generic structures and their functions basic draft

Generic Structures and Their Functions 1

Generic Structures and Their Functions

Eduard C. Hanganu

B.A., M.A., Linguistics

Lecturer in English, UE

Draft 3

Revised – November 24, 2014

© 2014


Abstract

Genre has been for centuries a familiar concept in literature, and its main role has been perceived

to be that of a classification device. Based on certain clusters of criteria, literary works have been

grouped into different categories, each group diverse from the others due to its generic structure.

The conventional definitions of genre, formulated on the basis of certain structural characteristics

of different works, have been of categories with "particular form, content, technique, or the like"

(The Oxford English Dictionary), and not much more. In the past five or six decades, though, the

research on genre and generic structures has established that there is a clear relationship between

generic structures and the context of situation, and that certain features of a text allow the readers

to anticipate the content of a passage, something that has a positive effect on text comprehension.

More research has shown that, far from simple classification devices, genres are interactional and

communicational devices, bearers of discourse meaning, and encoders of social action.

Key words: language, text, content, form, structure, genre, definition.


Generic Structures and Their Functions

The transactional and interactional materializations of language usage involve the mental

processing of a complex series of coordinated textual elements (either spoken or written) among

which the most important are content, structure, and function. These central characteristics of the

text interact with the context of situation in order to generate linguistic events during a discourse

development process in which language structures are not forced on the content of the "text,” but

"fashioned” through usage. Spoken or written discourse events comprise different characteristics

which are clustered in certain manners in order to attain the purpose of a specific linguistic event,

and such clusters or configurations are known as genres. The purpose of this paper is to examine

possible definitions of the concept of genre and their implications for language use, to investigate

the concept of generic structure potential, and to look at the most common textual configurations

of written discourse, and the rhetorical functions of such structures.

Genre Definition: Perspectives

Good definitions are hard to formulate because they require the precise depiction of the

classifier—the name of a more general category, and the distinguishers— those facts [intended]

to differentiate a word's sense "from the senses of any other words that share the same classifier"

(Hudson, 1995, p. 24). The task becomes even more difficult when the item to be defined is not

material, but a complex theoretical notion. Differences of opinion among scholars about either

the classifier or the distinguishers will result in repeated definition attempts with the intention to

reach an ideal formulation that could meet all possible criteria and expectations. Such seems to

be the trouble with the definition of the concept of genre. Swales (1990) admits the complex

characteristics of the concept when he remarks that genre "is a term, which, as Preston says, one

approaches with some trepidation (Preston, 1986). The word is highly attractive—even to the


Parisian timbre of its normal pronunciation—but extremely slippery" (p.33). After referring to

the dictionary definition of the term, Swales also admits that "genre remains a fuzzy concept, a

somewhat loose term of art" p.33).

The two largest World English dictionaries, The Random House Webster’s Unabridged

Dictionary (1999), and The Oxford English Dictionary (1992), define the term in rather similar

language. The first one affirms that genre is " a class or category of artistic endeavor having a

particular form, content, technique, or the like: the genre of epic poetry; the genre of symphonic

music," while the second states that the word means "a particular style or category of works of

art: esp. a type of literary work characterized by a particular form, style, or purpose."

Definitions of genre abound in books on literature, and language sciences, and are the

most frequent in articles devoted to the concept itself, and its applications. In the article entitled

The Concept of Genre and Its Characteristics, for example, Beghtol (2000) comments that "the

word genre means "kind of”’ or "sort of” and comes from the same Latin root as the word

genus” (p.17). Toms affirms in Recognizing Digital Genre that "genre, derived primarily from

literacy studies, explores the classification of texts. We can say that any digital document is an

instance of one class of genre such as a report, bibliography and dictionary, and that each class

is distinguished by a set of attributes" (2000, p.20). Kwasnik, Crowston, Nilan, and Roussinov

(2000) do not think that the traditional perspective on genres as communicative categories, is

adequate, and adopt Orlinowski and Yates' proposal that genres are communicative actions that

share a cluster of similar features and a similar organization (p.23).

