Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
3d 23/7/98 16:25 sj
08832919
Genre analysis, though variously defined in recent literature (see Martin, 1985, 1993;
Swales, 1990; Bhatia, 1993; Berkenkotter and Huckin, 1995), is generally understood to
represent the study of linguistic behaviour in institutionalized academic and professional
settings. Instead of offering a linguistic description of language use, it tends to offer
linguistic explanation, attempting to answer the question, Why do members of specific
professional communities use the language the way they do? The answer requires input not
from linguistics alone, but equally importantly, from sociolinguistics and ethnographic
studies, psycholinguistics and cognitive psychology, communication research, studies of
disciplinary cultures and most importantly, insights from members of such specialist
communities, to name only a few. Taking communicative purpose as the key characteristic
feature of a genre, the analysis attempts to unravel mysteries of the artefact in question.
Genre analysis, thus, has become one of the major influences on the current practices in the
teaching and learning of languages to learners in specialist disciplines like engineering,
science, law, business and a number of others. By offering a dynamic explanation of the
way expert users of language manipulate generic conventions to achieve a variety of
complex goals associated with their specialist disciplines, it focuses attention on the
variation in language use by members of various disciplinary cultures. It concentrates
on at least four main aspects of genre acquisition that professional users seem to display
when they handle specialist genres. They include knowledge of the code, genre knowledge
associated with disciplinary cultures, sensitivity to cognitive structuring, and finally what
Berkenkotter and Huckin call the genre ownership, which gives professional writers
confidence to exploit generic knowledge to respond to familiar and novel rhetorical
contexts.
Let me very briefly elaborate on these four areas of concern.
* Department of English, City University of Hong Kong, 83 Tat Chee Avenue, Kowloon, Hong Kong. E-mail:
enbhatia@cityu.edu.hk
A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1997, 108 Cowley Road, Oxford OX4 1JF, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
314
Vijay K. Bhatia
Recent literature in applied genre analysis has shown increasing interest in the study of
generic variation as a result of diverse practices often associated with specific disciplinary
cultures; however, the discipline has paid very little attention to variation which may be the
result of two other kinds of diversity, one emerging as a result of the use of English as a
world language, and the other as a result of the cross-cultural and/or intercultural factors.
Let us turn our attention to these two.
Multicultural identity of English
English has, as a result of its global spread, over the years acquired identities which are
essentially multicultural. The consequence of this kind of participation, Kachru maintains
is that
. . . the spread of English has resulted in a multiplicity of semiotic systems, several nonshared
linguistic conventions, and numerous underlying cultural traditions. . . And, any speaker of
English (native or non-native) has access to only a subset within the patterns and conventions of
cultures which English now encompasses. . . . English has now become a medium of cross-cultural
expression and, one hopes, of intercultural understanding, too (Kachru, 1988: 207).
A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1997
315
We may or may not accept it, but it is a fact, more widely recognized now than a few years
ago, that there are significant variations in the use of English across national as well as
socio-cultural boundaries and that much of this kind of user-related variation has given
rise to the recognition and codification of many new varieties of English in the last few
years. It is also a fact that all these changes have not come as a complete surprise. They are
an inevitable result of the immense popularity and an overwhelming acceptance of the use
of English as the medium of communication in a variety of social, academic, occupational,
and other specialized areas of language use, some of which include business and trade,
science and technology, economics and finance, politics and diplomacy, newspapers and
advertising, computers and mass media.
One thing that stands out clearly from the foregoing is that the present-day use of
English is embedded within multilingual as well as multicultural contexts. As Quirk et al.
(1972) pointed out:
English, which we have referred to as a lingua franca, is pre-eminently the most international of
languages. Though the mention of the language may at once remind us of England, on the one
hand, or cause association with the might of the United States, on the other, it carries less
implication of political or cultural specificity than any other living tongue.
