Of course we frequently recognize genres in their most
sedimented, institutionalized forms, sometimes even supported and defined
by regulations. Such genres are highly salient social facts. And of
course in introducing students to the concept of genre, highly salient
cases are very useful both conceptually and for laying out the general
shape of the contemp[orary discursive terrain. So yes, I use texts, and
highly typified texts. I also point to regulation, institutional
contexts, traditions, stabilized activity systems and the like which
identify the meaning and forces that explain what the genre is doing and
why it takes the shape it does.
However in looking at more examples, complications soon enter
in. And then in helping students writing effectively within familiar
and recognizable and even enforced genres a more complex and flexible
view is important to be able to move beyond coercion by convention to the
communicative motive, sensitivity to local conditions, and individual
commuiinicative desires which are part of having something meaningful to
say within the genre and the circumstances. And all sorts of local
interpretive issues enter in, and multiplicity in imp[ulse and situation,
and changing conditions, and so on, which suggest the need for generic
innovation with awareness of the limits of audience recognizability and
institutional consequences.
I am here just presenting a few possible sides and scenarios, and
not being careful enough to be comprehensive. I just want to give a
sense of how levels of perception make the notion of genre and
typifications even more protean. In the second chapter of CONSTRUCTING
EXPERIENCE I write about some of these issues by considering writing from
four different levels of analysis--1) a phenomenology (how it appears
from the point of view of the writer) 2) a social psychology (the view
from outside the writer but in fairly intimate observational proximity,
looking at writing behavior and the interaction with specific readers)
3)a sociology (looking at the production and circulation of texts within
a group) and 4) a sociocultural history (the really big view concerning
the unfolding of literate practices in the last 5000 years and the
residue of texts that comprise a literate heritage).
Concerning Hallidayan SFL, I am to some extent familiar with and
interested in SFL. I find a number of its particular formulations quite
useful, including the work surrounding alternative realization of
functions, projection, lexical strings, nominalization, and several
others. I have also seen a number of illuminating specific studies come
from the SFL perspective. In short, I find SFL provides many strong
tools. However, I also have some differences, which are where the cans
of worms are, which should be kept in the can, at least until after labor
day.
On Wed, 24 Jul 1996, Judy Diamondstone wrote:
> Chuck Bazerman mentioned
>
> >many social mechanisms to increase salience and alignment and stability of
> kinds (such as simply circulating the name of a kind, perhaps with criteria,
> perhaps without, perhaps with consequent discussion whether utterances are
> instances of this or that kind), and salience and alignment are also
> increased by other sharings of experiences and interests and structured or
> bounded activity that increaase the amount of commonality people bring to a
> situation
>
> These seem a crucial focus for inquiry. But then, when you encourage
> students to attend to genres, do you not focus on features of texts?