In their research document, Automatic Detection of Text Genre Kessler, Nunberg, and

Schütze (1997), "propose a theory of genres as bundles of facets, which correlate with various

surface cues, and argue that genre detection based on surface cues is as successful as detection


based on deeper structural properties.” In their perspective, then, genre is classification device

which selects text based on four criteria: (1) origin of the text (2) text distribution, (3) register

of the text language, and (4) audience (p. 32). Kwasnic (2000) stresses the fact that the notion

of genre includes "form, substance, and contextual use," and mentions the constant apparition

of new genres which follow progress in human communication (p. 16), a perspective which is

shared by Kain and Wardle (2005, p. 115) (as cited in Kwasnik, 2000, p. 16).

Genres have distinctive names, and the purpose of those names is to indicate "inherent

textual qualities: i.e. distinctive structural matrices," and to help the reader to recognize and

interpret different texts from literature or business, and to learn about the participants and their

characteristics. This critical role that genres perform, and which adds a certain background to

the text makes the reading of different texts more informative and interesting for the reader

(Geest & van Gorp, 1999, p.33; Dobbs-Allsopp, 2000, p. 625).

Kain and Wardle (2005) note that Miller moves further in the evaluation of the various

genres, and defines them from a rhetorical perspective as "typified rhetorical actions" which

respond to the social context, and represent the need which individuals and groups from various

social categories to formulate their thoughts, and to organize their worlds , that is, "objects,

events, interests, and purposes" (Kain & Wardle, 2005, p. 16), while Bazerman, refers to genres

as "frames for social actions" which are used as communication contexts and rhetorical tools in

order to attain their social goals (Kain & Wardle, 2005, p. 115).

The idea of "genre as social action," is an effort on Miller's (1984) part to elucidate the

genre concept because "although rhetorical criticism has recently provided a profusion of

claims that certain discourses constitute a distinctive class, or genre," all this research "has not

provided firm guidance on what constitutes a genre," but has rather created confusion, because


of the multiple criteria used in the definition process. Among these categorization criteria are

(1) similar discourse structures (2) similar audiences, (3) similar theoretical perspectives, and

(4) similar rhetorical contexts. These four definitional parameters have made it very difficult

for researchers to reach a consensus in the definition of genre (p. 151).

Definition criteria which are too broad do not provide a good foundation for the process

of selection of classifiers and distinguishers; therefore, comments Miller, "if the term 'genre' is

to mean anything theoretically or critically useful, it cannot refer to just any category or kind of

discourse." Miller’s goal is to develop "a perspective on genre that relies on areas of agreement

in previous work and connects those areas to corroborating material." This would mean that the

traditional focus on content and structure must be abandoned, and replaced with an emphasis

on the social and rhetorical actions produced by genres (p. 151).

Bawarshi (2000) expands on these thoughts, and mentions the fact that "the past fifteen

years have witnessed a dramatic reconceptualization of genre and its role in the production and

interpretation of texts and culture" (p. 335). This reconceptualization process, or "movement,"

as he calls it, has produced in shift in genre research from a descriptive process to a discovery

event, and has included in the research, besides classification methods, approaches which have

developed in other disciplines such as linguistics, sociology, and psychology (p. 335).

This approach to genre from the linguistic, sociological, and psychological perspectives

provides a new opening into the operative connection between genre structure and its functions.

The result is that "genres have come to be defined as typified rhetorical ways communicants

come to recognize and act in all kinds of situations, literary and nonliterary" (p. 335), therefore

"genres do not simply help us define and organize kinds of texts; they also help us define and


organize kinds of social actions, social actions that these texts rhetorically make possible

(Bawarshi, 2000, p. 335).

Such an evolution of the genre definition from a text classification tool to a social tool

which helps "define and organize kinds of social actions," seems an unwarranted extension of

the generic function, and Bawarshi appears to be aware of the magnitude of his claim, and the

need to provide supporting evidence for his theoretical perspective, considering the traditional,

well established notion that genre is a simple text classification tool, or "formulaic writing." He

expects, though to lower the reader's mental barrier through a new and insightful review of the

most current research on genre which provides support for the new understanding (2000, pp.

335-336).

