Rationality of Genre.docx

Rationality of Genre.docx

《Rationality of Genre.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Rationality of Genre.docx（14页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

RationalityofGenre

RationalityofGenre

ZongjieWuZhejiangUniversity

Abstract:

Thispaperelaboratesthenotionofrationalityofgenrewithaconcreteresearchfocusonaninstanceofinnovativecurriculumtalk.Itshowshowvarioussocialreasonssituatedinthenetworkofsocialpracticesarerecontextualisedasthelocalpedagogicaldiscoursethroughrecombiningdifferentdisembeddedgenres.Thepaperstartsfromadiscussionoftherelationshipbetweensituatedknowledgeanditslanguage:

heteroglossia,inthebeliefthatthelanguageofheteroglossiaconceptualisesacomplexwebofinterrelatedmeaningacrosstimeandspaceintheprocessofdiscursivehybridity.DrawinguponHabermas’theoryofcommunicativeactionandFairclough’sunderstandingofgenre,thestudyexploresthenotionofrationalityofgenrebygivingacriticalinterpretationtothecategoryofgenredevelopedinsystemicfunctionallinguistics.Ratherthanseeinggenreasmerelyastaged,purpose-drivencommunicativeplane,itisarguedthatthereisamoreabstractandfundamentallevelofsocialreasonorrationality,whichunderpinstheconstructionofgenre,includingitshierarchyofpurposes.Rationalityofgenreisseenasahighorderofdispersedsocialknowledgethatisbroughtintopracticethroughmixingandcombiningexistinggenresorgenreelementsinthenetworkingofsocialpractices.Thestudyalsoattemptstodemonstratehowspecificformsofreasonsarecomprehendedinaninstanceofstudentdormitorytalk,contributingtothetransformationofacurriculumpractice.

Keywords:

rationalitygenrepedagogicaldiscourseargumentHabermascommunicativeaction

I.DistributedKnowledge,SocialReasonandItsLanguage

Howhumanunderstandsorlearningtakesplaceindifferenttypesoftalkeitherintheworkplaceorintheclassroomhasattractedprominentattentioninthestudiesofdiscourse.Thenotionofrationalityofgenrecomesintofocusprimarilywithaninterestinknowledgeconstruction.Theauthorregardsknowledge,orunderstandingasamatterofactivitysystem,whichextendsbeyondthepersontoincludeandenclosetheworld.ThisviewcouldfinditsrootsinHeidegger’s（1962）philosophy,andinsomewayisimplicatedinWenger’s（1998）andEngestrom’s（1987）works.Knowingisseenasamodeofpracticalactivitywhichisspreadoveraspace.Knowledgeisthelanguageembodimentofsocialreasonsimmanentinthenetworkofsocialpractices.Buthowisthesocialknowledgeorreasonthatisdistributedinthenetworkofsocialpracticeslocalisedandrealisedinthelanguageofaparticularpractice?

ThiscouldbeexplainedbyBakhtin’snotionofdialogism.Accordingtohim,alllivingutterancesareinconstantinteractionwithanenvironmentofothers.Everythingisunderstoodasapartofagreaterwhole（Bakhtin,1981）.

Thusthespreadsocialreasonsaresettledatthemomentofanyutterancethroughthedialogicorientationindiscourse."Indialogism,theverycapacitytohaveconsciousnessisbasedonotherness"（Holquist,1991:

18）.Thisdialogicimperativeensuresthattherecanbenospeakingperson’sownwords,nopurelypersonalmeanings.Allutterancesmixdifferentconsciousnesses,one’sownandothers’.Bakhtinusesthenotionofheteroglossiatoconceptualisethecomplexweboftheinterrelatedmeaningsindiscourse.Thelanguageofheteroglossiaisalsostratifiedintovarioussocialdialects.Eachcommunityofpracticeatanygivenmomenthasitsownlanguage,itsownvocabulary,representingaparticularpointofview,abodyofknowledgeinrelationtothecommunity.Theauthorcouldthusassumethatanylearningcommunityhastheirparticularlanguageofheteroglossia,whichmakesthemunique,andconceptualisestheirpracticeinwordsbytheirowngoals,meaningsandvaluesthroughtheirjointenterprise.Butatthesametime,thislanguageisindialoguewithothers,representingtheco-existenceofvarioussocialreasonsandideologicalconjunctions.

Knowledgeisthusamatrixofsocialreasonsthatisnotpossessedbyindividualsbutdispersedinthenetworkofsocialpractices.Itisembodiedinthelanguageofheteroglossia,andissettleddownintheconcreteutterances.Theanalysisoflanguagecoulddiscloseboththesocialreasonsofapracticeandthespecificfeaturesofacommunity’sknowledge;bothareseenassomethingspread,distributedinthetrajectoryofactivity,butembodiedintheconcreteutterance.Nowthispaperwillexplorehowsuchknowledgeorreasoncanactuallybeinvestigatedthroughtheanalysisoflanguage,orgenreinparticular.

