Genre, form, and context

In discourse studies, a customary way to begin theoretical reflections upon the notion of genre is by referring to a bipartite history of studies that stems from a difference in the focus of analysis. Some traditions have had as their main point of interest the generic “form” of discourse (i.e., regularities in entextualized arrays of linguistic signs), some the “context” (i.e., regularities in indexical links between language use and types of speech events). Some have defined genres primarily as conventionalized and recurring forms and structures, some as context-specific language-mediated social actions. (Cf.

e.g. Hasan 1985; Miller 1984; Swales 1990; Bhatia 2004.)²² Regardless of whether such commonly repeated divisions accurately reflect any actual tradition of genre studies, one of the genuine effects of such a dichotomy is that the relation between “form” and “context” and the theorization thereof may easily fall out of sight. As for the formal structure of text-artifacts, it is evident that many genres are highly conventionalized ― but certainly not all, online dating advertisements being one example (see also Nieminen 2010).

But what exactly is the place of “form” in the ontology of genre?

Bauman (2004: 3; 2000: 84) starts off his discussion of genre by characterizing it as a “constellation of systematically related, co-occurent formal features and structures that serves as a conventionalized orienting framework for the production and reception of discourse.” He later continues (2004: 4):

The invocation of generic framing devices … carry with them sets of expectations concerning the further unfolding of the discourse, indexing other texts … These expectations constitute a framework for entextualization …

Formal features and structures per se, then, are of secondary interest to Bauman compared to what they “carry with them.” That is, genre is understood as an inherently indexical phenomenon. The “framing devices”

that the respondent recognizes as “generic” point to other texts and signal that the text in question is to be interpreted in a more or less similar way as those other texts. A generic construal, then, can be characterized as

“indexical functional interdiscursivity” (Nieminen 2010: 201), as it allows for

22 Such reflexive models have also been called, for instance, activity types (e.g., Levinson 1992 [1979]). Moreover, types of events are often further divided into more fine-grained episodic structures described in terms of units such as moves and steps (e.g. Swales 1990), sequences (e.g. Hasan 1985), or adjacency pairs (e.g. Sacks, Schegloff & Jefferson 1974).

a particular text to be interpreted as having a functional similarity with a tradition or type of previous texts. In other words, the interactants of semiotic communities interpret individual texts in light of various indexical stereotypes that link individual texts with general circumstances (e.g., typical environments, actions, roles, and intended consequences on different time scales). The ascription of genre to an interactional event yields interpretations and projects expectations that are far more specific and robust than without any genre ascription (if such a scenario is even conceivable in actuality).²³ Therefore, such generic models contribute to the intersubjective co-ordination of events to the extent they are shared by participants.

Linguistic genres, such as online dating advertisements, model relations between linguistic activities and surrounding environments. They involve (1) a stereotype of some discursive pattern or artifact to be performed or interpreted and (2) a stereotype of associated social relations and practical consequences. That is, linguistic genres model appropriate and effective links between residential and representational processes (or interactional and denotational texts; see Silverstein 2003). Interactants can adopt such models either by abstracting them from particular instances they have encountered over the course of their interactional histories or by learning them directly as normative general models (e.g., during their educational curriculum). The models, then, consist of decontextualized, or stereotypic, knowledge about a variety of interactional and semiotic dimensions of the type of event in question (see e.g. Nieminen 2010 for an analysis of such dimensions). From the standpoint of discourse performance, the decontextualized genre model becomes recontextualized in a particular actual interactional event. From the standpoint of discourse interpretation, a particular interactional event becomes contextualized as an instance of the decontextualized general model. (See Bauman & Briggs 1990.) The explicit linguistic “framing devices”

mentioned by Bauman are merely one example of the kinds of indices that can point to particular genre models. Any aspects of the ongoing event, whether in the text or in the context (e.g., social roles, physical location, interdiscursive positioning, or preceding interactional history), may serve as such indices for the interactants. For instance, even formally or denotationally highly unprototypical online dating advertisements are easily

23 A text such as a film review or a dating advertisement is perfectly understandable on many levels for someone who has never encountered or heard of one before and is therefore incapable of interpreting the text as a “film review” or a “dating advertisement” but otherwise has a sufficient linguistic and cultural competence. Those who are familiar with the genre have, however, a better grasp of, for instance, who the writers and readers most likely are in terms of social statuses and intentions, what the necesseray prerequisites and possible consequences of such texts are, how such texts are typically structured, whether the particular token is appropriate or typical, how such texts are related to other texts and events. That is, genre knowledge provides a much more detailed understanding of the interactional structure of the event and of its relation to different social and semiotic processes.

recognizable as instances of the genre based on their semiotic context (including, for instance, the obvious fact that one has intentionally entered a dating service and performed a search for dating profiles).

Furthermore, particular texts are always more than instances of general types, and particular texts should not be reduced to their genre

“membership” alone. According to Bauman (2000: 85):

[T]he fit between a particular text and the generic model – or other tokens of the generic type – is never perfect. Emergent elements of here-and-now contextualization inevitably enter into the discursive process.

That is, there will inevitably be intertextual gaps between general models (or decontextualized stereotypes) and particular instances. The indexed genre model is merely an interpretative resource in light of which the particular text can be interpreted in the here-and-now. Any actual interpretation of a text is the result of an interplay between different reflexive models and the emergent elements of the particular event. If genres are understood as reflexive models, then no text inherently “belongs to” a genre. The indexical link between genre models and particular texts is an interpretive and interactional achievement.²⁴ Accordingly, interactants may not agree at all on generic interpretations or may gradually or suddenly switch from one interpretation to another (e.g. when reading April Fools; see the discussion of ontological transformativity in 2.2.3). Interactants may also differ in terms of how fine-grained supra-genres or sub-genres they are able distinguish.

Moreover, the same text can index two or more generic models or may not seem like a very typical instance of any model, thereby yielding various hybrid, mixed, or gradient interpretations (see e.g. Bhatia 2004; Solin 2006;

Mäntynen & Shore 2014; cf. Agha 1997a; 2007a: 245–265). In fact, it has been suggested that different genres differ in terms of their tendencies towards creativity versus fidelity to tradition and in terms of the explicitness or implicitness of their anchoring to a specific genre (see Briggs & Bauman 1992; Urban 2001). For instance, commercial advertisements, the prototypical promotional genre, sometimes aim at being “unique” or

“innovative” and at masking their persuasive nature by exhibiting a minimal resemblance (or a maximal intertextual gap) with other advertisements (see e.g. Halmari & Virtanen 2005; Östman 2005.)

24 One example is the process of data collection, which is usually based on a combination of explicit scientific criteria and the intuitions of the researchers as speakers of a language and members of a culture. Such settings easily lead to reified notions of genre(s), as it is easy to overlook the inherent reflexivity of generic interpretations.