Paul,
As you suggested, I am using 'genre' in the Hallidayan sense and
distinguishing among genres in different modes. But, as you also suggest,
the distinctions are not simply of a binary, spoken/written kind. One
important continuum concerns the extent to which a text in a genre is
co-produced (e.g. face-to-face interaction, published interview, etc.),
but also important is the number and status of the participants. As I
understand Bakhtin's use of the term 'speech genres', it also includes
these distinctions but perhaps not so explicitly. For both Halliday and
Bakhtin, most texts (Bakhtin's 'utterance') are multi-voiced and involve
more than one genre (and not only the reading aloud of a script or the
quoting of speech in writing).
I was surprised by what you wrote about Aviva Freedman's work: [she seems]
>to deny for example that
>workplaces engage in any direct instruction of writing or even in
>intentional structuring of worker's literacy enculturation. I certainly
>see most of genre development as tacit and don't think rules really can
>describe genres (if describing involves the way content and social
>relations are handled and the possibility of quite flexible,
>non-canonical,
>sometimes transformative performances); however, I think we should see
>direct instruction, rules of thumb, explicitly stated guidance, and
>especially provided models *as* elements of situated learning, part of the
>process, even if analysis makes clear that the rules and models are
>insufficient or even inaccurate.
My reading was that she contrasted workplace and [university] classrooms
in terms of the amount of on-the-job guidance that is experienced in the
workplace, as novices work with more experienced staff in preparing texts
that "act into the world." In this latter context, the models and rules
of thumb were provided in relation to the purpose of the text to be
produced rather than in the form of abstract 'rules'. So I wouldn't
disagree with your statement:
>As Hanks and others have suggested, our everyday
>metadiscursive ideologies and notions form part of what we employ to
>produce and co-ordinate our discourse practices.
My main point (not made sufficiently explicit) is that texts, spoken and
written, are tools for mediating ongoing activity. The genre forms (the
synoptic 'rules') are functional with respect to commonly occurring
rhetorical situations, where the goal extends beyond the production of the
texts themselves. Like all tools, therefore, they need to be adapted to
the task in hand, which may involve substantial transformation of the
cultural norms. Teaching text construction as following norms rather than
achieving effects with respect to the specific situated activity that the
texts are intended to mediate does not seem to me to be very useful. That
being said, it can certainly be useful in the classroom to deconstruct
existing 'model' texts to explore how they function in context. This
obviously occurs most frequently with respect to written texts, but
teachers I know have found it helpful occasionally to record and
transcribe classroom discussions in order to enable students to explore
the spoken texts they co-construct. For an example, see Hume (in press,
http://www.oise.utoronto.ca/~ctd/networks/journal/Vol%201(1).1998sept/article3.html).
Gordon Wells
OISE/University of Toronto
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Mar 07 2000 - 17:53:59 PST