Swales (1990) attempts to formulate a comprehensive genre definition from a functional

perspective. His aim is to indicate that genre has specific "communicative purposes" determined

by the members of a discourse community who provide the rationale and constrain the discourse

structure, content, and purposes of a certain genre, and define its rhetorical functions. The names

provided by the members of the community for different genres are the legacy of the community,

and are passed on as "valuable ethnographic communication" (1990, p. 58). :

Examination of one of the most common genres in literature, the narrative, shows that its

basic features are: (1) plot development, with setting and characters (2) description of the events

(3) timeline (chronological, flash-back or flash-forward (4) description of settings and characters

(5) event staging through active verbs, and (6) event movement towards a conclusion. These six

basic features of the narrative could be divided, for didactic purposes, into two groups: structure,

and content. Features 1, 2, and 4 seem to introduce the content of the narrative, while features 3,

5, and 6 appear to define the structure of the genre (Pharr & Buscemi, 2005, pp. 174-176). Most


of the narrative content is formulated through the use of narrative, descriptive, comparative, and

exemplification language, in which dramatic dialogue, active content verbs, figurative language,

and tense cooperate to engender part of the rhetorical effects of the narration (Pharr & Buscemi,

2005, pp. 174-176).

But the structure of the narration is not less essential. The use of a proper timeline which

presents event occurrence in the most adequate manner—whether it is chronological, flash-back,

or flash-forward, the creation of a strong event map through verbs, and the use of nouns, adverbs,

and adjectives to lead the reader towards the denouement work with the content in the generation

of the rhetorical effects of the narrative (Pharr & Buscemi, 2005, pp. 174-176). Form and matter

are inseparable and indissoluble, and their connection informs the reader, introduces new notions

and insights, and creates emotions in the mind of the reader. To limit the contribution of genre to

mere classification would mean to ignore all the other functions which genre performs in the

context of the discourse. Defining genre must, then, consider both the content and structural roles

which function in the context of the discourse.

The traditional definition of genre, which limited its role to classification, has undergone

multiple revisions through time in order to expand its theoretical perspective. While The Random

House Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary (1999), and The Oxford English Dictionary (1992), had

supplied the foundational elements of the definition, in which genre was seen as a "specific class

of artistic endeavor having a particular form, content, technique," or "a category of works of art,"

as Beghtol (2000) recognizes in his discussion on genre (p. 17), some scholars, among whom are

Kwasnik, Crowston, Nilan, and Roussinov (2000) state that genres are communicative categories

or communicative actions which include groups of identical features (p.23).


Kessler, Nunberg and Schütze (1997) name the sets of generic features bundles of facets,

and state that genre uses four filters to complete its classification work—text origin distribution,

register, and audience (p. 16). These generic features function as criticism devices in the process

of textual selection (Dobbs-Allsopp, 2000, p. 625). Miller (1984) connects genre with the social

context, and refers to it as rhetorical action that responds to the social environment (see Kain &

Wardle, 2005, p. 16) while Bazerman describes genres as social action structures which function

as transaction, interaction, and rhetorical tools in the discourse ( see Kain & Wardle, 2005, p.

115).

The current perspective on genre has ceased to place its emphasis on form and content,

and has transferred it to the social and rhetorical functions of the genre (Miller, 1984, p. 151).

Bawarshi (2000) claims that genres have a direct function in our understanding of the social and

cultural context, explain and organize our experiences, and define the world in which we live (p.

335). These actions are performed through the communicative functions genres have, which help

passing on of the traditional values of a different social groups to the next generations (Swales,

1990, p. 58).

Generic Structure and Context of Situation

The notion that genres are much more than classification devices, and that their purposes

extend beyond the text and the immediate context of situation into the social zone becomes clear

if one sees the connection between texts and communicants (Bawarshi, 2000, p. 335). Citing the

genre research completed by Littlefair, Stamboltzis and Pumfrey (2000) stress on the connection

between genre and the discourse context, and on the fact that genre must not be seen as a remote

and independent text capsule, but as a connective appliance between text and context (p 58). The

implications are relevant for an understanding of the role of genre in communication (p. 58).


The idea that genre is a relational agent whose goal is not to isolate texts, but to combine

them with the context in order to create a text-context complex, has been expressed in previous

linguistic research performed by Halliday and Hasan (1985). Halliday understands language as a

module of the "networks of relationships," which humans have developed as part of their social

context. He also states that language should be understood from a semiotic perspective, as

another system of meaning whose purpose is to support and facilitate communication, and create

the human culture. One other relevant notion in his discussion about language is the term social,

which Halliday (1985) defines as "the relationships between language and social structure,

considering the social structure as one aspect of the social system" (p. 4).

