'Genre-based-pedagogies-a-social-response-to-process'Hyland-ken
advertisement
Journal of Second Language Writing 12 (2003) 17–29 Genre-based pedagogies: A social response to process Ken Hyland * Department of English and Communication, City University of Hong Kong, Tat Chee Avenue, Kolwoon, Hong Kong, China Abstract Pr Proc oces esss th theo eori ries es have have been been ex extr trem emel ely y infl influe uent ntia iall in the the evolu volutio tion n of L2 wr writi iting ng instruc ins tructio tion. n. Res Respon pondin ding g to pur purely ely for formal mal vie views ws of wri writing ting,, pro propon ponent entss bor borro rowed wed the techniques and theories of cognitive psychology and L1 composition to refine the ways we und unders erstan tand d and tea teach ch wri writing ting.. Whi While le rem remain aining ing the dom domina inant nt ped pedago agogic gical al orth orthodo odoxy xy for over 30 years, however, process models have for some time found themselves under siege from more socially-oriented views of writing which reject their inherent liberal individualism. Instead, genre approaches see ways of writing as purposeful, socially situated responses to particular contexts and communities. In this paper, I discuss the importance of genre approaches to teaching L2 writing and how they complement process views by emphasising the role of language in written communication. # 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. Keywords: Genre; Process writing; Social literacy; Writing pedagogy Introduction Process approaches have had a major impact on the ways writing is both understood and taught, transforming narrowly-conceived product models and raising awareness of how complex writing actually is. Few teachers now see writing as an exercise in formal accuracy, and most set pre-writing activities, require req uire multipl multiplee drafts drafts,, give give extens extensiv ivee fee feedba dback, ck, eenco ncoura urage ge pe peer er re revie view w, and delay delay surface correction. But while process approaches have served to instil greater respect for individual writers and for the writing process itself, there is little hard * Tel.: þ86-852-2788-8873; fax: þ86-852-2788-8894. E-mail address: ken.hyland@cityu.edu.hk (K. Hyland). 1060-3743/02/$ – see front matter # 2002 Elsevier Science Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(02)00124-8 18 K. Hyland / Journal Journal of Secon Second d Lang Language uage Writing 12 (2003) (2003) 17–29 17–29 evidence that they actually lead to significantly better writing in L2 contexts. The main reason for this is that their rich amalgam of methods collect around a discovery-oriented, ego-centred core which lacks a well-formulated theory of how ho w langua language ge works works in hum human an int intera eractio ction. n. Be Becau cause se pro proces cesss app approa roache chess hav havee litt little le to say about the ways meanings are socially constructed, they fail to consider the forces outside the individual which help guide purposes, establish relationships, and ultimately shape writing. Genre-based pedagogies address this deficit by offering students explicit and systematic explanations of the ways language functions in social contexts. As such they represent the most theoretically developed and fruitful response to proc proces esss or ortho thodo doxi xies es.. In this this brie brieff ov over ervi view ew I wi will ll seek seek to elabo elabora rate te this this po poin int. t. I wi will ll sk sket etch ch ou outt so some me of the the wa ways ys that that ge genr nree ap appr proa oach ches es ha have ve influence uenced d second language pedagogies by moving away from a highly restricted view of human activity over-reliant on psychological factors, to a socially informed theory of langu languag agee an and d an au autho thori rita tati tive ve pe peda dagog gogy y grou grounde nded d in re resea searc rch h of texts texts an and d contexts. A social take on process It is hazardous to speak of process as a single approach to teaching since, like genr ge nre, e, it is a term term wh whic ich h em embr brac aces es a rang rangee of orie orient ntat atio ions ns and and pr prac acti tice ces. s. At the the he hear artt of this model, however, is the view that writing is a ‘‘non-linear, exploratory, and generative process whereby writers discover and reformulate their ideas as they Zamel el,, 198 1983 3, p. 16 165) 5).. Foll ollo owi wing ng Emig’s (1 (198 983) 3) attemp att emptt to app appro roxim ximate ate mea meanin ning g’’ (Zam description of composing as ‘recursive’, rather than as an uninterrupted, left-toright Pre-writing ! Writing ! Post-writing activity activity,, this paradigm sees writing as essentially individual problem-solving. It thus seeks to construct cognitive models of what writers do when they write, emphasising the complexity of planning, the influence of task, and the value of guiding novices to greater competence by awa awarene reness ss of exper expertt strate strategies gies.. Writ Writing ing in this view is esse essentia ntially lly learnt, learnt, not taug taught, ht, and the teacher’s role is to be non-directive and facilitating, assisting writers to express expr ess thei theirr own mea meanings nings thro through ugh an enc encoura ouraging ging and co-o co-oper perati ative ve en enviro vironme nment nt with minimal interference. In this section I want to consider some limitations of this model from a social perspective before offering a genre response to them. First, Fir st, pr proce ocess ss re repre presen sents ts wri writin ting g as a dec decont ontex extua tualis lised ed skill skill by fo fore regr groun oundin ding g the writer as an isolated individual struggling to express personal meanings. Process approaches are what Bizzell (1992) calls ‘‘ ‘‘inner-directed,’’ where language use is the outcome of individual capacities and writing processes which are ‘‘so fundament me ntal al as to be uni unive vers rsal al..’’ Ba Basi sica call lly y, the the wr writ iter er ne need edss to dr draw aw on ge gene nera rall pr prin inci cipl ples es of th thin inki king ng an and d co comp mpos osin ing g to form formul ulat atee an and d ex expr pres esss hi hiss or he herr idea ideas. s. B But ut w whi hile le this this view directsasus acknowledge cognitive dimensions writing to see the learner antoactive processorthe of information, it neglectsofthe actualand processes of language use. Put simply, there is little systematic understanding of the ways K. Hyland / Journal Journal of Second Language Language Writing Writing 12 (2003) 17–29 19 language langua ge is pat patter terned ned in par partic ticula ularr dom domain ains. s. Fro From m a ge genre nre pe persp rspect ectiv ive, e, on the oth other er hand, han d, peo people ple don’t jus justt wri write te,, the they y wri write te to ac accom compli plish sh dif differ ferent ent pur purpos poses es in different contexts and this involves variation in the ways they use language, not 1994). ). So while process mo models dels can perha perhaps ps expose how universal univer sal rules (Halliday, 1994 somee wri som writer terss wri write, te, the they y do not re reve veal al why the they y ma make ke cer certa tain in lingui linguisti sticc an and d rhetorical choices. As a result, such models do not allow teachers to con fidently advise students on their writing. Second, process models disempower teachers and cast them in the role of wellmeaning bystanders (e.g., Cope & Kalantzis, 1993). 1993). This is a model of learning based on individual motivation, personal freedom, self-expression and learner responsibility, all of which might be stifled by too much teacher intervention. Methods require little of the teacher because they rely on an intuitive understanding of language use, so his or her involvement is reduced to developing students’ metacognitive awareness of their writing processes and responding to writing.. Respo writing Response nse is potent potentially ially the most influential step because this is the point at which overt intervention and explicit language teaching are most likely to occur. Unfortunately, however, in learner-centred classrooms this is necessarily a reacti rea ctive ve and ext extemp empori orised sed sol solutio ution n to lea learne rners rs’ wri writing ting difficultie culties. s. Beca Because use language and rhetorical organisation tend to be things tacked on to the end of the proc proces esss as ‘‘editing,’’ rrath ather er tha than n the cen centra trall res resour ources ces for con constr struct ucting ing meanings, students are offered no way of seeing how different texts are codi fied in distinct and recognisable recognisable ways in terms of their purpose purpose,, audience and message (Macken-Horarik, 2002). 2002). Third, Thi rd, thi thiss ind induc ucti tive ve,, disco discove veryry-bas based ed app appro roach ach to ins instr truct uctio ion n fa fails ils to ma make ke plain plain 1996). ). In process classro classrooms oms students whatt is to be le wha lear arnt nt (e (e.g. .g.,, Feez, 2002; Hasan, 1996 are not typically gi given ven explic explicit it teaching in the str structure ucture of target te text xt types. Instea Instead d they are expected to discover appropriate forms in the process of writing itself, gleaning this knowledge from unanalysed samples of expert writing, from the growing experience of repetition, and from suggestions in the margins of their drafts. This deflects attention from language and presupposes a knowledge of genre outcomes. While well-intentioned, this is a procedure which principally advantages middle class L1 students who, immersed in the values of the cultural Christie stie,, 1996 1996;; mainst mai nstrea ream, m, sha share re the teach teacher er’s fami famili liar arit ity y wi with th ke key y genr genres es (Chri Martin, 1993). 1993). L2 learners commonly do not have access to this cultural resource and so lack knowledge of the typical patterns and possibilities of variation within the texts that possess cultural capital (Cope (Cope & Kalantzis, 1993; 1993; Hasan, 1996). 1996). Delpit (1988 88,, p. 28 287) 7),, wr writ itin ing g from from th thee co cont ntex extt of an Af Afri rica can n Am Amer eric ican an Delpit (19 teacher’s experience, makes a similar argument: [A]dherents to process approaches to writing create situations in which students ultimately find themselves held accountable for knowing a set of rules about which no one has has ever ever directly directly informed informed them. them. Teache Teachers rs do students students no service service to suggest, even implicitly, that ‘ product’ is not important. In this country students will be judged on their product regardless of the process they utilized to achieve it. And that product, based as it is on the specific codes of a particular culture, 20 K. Hyland / Journal Journal of Secon Second d Lang Language uage Writing 12 (2003) (2003) 17–29 is more readily produced when the directives of how to produce it are made explicit. Students outside the mainstream, therefore, find themselves in an invisible curriculum, denied access to the sources of understanding they need to succeed. Thrown back on their own resources, they are forced to draw on the discourse conventions of their own cultures and may fail to produce texts that are either contextually adequate or educationally valued. A relate related d difficu culty lty is that that proc proces esss pe peda dagog gogie iess also also dr draw aw heav heavily ily on inac inacce cessi ssibl blee cultural knowledge in their instructional practices and in the concepts which than n and Atk Atkinso inson n (19 (1999) 99),, for in info form rm ju judg dgem emen ents ts of go good od wr writ itin ing. g. Ramana Ramanatha instance, point to the role that hidden mainstream US values play in process methods. Key principles which originated in L1 classrooms such as personal voice, peer review, critical thinking, and textual ownership tacitly incorporate an ideology of individualism which L2 learners may have serious trouble accessing. So, once once aga again, in, whi while le suc such h cru crucia ciall cul cultur turall ally y spe speci cific norms of thought and expression in process classrooms may be unreflectively transparent for mainstream American undergraduates, they may not always be recognised or accepted by students from cultures less entrenched in the ideology of individualism. A fi nal point I want to make about process models of learning concerns their lack of engagement with the socio-political realities of students’ everyday lives and target situations. In process methodologies personal growth and self-actualisation lisa tion are cor coree lea learni rning ng pri princi nciples ples,, as wri writer terss de devel velop op confiden dence ce and sel selffawareness in the process of reflecting on their ideas and their writing. But while this approach responds to the individual needs and personalities of learners, it offe offers rs th them em litt little le by wa way y of the the re reso sour urces ces to pa part rtici icipa pate te in, in, un unde ders rsta tand nd,, or challenge valued discourses (e.g., Hasan, 1996; Martin, 1993). 