Elisa asked :
> what exactly I'm saying when I say that language - or speech genres -
>are artifacts? which kind of theory I'm subscribing to when I say that?
>or which worldview does this proposition - "speech genres are artifacts"
>- entail?
Here's one attempt at an answer.
From a CHAT perspective, I think there are very powerful reasons for
thinking of speech genres as mediational means for interaction between
co-participants in an activity. These genres, used in conjunction with
other artifacts, enable them to coordinate their actions in such different
activities as hunting, playing football, putting on theatrical
performances, reaching group decisions on future actions, solving
theoretical problems, formulating theories, etc. Each of these situations
calls for a different way of selecting from, and using, the resources
that, taken together, we think of as a language, and for this reason the
repertoire of genres is often referred to as a ‘toolkit’. Perhaps a
reasonable analogy would be that of the different functional kinds of
building - apartment block, social club, church, airport terminal - that
are all made from similar basic materials, often prefabricated like the
components of a lego construction kit, but put together according to
different principles according to the function the building is to perform.
But whether genres should be thought of as ‘artifacts’ or ‘practices’ is a
more difficult question. I suspect that the best answer is that they are
both, depending on the perspective one adopts. Considered as the typical
procedures that organize interaction in a particular type of activity
setting, they are perhaps best thought of as practices. Like the tactics
involved in playing a game, the organizing principles of a speech genre
provide a set of expectations about the ‘normal’ sequence of steps/moves
in the activity in question, to which participants orient in making their
contributions contextually appropriate and relevant in the co-construction
of the interaction. But from the perspective of the ‘text’ that is
co-produced on any particular occasion, speech genres are perhaps best
thought of as artifacts, that is to say as outcome objects that are both
material and ‘ideal’.
But it is typically _not_ particular text instantiations that are being
referred to when speech genres are treated as artifacts, but rather the
‘rules’ that are considered to guide/determine the co-production of the
texts. There are two interesting questions here: What is the status of
these ‘rules’? and In what sense do they exist independently of particular
occasions of text co-production?
It is precisely because instantiations of speech genres are always
co-produced by two or more participants in interaction that these
questions are so interesting. In some settings, such as a court of law,
there are very clearly defined ‘rules’ about who can speak when and what
speech acts they are allowed to perform. Here, it may be appropriate to
think of the genre as being an artifact that has some sort of independent
existence that can be appealed to in order to determine whether a
particular contribution will be allowed to stand. Service encounters, as
described by Hasan (Language, Context and Text, 1985/Oxford U.P., 1989)
for example, also seem to be organized according to norms of what elements
must/may occur and in what sequence. But in casual conversation, the
existence of norms is less apparent and, if they do exist, they seem to be
flouted as often as observed. Yet the fact that participants typically
co-produce texts that are relatively coherent and mutually satisfying
(even though involving a considerable amount of difference/disagreement)
suggests that there are indeed genre norms to which they are orienting.
This is, in fact, one of the central issues addressed by conversation and
discourse analysts (though not usually within a CHAT framework, nor
invoking the concept of speech genre). A particularly useful discussion
of casual conversation using systemic functional linguistic theory is
Eggins and Slade, Analysing Casual Conversation, Cassell, 1997.
Where these issues become particularly important is in educational
contexts, where the ability to participate effectively in the
co-production of texts in different genres is necessary for a student to
be assessed as ‘intelligent’, ‘competent’, etc. Here, it seems to me, it
does become important to decide whether to treat speech genres as
artifacts or practices. If the former, one might decide that, for
students to learn the genres, they should be taught as sets of rules to be
followed. On the other hand, if speech genres are thought of as
practices, one might decide that they would be best learned through
participation in activity settings where they are relevant and
appropriate. These are alternatives that have been quite hotly debated by
advocates and opponents of the 'genre approach' to teaching writing, with
a middle ground emerging that suggests that there is a time and place for
both.
So, personally, I think quite a lot is entailed by treating speech genres
as artifacts and/or practices. I'd really like to hear what others think
Gordon Wells
gwells@oise.utoronto.ca
http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/~gwells
Visit Networks, the Online Journal for Teacher Research
http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/~ctd/networks
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Feb 01 2000 - 01:03:34 PST