II.RationalityofGenre

Insystemicfunctionallinguistics,agenreisdefinedintermsofahierarchicalsetofcommunicativepurposes（Martin1992）.Forinstance,Christie（1997）definesaparticularcurriculumpracticeasa‘macrogenre’,wherestaged,purposiveactivitiesarehierarchicallyorderedtoteachnewunderstandingornewformsofconsciousness.Itmaybearguedthattherationalityofasocialpracticecouldbeunderstoodastheoverallpurposesofamacrogenreandthesub-purposesasthemeanstoachievethis.Wemaytakethehierarchiesofpurposesasarepresentationofsocialknowledge.However,rationalityofgenrecannotbeseenaspurposes,ratheritisaforceofreasonthatdictatesgenre,includingitspurposes.

Fairclough（2003）recentlywarnsthatitmaybemisleadingtoover-privilegepurposeinthesensethatallgenresarestagedandpurpose-driven.HeexplainsthesourceoftheproblemintermsofHabermas’distinctionbetween‘communicative’and‘strategic’interaction–interactionorientedtoarrivingatunderstanding,asopposedtointeractionorientedtogettingresults.Hearguesthatpurpose-drivengenresareapartofinstrumentalsocialsystems,inwhichinteractionispredominantlystrategic.Manygenreswithpredominantlycommunicativerationalitymaynotbeclearlypurpose-driven,suchasinformalchatbetweenfriends.VanLeeuwen（2000:

66）takesasimilarview,arguingthatdiscursiveactionisnotinherentlypurposefuloratleast,wecannotprovethatitis.Askehave&Swales（2001:

198）alsoremindusthat,“genreanalystsmayhavetheirdutiestoperforminferretingouttheunderlyingrationalesofgenres”.

Itisfromthispositionthattheautorassumesthatthereisalevelofrationalityunderlyingthehierarchiesofpurposes,whichdictatesorrecontextualisesthelower-levelcommunicativeplane–genre.Theauthorthinksofthisasrationalityofgenreorembodimentofreasoningenre,equivalenttoHabermas’conceptof“rationalityofaction”.Theauthorseessuchreasonssituatedinthenetworkofsocialpractices,andembodiedinthelanguageofheteroglossia.Therationalityofgenreistheimplicitassumptions,propositions,beliefsandvaluesthatunderpintheconstructionofgenres,including,butnotonly,theirpurposes.Intermsoftherelationshipbetweenrationalityanddiscourse,theauthorwouldseerationalityastheepistemologicalaspectofdiscourse,whichcouldbeunderstoodastheknowledgesideofdiscourse.（Theothersideispower,asdefinedbyFoucault.）

Thedifferencebetweenpurposesandrationalitycouldfurtherbeunderstoodinthewaythattheformerisconsciouslypossessedbyindividualpersons,butthelatterisattributedtostructure（activity,genre,discourse）,andsubordinatedtotheformoflife.Rationalityisthehistoricalreasonofaparticularactivity,thekindoftruthbywhichpurposesofgenrearejustifiedandenacted.ButsuchasortofjustificationisnottakenasasemanticexplanationoflegitimationsuchasthosethatareanalysedbyvanLeeuwen&Wodak（1999）,butareembodiedintheformoflife（orbeinginHeidegger’sterm）.Henceinsomespheresoflifewehavenocriteriaoftruthtojustifythevalidityofspeech.Rationalitycouldbeaccountedforasabeliefsystem,butisnotpossessedbyindividuals.Reason,saysHabermas,isnottobesituatedinanyoneparticularsubjectatallbutratherinsubject-subjectrelations（seeBrand,1990:

10）.Rationalitymaybestabilisedasseeminglypre-existingsocialconsciousness,butittakesformonlyinconcreteactions,andhencehastobeunderstoodintheactualutterances.Intermsofagents,wewoulddrawuponFoucault’s（1980）‘philosophyofsubject’toseethemasbothanobjectofrationality（orknowledge）andofasasubjectthatknows.Thusanagentmayhaveaparticularpurpose（orstrategy）tospeak,butatthesametimeheisdriven,controlledoracteduponbyit.

Apointneedstoberaisedinthedistinctionbetweendiscourseandrationalityofgenre.Discoursesareessentiallysocialreasonsembodiedinthedriftinglanguage,whichareaninstrumentaswellasaproductofSystem（inHabermas’term）.Socialreasonsintermsofformalframes,rule-governedconsciousness,areinstrumentsofsocialcontrolwhicharesituatedandrealisedinthecirculationofdiscourse.However,accordingtoHabermas,incommunicativeaction,thevalidityofreasonsandthelinguisticworldviewsarenotderivedfromdriftingdiscoursebutfrom“commondefinitionsofsituations”storedinthelifeworld.Insuchcontexts,“Languageandcultureareconstitutiveforthelifeworlditself.Theyareneitheroneoftheformalframes,thatistheworldstowhichparticipantsassignelementsofsituations,nordotheyappearassomethingintheobjective,social,orsubjectiveworlds.”“Theverymediumofmutualunderstandingabidesinapeculiarhalftranscendence.”（Habermas,1987ii:

125）.Thelanguageactuallyinusecannotdecidebeforehandhowweshouldlive.Sociallifeisthusnaturallyorganisedbyunconscious,spontaneousadaptationtothechangingenvironmentthroughintersubjectiveconsensus,ratherthanaccordingtoarationalexchangeofreasons,