1993). It leaves students innocent of the valued ways of acting and being in society, despite the fact that they need ways to manage the appropriate linguistic and rhetorical tools to both gain access to the powerful genres of mainstream culture and the means to Hammon mond d and Ma Macke cken-H n-Hora orarik rik (19 (1999) 99) argue cond co nduct uct a criti critica call ap appr prai aisa sall of them them.. Ham that an effective critical literacy in English must presuppose control of mainstream literacy practices. Importantly, however, process models fail to introduce students to the cultural and linguistic resources necessary for them to engage critically with texts. I should hasten tto o point out h here ere tha thatt I raise tthese hese issu issues es not to conde condemn mn proc process ess approaches or to criticise the many teachers who implement learner-centeredness in th thei eirr cl clas assr sroo ooms ms.. Prog Progre ress ssiv ivee pe peda dagog gogie iess ha have ve done done much much to in info form rm the the teaching of writing by moving us away from grammar practice and authoritarian teaching roles to facilitate more equal, respectful and interactive relationships in settings that value reflection and negotiation. I have simply tried to highlight the prob proble lems ms po pose sed d by an appr approa oach ch un unin info form rmed ed by an ex expl plic icit it the theor ory y of ho how w langu languag agee works or the ways that social context affects linguistic outcomes. These are areas where genre-based models have made their strongest impact. Put simply, social K. Hyland / Journal Journal of Second Language Language Writing Writing 12 (2003) 17–29 21 theorists argue that beca theorists because use proce process ss approa approaches ches emph emphasise asise indi individual vidual cogni cognition tion at the expense of language use, they fail to offer any clear standpoint on the social 1987). ). nature of writing (Martin, (Martin, Christie & Rothery, 1987 From a social perspective, a writer ’s choices are always context-dependent, motiv mot ivate ated d by va varia riation tionss in soc social ial act activ ivity ity,, in wri writer ter–rea reader der rel relati ations, ons, and by constraints on the progress of the interaction. As a result, teachers cannot expect weak writers to improve simply by equipping them with the strategies of good writers. Not only are such strategies only part of the process, but they too are likely to vary with context. Instead, we need to explore ways of scaffolding students’ learning and using knowledge of language to guide them towards a conscious consci ous understa understanding nding of target genre genress and the ways langua language ge create createss meanings in context. This is the goal of genre pedagogies. A brief overview of genre Genre refers to abstract, socially recognised ways of using language. It is based on the assumptions that the features of a similar group of texts depend on the social context of their creation and use, and that those features features can be described in a wa way y th thaat relat elatees a text text to othe otherrs like like it and to th thee cho hoic icees and const onstra rain ints ts ac acti ting ng on text producers. Language is seen as embedded in (and constitutive of) social realities, since it is through recurrent use of conventionalised forms that individuals develop relationships, establish communities, and get things done. Genre theorists, therefore, locate participant relationships at the heart of language use and assume that every successful text will display the writer ’s awareness of its context and the readers who form part of that context. Genres, then, are ‘‘the effects of the action of individual social agents acting both within the bounds of their history and the constraints of particular contexts, and with a knowledge of existing generic types’’ (Kress, 1989, 1989, p. 10, Kress’s emphasis). It is customary to identify three broad, overlapping schools of genre theory (Hyon, 1996; Johns, 2002). 2002). The New Rhetor Rhetoric ic appr approach oach, influenced by poststructuralism structu ralism,, rhetor rhetoric ic and first lan langua guage ge com compos positio ition, n, studie studiess gen genre re ‘‘as the motivated, functional relationship between text type and rhetorical situation’’ (Coe, 2002, 2002, p. 195). The focus here is mainly on the rhetorical contexts in which genres are employed rather than detailed analyses of text elements (e.g., Freedman & Medway, 1994). 1994). The ESP approach is more linguistic in orientation and sees genre as a class of structured communicative events employed by specific discourse communities whose members share broad social purposes (Swales, ( Swales, 1990,pp.45 1990 ,pp.45–47 47). ). Th Theese pu purp rpos osees are are the the ratio ationa nale le of a ge genr nree and help help to shap shapee th thee ways wa ys it is st stru ruct ctur ured ed an and d the the ch choi oice cess of co cont nten entt an and d styl stylee it ma make kess av avai aila labl blee (Johns, 1997). 