling which hold the vendor liable for any misinformation provided. In the business world, an email serves as a record from provider to client that something has been completed successfully on a certain date and payment is due. In the medical world, a form requests a particular pathology test and certifies the identity of the sample collector and the specimen provider. Written exchanges such as these are entrenched and unremarkable in modern workplaces. Thus, it is not surprising that, especially for those who are non-native users of the language(s) in question, the skills to manage written communication in workplaces and professional domains are assessed via language tests.