-- 307/1 Georgina Street Newtown NSW Australia 2042Tel/fax (Intn'l) 61-2-9519 5698
----------
Mike
I thought this one from Gordon might be of interest.
NIck.
>From: gwells@oise.utoronto.ca (Gordon Wells) >To: xmca@weber.ucsd.edu >Subject: Re: some more questions >Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2000 4:22 AM >
> 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 - 01:03:36 PST