1997 ). A third orientation is based on Halliday’s (1994) Systemic Functional Linguistics (SFL). Known in the US as the ‘‘Sydney School’’ (e.g., Hyon, 1996; Johns, Joh ns, 200 2002 2), this this mo mode dell of ge genr nree stre stresse ssess the the pu purp rpos osef eful, ul, inte intera ract ctiv ive, e, and and sequential character of different genres and the ways language is systematically 22 K. Hyland / Journal Journal of Secon Second d Lang Language uage Writing 12 (2003) (2003) 17–29 linked to context through patterns of lexico-grammatical and rhetorical features (Christie & Martin, 1997). 1997). While these approaches are united by a common attempt to describe and explai exp lain n re regula gularit rities ies of pur purpose pose,, for form, m, and situ situate ated d social social action action,, the they y clea clearly rly dif differ fer in the emphasis they give to text or context, the research methods they employ, and the types of pedagogies they encourage (Hyland, ( Hyland, 2002a) 2002a).. New Rhetoric, with its emphasis on the socia socially lly constructe constructed d nature of genre, has helped unpack some of the complex relations between text and context and the ways that one reshapes the other. But while New Rhetoric underlines that literacy is not the monolithic competence it is often perceived to be, its contribution to L2 writing instruction hass be ha been en mini minima mal. l. Au Austr stral alia ian n an and d ES ESP P ge genr nree theo theori rist sts, s, ho howe weve verr, ha have ve been been clos closely ely engaged with issues of L2 teaching, and unswerving in their efforts to provide students with a knowledge of relevant genres so they can act effectively in their targett contex targe contexts. ts. ESP genre approaches have perhaps had the most in fluence on L2 writing instruction worldwide, grounding teaching in a solid research base and drawing strength from an eclectic set of pedagogies and linguistic theories. SFL, however, perhaps off perhaps offers ers the most theoretica theoretically lly sophisti sophisticated cated and pedag pedagogicall ogically y dev developed eloped approach of the three, underpinned by a highly evolved and insightful theory of language and motivated by a commitment to language and literacy education. Basically, Halliday’s theory systematically links language to its contexts of use, study studyin ing g ho how w langu languag agee var arie iess from from on onee co conte ntext xt to an anot othe herr and, and, with within in that that variation, the underlying patterns which organise texts so they are culturally and sociall soc ially y rec recogni ognised sed as per perfor forming ming par partic ticular ular fun functi ctions. ons. The explor explorati ation on and description of these patterns and their variations has been the focus of genre theory and the resources it exploits to provide disadvantaged learners with access to the cultural capital of socially valued genres. A genre view of language and writing Genree th Genr theo eory ry seek seekss to (i) (i) un unde ders rsta tand nd the the wa ways ys ind indiv ivid idua uals ls use use lang langua uage ge to or orie ient nt to and interpret particula particularr communicat communicative ive situation situations, s, and (ii) emplo employ y this knowledge for literacy education. This second purpose complements research in the cross-disciplinary movement known as the New Literacy Studies, which stresses th that at al alll wr writi iting ng is sit situa uate ted d an and d ind indic icat ativ ivee of broa broade derr so soci cial al pr prac acti tice cess (e (e.g .g., ., Ba Bart rton on & Hamilton, 1998). 1998). Basically, genres are rhetorical actions that writers draw on to respond to perceived repeated situations; they are choices which represent effective ways of getting things done in familiar contexts. Some genre theorists have, therefore, sought to identify the recognisable structural identity, or ‘‘generic integrity,’’ of particular and workplace genresmove in terms of their (Bhatia, rhetorical structures)academic and the constraints on typical sequences (stages 1999 Bhatia,(or 1999; ; Butt, Fahey, Feez, Spinks, & Yalop et al., 2000). 2000). Another research direction has looked K. Hyland / Journal Journal of Second Language Language Writing Writing 12 (2003) 17–29 23 at lan langua guage ge va varia riation tion across gen genres res and the res resour ources ces av avail ailable able for cre creati ating ng 2001). ). This research attempts to meanings in a culture (Hunston (Hunston & Thompson, 2001 show how clusters of register, style, lexis, and other features reflect the diff differen erentt personal and institutional purposes of writers, the different assumptions they make ma ke ab abou outt th thei eirr au audi dien ence ces, s, an and d the the diff differ eren entt ki kind ndss of inte intera ract ctio ions ns they they cr crea eate te wi with th their readers. As a result, a lot more is known about the ways writers frame their ideas for particular readers, construct an appropriate authorial self, and negotiate 1999; 9; Hyl Hyland and,, 2000 2000,, 200 2002b, 2b, participant partic ipant relat relationshi ionships ps in writin writing g (e.g. (e.g.,, Bondi, Bondi, 199 2002c; Thompson, 2001). 2001). One important assumption made by genre adherents is that writing is dialogic (Bakhtin, 1986), 1986), both because it presupposes and responds to an active audience, and because it involves a plurality of voices through links to other texts. Writing in involv volves es dra drawin wing g on the tex texts ts we typ typica ically lly enc encount ounter er and are fam familia iliarr with with.. Conseq Con sequen uently tly,, the con concep cepts ts of int intert ertext extual uality ity and inte interdi rdiscur scursiv sivity ity (Bakhtin, 1986)) have been extremely influential in genre theory. One influence has been 1986 that analysts are not simply concerned with describing text similarities, but with exploring the contextual constraints on allowable con figurations. Variation is just as important as similarity similarity because texts spread along a continu continuum um of approx approximaimation to core genre examples, with varying options and restrictions operating in 1990). ). Genre research, thus, extends beyond texts to the particular cases (Swales, (Swales, 1990 sites sit es wher wheree rela relatio tionsh nship ipss can can faci facilit litat atee an and d co const nstra rain in co