The social-semiotic standpoint on language has not been examined enough, in Halliday's

opinion, and this fact is regrettable, considering that "learning is, above all, a social process; and

the environment in which educational learning takes place is that of a social institution" (p.5). As

such, we need to remind ourselves that knowledge is passed from older generations to the young

ones as in relationships between parents and children, or between teachers and students, and that

moral values and cultural norms are also transmitted in the same social context through language

which has encoded all the characteristics of the culture in which people live (p. 5).

From the social-semiotic perspective, then, text and context are co-dependent and should

not be seen as separate entities because they are part of the same social context which constructs

both of them (Halliday, 1985, p. 5). One must remember, though, that the notion of context here

includes more than the language which surrounds the text (co-text). All the elements which will

contribute to the meaning of the text, or "the total environment in which a text unfolds," are part

of the text's linguistic and social support, and must be considered when the text is interpreted

Halliday, 1985, p.5).


This strong connection between text and its context could be defined as the text's "context

of situation," a term which Malinowski (1923) had coined in order to refer to the full background

of a text. This term "expressed the total environment, including the verbal environment, but also

including the situation in which the text was uttered" (Halliday, 1985, p. 6). Malinowski noticed,

though t hat there was another brand of knowledge that the reader needed in order understand the

text, and that was "information not only about what was happening at the time but also about the

total cultural background, " which he called "context of culture"(Halliday, 1985, p. 7), Embedded

in the two contexts—situation and culture—the text becomes "a form of exchange" or interaction

between language speakers, and acquires meaning, as only through the exchange of thoughts and

emotions language can be a social agent of change (Halliday, 1985, p. 11).

In this sense, both text and context can be understood as "semiotic phenomena," and due

to this socio-linguistic interconnection the reader obtains the knowledge needed to "get from the

situation to the text," or "make predictions about the kinds of meaning that are being exchanged"

(p. 12). Such reader knowledge comes from the examination of the "three features of the context

of situation," as "these concepts serve to interpret the social context of a text, the environment in

which meanings are being exchanged" (p. 12). The textual aspects described by Halliday are: (a)

"the field of discourse," which "refers to what is happening, to the nature of the social action that

is taking place; (b) "the tenor of discourse," or facts concerning "who is taking part, to the nature

of the participants," and (c) "the mode of discourse" the characteristic which "refers to what part

the language is playing, what it is that the participants are expecting the language to do for them

in that situation" (p. 12). These textual features allow the reader or listener to anticipate the next

pieces of information which are contained in the text, and accelerate their comprehension of the

information provided to them. If this anticipation process does not take place, then reading slows


down or fails, that is, "the whole point of a passage may be missed if the reader or listener does

not bring to it appropriate assumptions derived from the context of situation" (Halliday, 1985, p.

46).

Generic Structure and Textual Features

Hasan (1985) summarizes Halliday's (1985) examination of interactions between text and

context with the statement that "text and context are so intimately related that neither concept can

be enunciated without the other" (p. 52). Her stated objective is to explain what text means, in an

expansion of Halliday's (1985) statement that text is "language that is functional" and that it does

some kind of action in a context of situation (p.52).Hasan searches for a definition which would

distinguish text from non-text, and chooses the sense entered in Chambers’ Twentieth Century

dictionary which defines text as "the actual words of a book, poem, etc., in their original form or

any form they have been transmitted in or transmuted into…".(p. 52).

The most remarkable characteristic of a text defined as such would be "unity," a feature

which enables the reader to "discriminate between a text and a ‘non-text,’ a complete text and an

incomplete one” (p. 52). Textual unity includes, she states, two facets: 1. unity of structure, and

2. unity of texture (p. 52). These two characteristics are present in all texts, whether this matter is

observable or not. While texture is "related to the context of situation,” and a "matter of meaning

relations,” (p. 70), the structure of a text, that is, "the overall structure, the global structure of the

message form," establishes its generic functions (Hasan, 1985, p. 53).

That texts include various generic structures and perform different rhetorical functions

has been accepted in the universal literature for a long time, and all these textual characteristics

have been revealed to differ from one another on the basis of the structures which characterized

their messages. (p. 54). The common ground between all these genres has been that all of them


included field, tenor, and mode. These three variables had different value ranges, depending on

the different genres which they were representing, and all these values could be seen as textual

options (p. 55). The different and specific features articulated through the field, tenor, and mode

values of each distinctive genre comprised the characteristic textual configuration [CC] of each

genre. These specific contextual configurations represent the various social activities performed

by the different genres (Hasan, 1985, pp.55-56).

