Texts:
Devitt, “A Theory of Genre” (p. 54-65)
Bazerman, "Speech Acts, Genres, and Activity Systems"
Yates & Orlikowski, "Genre Systems: Structuring Interaction through Communicative Norms"
One thing that really interested me in today’s readings was continuing the definition of what is associated with genre. However, this time it was not about what genre is, but rather about what a “genre system” is and whether genre sets constitute these genre systems or “genre repertoires” instead. Devitt defines a genre set as “the set of all existing genres in a society or culture” (54). However, at the same time, intertextuality is very important because “the development of a genre always requires at least two actions for recurrence and typification to be perceived” (55). Thus, there are two different kinds of sets of genres. First is the “genre system.” Devitt calls his a “set of genres interacting to achieve an overarching function within an activity system” (56). The second is the “genre repertoires” or in other words the “set of genres that a group owns, acting through which a group achieves all of its purposes, not just those connected to particular activity” (57).
Furthermore, the piece by Yates and Orlikowski talks about defining genre in a similar way to all of the other readings we have read thus far. It discusses genre as a social action, influencing, and as an organizational structure. However, it also mentions genre as a system that is linked and able to promote communication. The authors illustrate this through some case examples. The define genre systems as “sequences of interrelated communicative actions deliberately or habitually” to structure collaboration or as “series of genres comprising a social activity and enacted by all the parties involved” (13, 16). They relate this directly to six areas connected to communication: “purpose (why), content (what), participants (who/m), form (how), time (when), and place (where)” (13). Because “genres are linked or networked together in a way that constitutes a more coordinated communicative process” they are associated with communication; thus, in the workplace genre systems can serve as “important means of structuring collaborative work both tacitly as habitual mechanisms and explicitly as deliberate devices” (14, 15). Thus, in the workplace, “enacting genre systems… habitually is an efficient and easy way for team members to coordinate their actions…” (32). Furthermore, the six dimensions around which genre systems carry expectations are able to “provide a helpful way of understanding changes in communicative interaction associated with adoption and use of new electronic media” (33).
Again, I feel like the definition of genre is further confused. This time, although, it is not genre we are contesting about, but instead our discussion of the sets that genres can take. Are genres only able to act in sets or do they constitute systems or repertoires? Is this more effective than describing them in the context of working with activity systems? If so, is this only in the workplace or does it work in other areas? How many ways can we use genre to explain our daily lives? Is it this that actually makes us more effective in certain areas or are we just using it as a method to explain what we think is happening? I think that the debate surrounding the definition of genres and the way they work is very interesting. How we define genres and their abilities affect how we perceive their influences and ability to permeate our societies, actions and lives.
Devitt, “A Theory of Genre” (p. 54-65)
Bazerman, "Speech Acts, Genres, and Activity Systems"
Yates & Orlikowski, "Genre Systems: Structuring Interaction through Communicative Norms"
One thing that really interested me in today’s readings was continuing the definition of what is associated with genre. However, this time it was not about what genre is, but rather about what a “genre system” is and whether genre sets constitute these genre systems or “genre repertoires” instead. Devitt defines a genre set as “the set of all existing genres in a society or culture” (54). However, at the same time, intertextuality is very important because “the development of a genre always requires at least two actions for recurrence and typification to be perceived” (55). Thus, there are two different kinds of sets of genres. First is the “genre system.” Devitt calls his a “set of genres interacting to achieve an overarching function within an activity system” (56). The second is the “genre repertoires” or in other words the “set of genres that a group owns, acting through which a group achieves all of its purposes, not just those connected to particular activity” (57).
Furthermore, the piece by Yates and Orlikowski talks about defining genre in a similar way to all of the other readings we have read thus far. It discusses genre as a social action, influencing, and as an organizational structure. However, it also mentions genre as a system that is linked and able to promote communication. The authors illustrate this through some case examples. The define genre systems as “sequences of interrelated communicative actions deliberately or habitually” to structure collaboration or as “series of genres comprising a social activity and enacted by all the parties involved” (13, 16). They relate this directly to six areas connected to communication: “purpose (why), content (what), participants (who/m), form (how), time (when), and place (where)” (13). Because “genres are linked or networked together in a way that constitutes a more coordinated communicative process” they are associated with communication; thus, in the workplace genre systems can serve as “important means of structuring collaborative work both tacitly as habitual mechanisms and explicitly as deliberate devices” (14, 15). Thus, in the workplace, “enacting genre systems… habitually is an efficient and easy way for team members to coordinate their actions…” (32). Furthermore, the six dimensions around which genre systems carry expectations are able to “provide a helpful way of understanding changes in communicative interaction associated with adoption and use of new electronic media” (33).
Again, I feel like the definition of genre is further confused. This time, although, it is not genre we are contesting about, but instead our discussion of the sets that genres can take. Are genres only able to act in sets or do they constitute systems or repertoires? Is this more effective than describing them in the context of working with activity systems? If so, is this only in the workplace or does it work in other areas? How many ways can we use genre to explain our daily lives? Is it this that actually makes us more effective in certain areas or are we just using it as a method to explain what we think is happening? I think that the debate surrounding the definition of genres and the way they work is very interesting. How we define genres and their abilities affect how we perceive their influences and ability to permeate our societies, actions and lives.
No comments:
Post a Comment