comp mpos osin ing g an and d to the the 2000). ). discourse communities in which texts will be used and judged (Hyland, ( Hyland, 2000 Discourse community is a concept central to genre views of writing as it is a powerful metaphor joining writers, texts and readers in a particular discursive space (Porter, (Porter, 1992; Swales, 1990, 1998 1998). ). While often criticised as altogether too structuralist, static, and deterministic, the notion of discourse community foregrounds the socially situated nature of genre and helps illuminate something of what writers and readers bring to a text, implying a certain degree of intercommunity diversity and intra-community homogeneity in generic forms. Genre theory has, therefore, often relied on some sense of ‘‘discourse community’’ to acco account unt fo forr this this kind kind of va vari riat atio ion, n, seek seekin ing g to dr draw aw on its ex expl plan anat ator ory y an and d predict pre dictive ive aut author hority ity wit withou houtt fra framing ming com commun munitie itiess as uto utopia piass of shared shared and agreed agr eed-up -upon on va value luess and con conven vention tions. s. Whi While le res reserv ervati ations ons abo about ut the concep conceptt pers pe rsist ist,, it is cu curr rren ently tly the the mo most st usef useful ul tool tool av avai aila labl blee to ex expl plai ain n the the sit situa uated ted cognition required for interpretation and engagement. Communities are where genres make sense; they are the systems where the multiple beliefs and practices of text users overlap and intersect (Swales, (Swales, 1998 1998). ). It is al also so wo wort rth h me menti ntion onin ing g he here re that that wh whil ilee pr proc oces esss an and d genr genree ar aree of ofte ten n contrasted in terms of their views of writer creativity, genres are not overbearing structures which impose uniformity on users. There is huge potential for internal heterogeneity of genres, and issues of unity and identity are frequently raised in the literature. literature. The fact that langua language ge users routin routinely ely and unreflectively recognise similarities and differences between texts with sufficient agreement to successfully negotiate and interpret meanings is itself highly significant. Our abstract, 24 K. Hyland / Journal Journal of Secon Second d Lang Language uage Writing 12 (2003) (2003) 17–29 more-or-less shared knowledge of texts, intertextuality, audience, and standard purposes makes writing and reading efficient and contributes to mutual understan standi ding ng.. Genr Genres es he help lp unit unitee the so soci cial al and the the co cogn gniti itive ve beca because use they they ar aree cent centra rall to how ho w writ writer erss un unde ders rsta tand, nd, co cons nstr truct uct,, an and d re repr prod oduc ucee thei theirr so soci cial al real realit itie ies. s. Bu Butt wh while ile a sh shar ared ed sens sensee of ge genr nree is ne need eded ed to acco accomp mplis lish h und under erst stan andin ding, g, it is no nott ne nece cessa ssary ry to assume that these are fixed, monolithic, discrete and unchanging. Genre and second language literacy GenreGenr e-ba based sed pe peda dagog gogie iess rest rest on the idea idea that that liter literac acie iess ar aree co comm mmun unity ity resources which are realised in social relationships, rather than the property of individual writers struggling with personal expression. This view offers writing teachers a radical new perspective on what they do, for the na¨ıı̈ve assumptions that writing, and teaching writing, are somehow neutral, value-free activities are no longer defensible. It encourages us to acknowledge that literacies are situated and multiple — po posi siti tion oned ed in rela relatio tion n to the the so socia ciall insti institu tuti tions ons an and d powe powerr rela relatio tions ns that that sustain them. Expressed most simply, writing is used in many ways across many social contexts, but only some of these have institutional and cultural stature. It is nott the no the ca case se th that at all all ge genr nres es are are cr crea eate ted d eq equa ual, l, be beca caus usee th theey ar aree asso associ ciat ated ed with with,, an and d ar aree used used to regu regula late te en entr try y into into,, so socia ciall co comm mmun unit itie iess pos posse sess ssin ing g mo more re or less less prestige and influence. The question of access to, and production of, valued texts is cent centra rall to th thee no noti tion onss of po powe werr an and d co cont ntro roll in mo mode dern rn soci societ ety y, an and d unde underl rlin ines es th thee genre theorist’s emphasis on which genres should be taught. What this means is that writing cannot be distilled down to a set of cognitive processes. Genre knowledge is important to students’ understanding of their L2 envir en viron onme ment nts, s, an and d cruc crucia iall to the their ir life life ch chan ance cess in thos thosee en envir viron onme ment nts. s. The teaching of key genres is, therefore, a means of helping learners gain access to wa ways ys of co comm mmuni unica cati ting ng tha thatt ha have ve accr accrue ued d cu cult ltur ural al capit capital al in pa part rtic icul ular ar professional, academic, and occupational communities. By making the genres of power visible and attainable through explicit instruction, genre pedagogies se seek ek to demy demyst stif ify y the the kind kindss of wr writ itin ing g that that wi will ll en enha hanc ncee lear learne ners rs’ career opport opp ortuni unitie tiess and pro provid videe acc access ess to a gre greate aterr ran range ge of life life cho choice ices. s. Without ithout the resources to understand these genres, students in university and W WAC AC contexts will wi ll co conti ntinu nuee to find thei theirr ow own n wr writi iting ng prac practi tice cess rega regard rded ed mere merely ly as fail failed ed attempts to approximate prestigious forms (Johns, (Johns, 1997). 