Among the elements which the CC of each genre predicts, some are obligatory, and some

are optional (p. 56). Text examination shows that the obligatory elements are specific to a certain

genre, indispensable, and occur in a certain order which indicates to the reader whether the text is

complete or is lacking information. The optional elements are elective (Hasan, 1985, p. 62). Such

information about the CC of a text is essential in the evaluation of different categories of texts, as

the combination of possible generic features for texts are limited, and help to predict the possible

structure for different texts as their "generic structure potential" [GSP] (Hasan, 1985, p. 64).

Based on the concept of a generic structure potential, the reader and the researcher could

examine different texts that belong to the same genre from a wider, perspective, and could make

generalizations about the common structure of identical texts, without having to refer specifically

to certain individual texts. In education, the practical application of such a perspective is that the

teacher will not have to examine text by text in order to demonstrate a specific genre to students,

but will be able to point to a cluster of required features for each genre as those features which

distinguish genre from genre (Hasan, 1985, p. 68).

Hasan reminds us that knowledge of the generic structure of texts should be considered

imperative for the classroom because "a teacher's understanding of generic structures will be an

active ingredient in his or her success as a teacher." Public school education must include genre


in order for students to develop good reading comprehension skills: in consequence, "children

need to be exposed to a wide range of genres—particularly those that are actively required in the

educational process—for example, résumé, report, expository essay, and so on," and again, "the

child needs to be given the experience of both talking and writing over a large range of genres."

Educators must also remember that exposing the students to well-designed and structured content

will provide them with a perception of what good writing is, and will promote writing models

which are worth emulating: (Hasan, 1985, p. 69).

Research on the text shows that "structural unity is relatable to the notion of context," and

that, as a consequence, "the motivation for the elements of the text's structure can be found in the

values of the CC" (Hasan, 1985, p 97). These values allow the reader to place the text in a certain

genre group, even "when presented with a text in displacement—in isolation from the situation in

which it was produced" (p. 97). But texts are not unique in the absolute sense. We observe that

"however we define uniqueness, we shall come to the conclusion that an infinity of variant texts

can be created within one given genre" (Hasan, 1985, p. 98). All texts which belong in the same

genre group share a cluster of essential characteristics: (1) particular meaning; (2) logical relation

to CC; (3) possible realization of a given GSP, and (4) structure variation that cannot exceed the

presence of the obligatory elements and the GSP of the specific genre (Hasan, 1985, p. 108).

Generic Structures and Textual Functions

The language interaction that occurs between people is a meaningful event during which

individuals exchange information, and create or change social relationship at various levels. The

most preferred approach for such language exchanges is the dialogue because speakers can relate

to one another, and "exploit to the full the resources of language that they have" (Halliday, 1985,

p. 11). Swales (1990) defines genre as "a class of communicative events," and refers to an event


as a linguistic communication "in which language (and/or paralanguage) plays both a significant

and an indispensable role" (p. 45). He then refines the first definition of genre, and proposes that

"genres are communicative vehicles for the achievement of goals," recognizing at the same time

that "purposes of some genres may be hard to get" (p. 46) in some situations, while in other cases

it might not be so difficult. For an example of an easier genre, he comments on recipes, which do

not appear to have a very high difficulty level. This implies that "if a series of activities is carried

out according to the prescriptions offered, a successful gastronomic outcome will be achieved”

(Swales, 1990, p. 46)

There is clear evidence that genres can have multiple purposes. Such is the case with the

news broadcasts which present various language events that (1) provide constant information to

the public, (2) attempt to influence people's opinions on different issues, (3) provide directions in

the case of emergencies, and (4) provide positive information about the broadcasting corporation

(Swales, 1990, p. 47). The conclusion that develops from an examination of the purposes which

generic structures exhibit is that "genre membership is based on communicative purpose.," but it

becomes apparent from research on different texts that "exemplars or instances of genres vary in

their prototypicality, (p 49), and that "what holds shared membership together is not a shared list

of defining features, but inter-relationships of a somewhat looser kind" (pp. 49-50). It is obvious

also, that "the rationale behind a genre establishes constraints on allowable contributions in terms

of their content, positioning, and form," because "established members of discourse communities

employ genre to realize communicatively the goals of their communities." As society evolves, so

do its norms and standards; therefore, the members of a certain genre must be aware of the need

to monitor those changes and adapt to them and to their changing influences (Swales, 1990, pp

52-53).


