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。
![Rationality of Genre.docx](https://file1.bdocx.com/fileroot1/2023-1/24/8a87ee59-d76b-4511-8d8d-8ad790bdee73/8a87ee59-d76b-4511-8d8d-8ad790bdee731.gif)
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,