1997). For some critics, however, providing L2 students with more effective access to th thee do domi mina nant nt ge genr nres es of ou ourr cu cult ltur uree do does es no noth thin ing g to ch chan ange ge the the po powe werr stru struct ctur ures es that that support them, or to challenge the social inequalities which are maintained through 2001).. Luke (1996, (1996, p. 314), for example, exclusion from them (e.g., Benesch, 2001) writes: A sa sali lien entt cr crit itici icism sm of the the ‘gen genre re model model’ is th that at its its emph emphas asis is on the di dire rect ct transmission of text types does not necessarily lead on to a critical reappraisal K. Hyland / Journal Journal of Second Language Language Writing Writing 12 (2003) 17–29 25 of that disciplinary corpus, its field or its related institutions, but rather may lend itself to an uncritical reproduction of discipline. Thus, teac Thus, teachi hing ng ge genr nres es ma may y on only ly repr reprod oduc ucee the the do domi mina nant nt dis disco cour urse sess of the the powerful and the social relations which they construct and maintain. A similar charge could, of course, be levelled at process and other pedagogies which simply perpetuate inequalities by failing to provide students with better 1996). ). In fact, learning about genres does access to powerful genres (e.g., Hasan, 1996 not preclude critical analysis but provides a necessary basis for critical engagement with cultur cultural al and textual practice practices. s. As Bakhtin (1986, (1986, p. 80) has suggested, writers must be able to control the genres they use before they can exploit them. (1999, p. 529) make this point forcefully: Hammond and Macken-Horarik (1999, Systematic discussion of language choices in text construction and the development of metalanguage — that is, of functional ways of talking and thinking about language — facilitate facilitatess critical critical analysis. analysis. It helps students see written texts as constructs that can be discussed in quite precise and explicit ways and that can therefore be analysed, compared, criticised, deconstructed, and reconstructed. In other words, to fail to provide learners with what we know about how language works as communication denies them both the means of communicating effectively in writing and of analysing texts critically. Genre approaches seem to offer the most effective means for learners to both Hasan, 1996). accesss and critique cultural and lingui acces linguistic stic resources ((Hasan, 1996). By providing learners learne rs with an explicit rhetoric rhetorical al understand understanding ing of texts and a metala metalanguage nguage by which to analyse them, genre teachers can assist students to see texts as artifacts that can be explicitly questioned, compared, and deconstructed, thereby revealing their underlying assumptions and ideologies. To sum up, from a genre perspective writing is not an abstract activity, but a social practice. What is considered good writing, appropriate engagement, convincing vincin g argum argument ent,, effe effect ctiv ivee per persua suasio sion, n, and creat creativ ivee ex expr press ession ion does does not depen depend d on master mas tery y of uni unive versa rsall pro proce cesse sses, s, but va varie riess fr from om one com commu munit nity y con conte text xt to the ne next. xt. By focusing on the literacy practices writers encounter at school, at work, and at unive uni vers rsity ity,, gen genre re pe pedag dagogi ogies es hel help p the them m to dis distin tingui guish sh dif diffe fere rence ncess and pr provi ovide de them them with wit h a mea means ns of con concep ceptua tualis lising ing the their ir va vari ried ed expe experi rient entia iall fra frame mewo works rks.. Hig Highl hligh ightin ting g variability thus helps undermine a deficit view which sees writing difficulties as learne lea rnerr we weakn akness esses es and whi which ch misre misrepre presen sents ts wri writin ting g as a uni unive vers rsal, al, nat natura uralis lised ed and and non-contestable way of participating in communities. Genre-based pedagogies Genre Gen re no nott onl only y pre presen sents ts teach teachers ers and stu stude dents nts wit with h a dif differ ferent ent vie view w of wri writin ting, g, bu butt also with a distinct set of teaching practices. In contrast to process models, genrebased bas ed ped pedag agogi ogies es suppo support rt lear learner nerss wit within hin a co conte ntextu xtual al fr fram amew ework ork fo forr wri writin ting g wh which ich 26 K. Hyland / Journal Journal of Secon Second d Lang Language uage Writing 12 (2003) (2003) 17–29 foregrounds the meanings and text-types at stake in a situation. At their core, these methods offer writers an explicit understanding of how texts in target genres are stru struct ctur ured ed an and d wh why y the they ar aree wr writ itte ten n in the the wa ways ys the they ar are. e. To cr crea eate te a we wellll-fo form rmed ed an and d effec effecti tive ve te text, xt, stu stude dents nts ne need ed to kno know w the lexic lexico-g o-gra ramm mmat atic ical al pat patter terns ns wh which ich typically occur in its different stages, and the teacher’s task is to assist students towards a command of this through an awareness of target genres and an explicit grammar of linguistic choices. Providing writers with a knowledge of grammar shifts writing instruction from the implicit and exploratory to a conscious manipulation of language and choice. Inside Ins ide gen genre re cla classr ssroom oomss a ran range ge of me metho thods ds are em emplo ploye yed. d. These These inc includ ludee investigating the texts and contexts of students’ tar target get situations, encouraging reflection on writing practices, exploiting genre sets, and creating mixed-genre Johns hns,, 199 1997; 7; Pa Paltr ltridg idge, e, 200 2001 1). In SF SFL L ap appr proa oach ches es the the teac teachi hing ng–learning portfo por tfolio lioss (Jo process is typically seen as a cycle which takes writers through modelling, joint negotiation, and independent construction, allowing students different points of entry and enabling teachers to systematically expand the meanings students can create cre ate (e.g (e.g., ., Feez, Feez, 2002 2002). ). Thi Thiss mod model el rep repres resent entss a ‘‘visi visible ble peda pedagogy gogy’’ in whic which h wh what at is