One genre with two social goals, and whose content can express opposing perspectives, is

the letter. Documents written in this genre can include good or bad news for the receiver. A good

news letter is send out in the belief that the receiver will welcome it for its enthusiastic and warm

content, and the author expects a prompt response to such a good news letter, and a continuation

of the social relationship nurtured through the message. The bad news letter, though, is assumed

to produce displeasure and conflict, and to disrupt or sever the previous social relationships. The

writing of such letter is done in from a different perspective, and the final assumption is that the

social relationships will end after its receipt (Swales, 1990, p. 53).

Discourse communities create their own genre conventions, and the individuals who lead

in the process are those most familiar with various genres, "those who routinely or professionally

operate within that genre," the "active discourse community members" (p. 54) who "tend to have

the greatest genre-specific expertise" (pp. 54-55). Such members have special privileges, among

which are the right to coin names for different socio-linguistic events and interactions. The terms

coined or invented by such a select group could expand their use to other groups (Swales, 1990,

p. 55).

In the academic world, genres comprise various documents with structures and purposes

that are adapted to specific requirements and needs. Some of the genres listed by Swales (1990)

are lectures, exams, survey articles, review sessions, and writing workshops, “and such formats

are mentioned as incorporating “a pre-modifying nominal of purpose.” The second group in the

same genre includes in their structure a head-noun, and some of such genre items are the “grant

applications, reprint requests, and course descriptions.” The third group described is formulated

to “indicate the occasion rather than communicative purpose,” and among them are mentioned

final examinations, plenary lectures, festschrifts, etc. (Swales, 1990, p. 55).


One other relevant matter about genres is the remarkable differences among them. Swales

(1990), mentions among such differences their rhetorical purposes, communicative effectiveness,

and various modes or media in the transmission of information. Such differences could be in the

number of parameters of features which define each genre. Among these peculiar characteristics

could be mentioned (1) the sophistication of its rhetorical goal, (2), the transmission medium, (3)

the need to consider the audience, and (4) the language register, or "the extent to which they are

likely to exhibit universal or language-specific tendencies" (pp. 61-64).

The different generic structures and functions that characterize genres show that previous

definitions of this linguistic phenomenon failed to describe its complex and functional nature, but

were limited to a narrow, surface understanding of the concept. Genre has been seen as a “mere

mechanism” that would control language, and limit the choices of the speakers or writers, instead

of providing a supportive context for the creation of literature, a "pedagogical convenience," and

a hindrance (Swales, 1990, p. 33). This confusion about genres and their roles could be removed

through the examination of the research done on genre in different fields of inquiry (p. 33).

Swales (1990) then proceeds to explore genre definitions in a few chief scholastic spheres

such as folklore studies, literary studies, linguistics, and rhetoric. Concerning folklore he remarks

that "the concept of genre has maintained a central position in folklore studies ever since the

pioneering work in the early nineteenth century on German myths, legends, and folk tales by the

Brothers Grimm" (p. 34) but also affirms that "as a major figure in folklore studies has remarked,

'thus far in the illustrious history of the discipline, not so much as one genre has been completely

defined' (Dundes, 1980:21)." This failure, "partly ascribable to high standards of rigor and clarity

expected in scientific definitions," is also due to "continuous changes in theoretical perspectives"

(p. 34). Because folklore documents contain historical and political accounts from the past, their


main function has been to transmit to the future generation a social and political inheritance that

would have otherwise been forgotten (p. 34). Some scholars differ in this matter, and consider as

the most significant function of the folkloric genres the perpetuation of the "sociocultural value,"

or "the maintenance and survival of social groups because they serve social and spiritual needs"

(p. 35).

In literature, genre studies have focused on opposing goals—maintenance and innovation.

