The phrase "addressee design" is correct and usable in written English.
It can be used in contexts related to communication, linguistics, or design, where the focus is on how the recipient of a message is considered in the design process.
Example: "In our project, we emphasized addressee design to ensure that the final product meets the needs of our target audience."
Alternatives: "recipient-focused design" or "audience-centered design".
We focus on two distinguishing features of human communication, namely the ability to select communicative signals that disambiguate the many-to-many mappings that exist between a signal's form and meaning, and adjustments of those signals to the presumed cognitive characteristics of the addressee ("audience design").
And when speakers do produce such cues, it is unclear whether they do so "for" their addressees (the audience design hypothesis) or "for" themselves, as a by-product of planning and articulating utterances.
He (she) called one out of two addressees, then pointed at an object and then the designated addressee named the indicated target (Figures 1a and 1b).
Thus, speakers design their gestures for their addressees and therefore use them to communicate.
In this paper, we develop an account of the types of experiences through which speakers learn to design their utterances for particular addressees.
Questions are design problems for both the questioner and the addressee.
Yet, it is striking that comparatively little attention has been drawn to the question how to reach specific addressees; this is what media studies and conversation analysis call "recipient design".
Speakers design most forms of disfluencies as signals, communicative acts, for coordinating with their addressees on certain of their speech actions.
Within the framework, we have performed an experiment to test two basic hypotheses on which the design of the computational model is based; namely, that our proposal for tailoring an evaluative argument to the addressee's preferences increases its effectiveness, and that differences in conciseness significantly influence argument effectiveness.