to be learned and assessed is made clear to students, as opposed to the invisible pedagogy of process approaches (e.g., Delpit, 1988) 1988).. The the theore oretica ticall und underp erpinn inning ing of thi thiss ped pedago agogic gical al app approa roach ch is pro provid vided ed by Vygotsky’s (1978) emphasis on the interactive collaboration between teacher and student, with the teacher taking an authoritative role to ‘‘scaffold’’ or support learners as they move towards their potential level of performance. This scaffolding is most evident at the early stages of learning a genre where the teacher contributes contri butes what learners cannot do alone. The teacher interve intervenes nes at this stage to mode mo dell an and d dis discu cuss ss text texts, s, de deco cons nstr truc uctin ting g an and d an analy alysi sing ng the their ir lang langua uage ge and and struct str ucture ure.. Thi Thiss supp support ort is str strate ategic gicall ally y dimi diminis nished hed as stud student entss pro progre gress, ss, wit with h teachers and learners sharing responsibility in the joint negotiation and construction tio n of text texts, s, of ofte ten n throu through gh seve severa rall draf drafts ts an and d wi with th pe peer er assis assista tanc nce, e, un until til the the lear learne nerr has the knowledge and skills to perform independently. Here is an approach to writ wr itin ing g in inst struc ructio tion n wi with th a centr central al role role for for bo both th langu languag agee an and d teac teache hers. rs. It is teac teachi hing ng wh whic ich h su supp ppor orts ts L2 stude students nts wi with th an ex expl plic icit it pe peda dagog gogy y and and whic which h presupposes little prior understanding of cultural practices. Genre pedagogies assume that writing instruction will be more successful if students are aware of what target discourses look like, but it is this reproductive elem el emen entt wh whic ich h pro proce cess ss ad adhe here rents nts ha have ve be been en m most ost cr criti itica cal. l. Th Thee ar argum gumen entt is that that the the explicit teaching of genres imposes restrictive formulae which can straightjacket creativity through conformity and prescriptivism; that genres might be taught as moulds into which content is poured, rather than as ways of making meanings (e.g., Dixon, 1987; Raimes, 1991). 1991). There is always some danger of reifying genres with a text-intensive focus, as inexperienced or unimaginative teachers may fail to acknowledge variation and choice, applying what Freedman Freedman and Medway (1994, (1994, p. 46) calls ‘‘ ‘‘a recipe theory of genre’’ so that students see genres as ‘how-to-do’ lists. Obviously the dangers of a static, decontextualised pedagogy K. Hyland / Journal Journal of Second Language Language Writing Writing 12 (2003) 17–29 27 exist and must be guarded against, but there is nothing inherently prescriptive in a genr ge nree ap appr proa oach ch.. I can can see see no reas reason on wh why y prov provid idin ing g stud studen ents ts wi with th an unde unders rsta tand ndin ing g of discourse should be any more prescriptive than, say, providing them with a description of a clause, or even of stages in a writing process. In sum, genre is a socially informed theory of language offering an authoritativ itat ivee ped pedago agogy gy gro ground unded ed in res resear earch ch on tex texts ts and context contexts, s, stro strongl ngly y com commit mitted ted to empowering students to participate effectively in target situations. Genre pedagogy pedagog y is buttre buttressed ssed by the belief that learn learning ing is best accompl accomplished ished through explicit awareness of language, rather than through experiment and exploration, but this does not mean replacing communicative practices with teacher-centred ones. There is nothing here that excludes the familiar tools of the process teacher’s trade. Genre simply requires that they be used in the transparent, languag lang uage-r e-rich ich,, and supp support ortiv ivee con contex texts ts whi which ch will mos mostt eff effect ectiv ively ely help stud student entss to mean. Conclusion Genre is, in part, a social social response to proc process. ess. It suggest suggestss that because writin writing g is a means of connecting people with each other in ways that carry particular social meanings, it cannot be only a set of cognitive abilities. The process of writing is a rich collection of elements of which cognition is only one, and to understand it fully and to teach it effectively we need to include in this mix the writer ’s experiences together with a sense of self, of others, of situation, of purpose and — abov ab ovee al alll — of the lin lingu guis istic tic resou resourc rces es to ad addr dres esss thes thesee ef effe fect ctiv ivel ely y in so soci cial al acti action on.. Writing is a basic resource for constructing our relationships with others and for unders und erstan tanding ding our exp experi erienc encee of the wor world, ld, aand nd as suc such h gen genre re iiss cen centra trally lly in invol volved ved in th thee wa ways ys we n neg egot otia iate te,, co cons nstr truc uct, t, an and d ch chan ange ge ou ourr un unde derst rstan andi ding ng of our so soci ciet etie iess (1987,, p. 30) has observed, ‘‘Learning the genres of and ourselves. As Christie (1987 one both partability of entering into it. it’’with understanding, and part of ’s culture developing theisnecessary to change References Bakhtin, M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays . Austin: University of Texas Press. Barton, D., & Hamilton, M. (1998). Local literacies. London: Routledge. Benesch, S. (2001). Critical English for academic purposes: Theory, politics and practice . Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Bhatia, V. K. (1999). Integrating products, processes and participants in professional writing. In C. N. Candli Can dlin n & K. Hyl Hyland and (Eds.) (Eds.),, Writing Writing:: Texts, pr processes ocesses and pract practices ices (pp (pp.. 21–39). London: London: Longman. Academi emic c dis discou course rse and crit critica icall conscio consciousn usness ess. Pit Bizzel Biz zell, l, P. (1992) (1992).. Acad Pittsb tsbur urgh gh:: Uni Univer versit sity y of Pittsburgh Press. Bondi, M. (1999) Bondi, (1999).. Eng English lish acr across oss genr genres: Lan Langua guage ge variat variation ion in the discou discourse rse of econom economics ics. Modena: Edizioni Il Fiorino. 