While some writers and critics have insisted on the conservation of the traditional generic format

of different works of literature, others have endeavored to break the mold and introduce newness

of form, content, and function. But, remarks Swales (1990), quoting Todorov, movement outside

the established structures should be perceived as a natural part of change and progress:

He [Todorov] argues that the fact that works 'disobey' their genres does not mean that

those genres necessarily disappear. For one thing, transgression, in order to exist, requires

regulations to be transgressed. For another, the norms only retain visibility and vitality by

being transgressed. This is the process, according to Todorov, of genre generation. 'A

new genre is always the transformation of one or several old genres: by inversion, by

displacement, by combination' (1973:161). (p. 36)

The fact is that the generic structures of literary works contain intrinsic 'powers' to inspire

the writer and encourage him to grow beyond his self-imposed constraints. The generic functions

extend in this case beyond simple genre preservation to the "positive support," according to what

Fowler (1982) concludes from his research. Remarks Swales (1990): "Fowler (1982), in the most

exhaustive contemporary study known to me of literary genres, additionally stresses the value of

genre to the writer" (p. 37). The importance which genre has for the writers includes: (1) positive

support, rather than inhibition, (2) freedom through form and content constraints, (3) an unbiased


ideational space, (4) a literary frame which supports the creation of literature, (5) the challenge to

move beyond the known tradition in literature (Swales, 1990, p. 37).

In one more iteration of his viewpoint on the multiple functions of literary genres, Swales

(1990) notes that "as Schauber and Spolsky (1986) observe, genres form an open-ended set," and

that it is quite evident that "neither Todorov nor Fowler accept that genres are simply assemblies

of more-or-less similar textual objects," but instead "coded and keyed events set within the social

communicative processes." This means that "recognizing those codes and keys can be a powerful

facilitator of both comprehension and composition" (1990, p. 38).

Linguists have also examined genre from different perspectives, with some "reluctance"

at first because the term was "so closely associated with literary studies" (p. 38). Halliday and his

associate, Hasan—mentioned previously in this paper for their research on texts and their genetic

structures—seem to be the first who dedicated time and effort to work in this area. Swales (1990)

refers to Halliday's (1985) point of view that genre and register are related, but also remarks that

while there is no data to support Halliday's (1985) view yet, register is useful because it provides

a relation between text and context through the "three features of the context of situation"—field,

tenor, and mode (Halliday, 1985, p. 12; Swales, 1990, p. 40).

Swales (1990) also mentions that Martin (1985) shares Halliday's (1985) viewpoint that

the spoken or written texts are "language that is functional" because "is doing some job in some

context" and that genres are the devices thorough which that rhetorical function is accomplished.

According to Swales, Martin (1985) distinguishes between the functions which language, genre,

and register have as a "three-way distinction: genres are realized through registers, and registers

in turn are realized through language" (Martin, 1985: 250; Swales, 1990. p. 40). Concerning the

linguistic roles of genres, Martin affirms that "genres are how things get done, when language is


used to accomplish them," and that the activities performed are those "which comprise so much

of our culture" (Martin, 1985: 250: Swales, 1990, p. 40).

The concept of a relation between genre and rhetoric seems to have appeared for the first

time in Aristotle's treatises on logic and rhetoric. Swales reminds the reader that "since Aristotle,

rhetorical inquiry and criticism has been interested in classifying discourse," and that a preferred

research method has been deduction which has helped categorize linguistic objects (1990, p. 42).

One of the scholars who have studied the relation between discourse and rhetoric and have done

classification work in this field is Kinneavy, states Swales (1990), who "classifies discourse into

four main types: expressive, persuasive, literary and referential." These four categories are based

on the various emphases placed on sender, receiver, linguistic code, or the social context (p. 40).

Some of the most relevant functions of generic structures in relation to rhetoric are those

that concern the social and historical aspects of rhetoric. In this area, genre provides comparative

tools which allow the reader to assess whether a text is part of a generic group or not (p. 43).The

research work that Miller (1984) has performed, has extended the knowledge of genres into areas

which have been of little interest to rhetoricians, and has offered a clear image of the importance

of genre in human communication (Swales, 1990, p. 43). Swales quotes Miller (1984) who states

that,

To consider as potential genres such homely discourse as the letter of recommendation,

the user manual, the progress report, the ransom note, the lecture, and the white paper, as

well as the eulogy, the apologia, the inaugural, the public proceeding, and the sermon is

not to trivialize the study of genres; it is to take seriously the rhetoric in which we are

immersed and the situations in which we find ourselves (Miller, 1984: 155). (as cited in

Swales, 1990, pp. 43-44)


Swales (1990) summarizes his evaluation of genre in the rhetorical context with a review

of the various functions which genres, or genetic structures, assume in the discourse context, and

a refutation of the notion that the most important function genre performs is that of classification.