28 K. Hyland / Journal Journal of Secon Second d Lang Language uage Writing 12 (2003) (2003) 17–29 functional nal gramma grammar: r: An Butt, D., Fahey, Butt, Fahey, R., Feez, S., Spinks, Spinks, S., & Yalop, alop, C. (2000) (2000).. Using functio explorer ’s guide (2nd ed.). Sydney: NCELTR. Christie, F. (1987). Genres as choice. In I. Reid (Ed.), The place of genre in learning: Current debates (pp. 22–34). Deakin: Deakin University Press. Christie, F. (1996). The role of a functional grammar in development of a critical literacy. In G. Bull & M. Anstey (Eds.), The literacy lexicon (pp. 46–57). Sydney: Prentice-Hall. Genre in institutions: Social processes in the workplace Christie, F., & Martin, J. R. (Eds.). (1997). and school. New York: Continuum. Coe, R. M. (2002). The new rhetoric of genre: Writing political briefs. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom (pp. 195–205). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (Eds.). (1993). The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing. Bristol, PA: Falmer Press. Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people ’s children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280–298. Dixon, J. (1987). The question of genres. In I. Reid (Ed.), The place of genre in learning: Current debates (pp. 9–21). Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Emig, J. (1983). The web of meaning. Upper Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook. Feez, S. (2002). Heritage and innovation in second language education. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom (pp. 47–68). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Freedman, A., & Medway, P. (Eds.). (1994). Genre and the new rhetoric . London: Taylor & Francis. Hallid Hal liday ay,, M. A. K. (1994) (1994).. An introducti introduction on to functional functional grammar grammar (2n (2nd d ed.). London: Edward Arnold. Hammond, J., & Macken-Horarik, M. (1999). Critical literacy: Challenges and questions for ESL classrooms. TESOL Quarterly, 33, 528–544. Hasan, R. (1996). Literacy, everyday talk and society. In R. Hasan & G. Williams (Eds.). Literacy in society (pp. 377–424). London: Longman. Hunston, S., & Thompson, G. (Eds.). (2001). Evaluation in text: Authorial stance in the construction of discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hyland Hyl and,, K. (2000) (2000).. Disci Disciplin plinary ary dis discou course rses: s: Social Social inte intera ractio ctions ns in academ academic ic writing writing. London London:: Longman. Hyland, K. (2002a). Genre: Language, context and literacy. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics , 22, 113–135. Hyland, K. (2002b). Directives: Argument and engagement in academic writing. Applied Linguistics, 23, 215–239. Hyland, K. (2002c). Authority and invisibility: Authorial identity in academic writing. Journal of Pragmatics, 34, 1091–1112. Hyon, S. (1996). Genre in three traditions: Implications for ESL. TESOL Quarterly, 30, 693–722. Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role and context: Developing academic literacies . Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Johns, A.M. (2002). Genre and ESL/EFL composition instruction. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Exploring the dynamics of second language writing. New York: Cambridge University Press. Kress, G. (1989). Linguistic processes in sociocultural practice . Oxford: Oxford University Press. Luke, A. (1996). Genres of power? Literacy education and the production of capital. In R. Hasan & A. G. Williams (Eds.), Literacy in society (pp. 308–338). London: Longman. Macken-Horarik, M. (2002). ‘ Something to shoot for’: A systemic functional approach to teaching genre in secondary school science. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom (pp. 21–46). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Martin, J. (1993). Genre and literacy — modelling context in educational linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 13, 141–172. Martin, J., Christie, F., & Rothery, J (1987). Social processes in education: A reply to Sawyer and Watson (and others). In I. Reid (Ed.), The place of genre in learning: Current debates (pp. 35–45). Geelong,, Australia: Geelong Australia: Deakin Universit University y Press. K. Hyland / Journal Journal of Second Language Language Writing Writing 12 (2003) 17–29 29 Paltridge, B. (2001). Genre, text type and the English for Academic Purposes (EAP) classroom. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom (pp. 69–88). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Porter, J. (1992). Audience and rhetoric: An archaeological composition of the discourse community . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Raimes Rai mes,, A. (1991) (1991).. Out of the woods woods:: Emerg Emerging ing tradit tradition ionss in the tea teachi ching ng of wri writin ting. g. TESOL Quarterly, 25, 407–430. Journal Ramanathan, V., & Atkinson, D. (1999). Individualism, academic writing, and ESL writers. of Second Language Writing, 8, 45–75. Genre re An Anal alys ysis: is: En Engl glish ish in acad academ emic ic and and rese resear arch ch setti setting ngss. Cambri Swales Swa les,, J. (1990) (1990).. Gen Cambridge dge:: Cambridge University Press. Swales, J. (1998). Other floors, other voices: voices: A textog textograph raphy y of a small university university building. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Thompson, G. (2001). Interaction in academic writing: Learning to argue with the reader. Applied Linguistics, 22, 58–78. Mind d in socie society ty:: Th The e deve develo lopm pmen entt of hi high gher er psyc psycho holo logi gica call proc proces esses ses. Vygots Vyg otsky ky,, L. (1978) (1978).. Min Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Zamel, V. (1983). The composing processes of advanced ESL students: Six case studies. TESOL Quarterly, 17, 165–187.