He reaffirms that because of the studies done in the past decades genre can no more be perceived

as a theoretical issue, or as a mere classification device that provides criteria for textual selection.

Instead, genre has been brought into the applied language area, and into the social context. The

applications of genre are more extensive than most scholars have thought, and encompass textual

selection through the identification and classification of various clusters of textual characteristics

(Hasan, 1985, p.108), communicative events which comprise both the transaction and interaction

aspects (Swales, 1990, p. 45), communicative devices for achievement of goals (Swales, 1990, p.

46), speech acts performance (Swales, 1990, p. 47), tools that help "define social action" (Miller

1984, p. 151), "social action" (Miller, 1984, p. 151), "positive support" for authors during writing

(Fowler, 1982: 31; Swales,1990, p. 37), and the "mechanism for reaching communicative goals,"

and which can implement goal clarification (Swales, 1990, p. 44).

Conclusion

The concept of genre has evolved during the past decades, due to determined research on

the generic structures of spoken and written texts, from the limited idea of a classification device

to an intricate range of socio-linguistic functions that include communicative events, speech acts,

tools that help users to reach their communication goals, formulators of social action constraints,

and effective social action. The changes in the definition of genre have occurred due to a change

of theoretical perspective on genre, from the established view based on a simple and mechanical

understanding of the generic structure of texts as a passive device, to the present perspective that

looks at genre as language in action, and as an agent of social change. The performing functions


of the generic structures that characterize different genres are due to their rhetorical purpose and

force that are the product of their form and content. Genre is no more perceived as an inadequate

classification mechanism, but as a proficient rhetorical device that can change our social context

and our world.


References

Bawarshi, A. (2000). The genre function. College English, 62 (3), pp. 335-360.

Beghtol, C. (2000). The concept of genre and its characteristics. Bulletin of the American Society

for Information Science and Technology, 27(2), 17-19.

de Geest, D., & van Gorp, H. (1999). Literary genres from a systemic-functionalist perspective.

European Journal of English Studies, 3 (1), 33-50.

Dobbs-Allsopp, F. W. (2000). Darwinism, genre theory, and city laments. Journal of the

American Oriental Society, 120 (4), 625-630.

Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1985). Language, context and text: aspects of language in a

social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hudson, R. (1995). Word meaning. New York: Routledge.

Kain, D. & Wardle, E. (2005). Building context: Using activity theory to teach about genre in

multi-major professional communication courses. Technical Communication Quarterly,

14 (2), 113-139.

Kessler, B., Nunberg, G., & Schütze, H. (1997). Automatic detection of text genre. Proceedings

of the 35th annual meeting on Association for Computational Linguistics, Madrid, Spain,

32-38.

Kwasnik, B. H. (2000). Document: What we bring from the past, Genres: What we design for the

future. Bulletin of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 27(2),

17-19.

Kwasnik, B.H., Crowston, K., Nilan, M., & Roussinov, D. (2000). Identifying document genre to

improve web search effectiveness. Bulletin of the American Society for Information

Science and Technology, 27(2), 17-19.


Malinowski, B. (1923). The problem of meaning in primitive languages. Supplement 1, in C.K.

Ogden & I.A. Richards (eds.), The Meaning of Meaning. London: Kegan Paul.

Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70 (2), 151-167.

Pharr, D., & Buscemi S. V. (2005) Writing today: Contexts and options for the real world. New

York: McGraw-Hill.

Random House Webster’s unabridged dictionary. (1999). [CD-ROM]. New York: Random

House, Inc.

Simpson, J. A. & Weiner, S. C. (Eds.). (1992). The Oxford English dictionary (2nd ed.). [CD-

ROM]. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Stamboltzis, A. & Pumfrey, P. (2000). Reading across genres: a review of literature. Support for

Learning, 15 (2), pp. 58-61.

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings (8th printing).

New York: Cambridge University Press.

Toms, E. G. (2000). Recognizing digital genre. Bulletin of the American Society for Information

Science and Technology, 27(2), 17-19.

generic structures and their functions basic draft

Documents

generic structures

language structures

concept of genre

genre definition

functions eduard

rhetorical functions

abstract genre

different characteristics