However, referring to the cultural diversity of the users of English, they cautiously add:
. . . the cultural neutrality of English must not be pressed too far. . . . The literal or metaphorical
use of such expressions as case law throughout the English speaking world reflects the common
heritage in our legal system; and allusions to or quotations from Shakespeare, the Authorized
Version, Gray's Elegy, Mark Twain, a sea shanty, a Negro spiritual or Beatles song wittingly or
not testify similarly to a shared culture. The continent means `continental Europe' as readily in
America and even Australia and New Zealand as it does in Britain. At other times, English
equally reflects independent and distinct culture of one or other of the English-speaking
communities. When an Australian speaks of fossicking something out (searching for something),
the metaphor looks back to the desperate activity of reworking and diggings of someone else in
the hope of finding gold that had been overlooked. When an American speaks of not getting to
first base (not achieving initial success), the metaphor concerns . . . (a)n equally culture-specificactivity the game of basketball. And when an Englishman says something is not cricket (unfair),
the allusion is to a game that is by no means universal in the English-speaking countries (Quirk et
al., 1972: 6)
316
Vijay K. Bhatia
from the obvious historical ones, for a greater acceptance of English as a world language
has been the relative ease with which the English language has accepted innovations,
additions and extensions, enriching itself in the bargain. A language is bound to be as
readily acceptable to outsiders as readily it accepts external influences. To the purist, it
may appear to be a great weakness, but considered in a wider global context, this very socalled `weakness' has become its greatest strength. As a natural consequence of its
immense popularity and global spread, English is increasingly becoming international
in character.
John Adams, the second president of the United States, predicted as early as 1780 that
English would be the most respectable language in the world and the most universally read
and spoken in the next century . . . (see Mathews, 1931, quoted in Kachru, 1992: 2). When
predicting such a spectacular rise in the use of English, he was, perhaps, unaware of the
fact that one day English itself will undergo transformation from the English of a
particular section of world population (British, American or Australian) to the English,
or more appropriately World Englishes.
Jacob Grimm, speaking to the Royal Academy of Berlin in January 1851, probably had
this thing in mind when he declared,
Of all modern language, not one has acquired such great strength and vigour as the English. It has
accomplished this by simply freeing itself from the ancient phonetic laws, and casting off almost
all inflections; whilst, from its abundance of intermediate sounds, tones not even to be taught, but
only to be learned, it has derived a characteristic power of expression such as perhaps was never
yet the property of any other human tongue. . . . Indeed, the English language, . . ., may be called
justly a LANGUAGE OF THE WORLD . . . (see Grimm [1851] 1965; quoted in Bailey, 1991:
109110).
The interesting point about Grimm's prediction is the importance he attaches to the
natural capacity of English in adapting and absorbing influences, changes and innovations, which he thinks are partly responsible for making English popular as a world
language. Today we do not need to make a case for the universal popularity and global
spread of English as a dominant medium of communication in almost every international
context, be it politics or business, trade or commerce, science or engineering, agriculture or
information science, radio or television, advertising or journalism. More recently, Kachru
(1991) confirms,
. . . English has acquired unprecedented sociological and ideological dimensions. It is now wellrecognized that in linguistic history no language has touched the lives of so many people, in so
many cultures and continents, in so many functional roles, and with so much prestige, as has
the English language since the 1930s. And, equally important, across cultures English has been
successful in creating a class of people who have greater intellectual power in multiple spheres
of language use unsurpassed by any single language before; (Kachru, 1991: 180).
Two things stand out very clearly from these assertions. First, that the rise of English to
stardom, as it were, is multifunctional rather than any particular restricted aspect of
general use, either social or professional. Second, it is embedded within multilingual as well
as multicultural contexts.
317
One of the most influential models of communication that has influenced language
teaching in recent times has been associated with the notion of communicative competence,
which goes well beyond what linguists term as grammatical competence and includes what
could be broadly termed as sociolinguistic competence, which means the knowledge of
what is socially acceptable in real-life socio-cultural situations. In addition to these two
types of competence, one also needs a more selective and specialized kind of competence,
which could be termed as generic competence, which allows a person to choose from a
range of appropriate genres the one that is most suitable for achieving the communicative
purpose(s) in institutionalized social contexts.
Unfortunately, however, many of the language teachers interpret communicative
competence too narrowly to incorporate either the grammatical competence, or some
aspects of sociolinguistic competence in addition to that. It is important to note that these
various facets of competence may develop different patterns of proficiency and, may be, at
different rates. Of all the three, it is the grammatical competence which seems to be least
problematic for successful communication, in that it is still possible for people to be able to
communicate effectively even with a relatively less than desirable grammatical accuracy.
Sociolinguistic (in)competence, on the other hand, is likely to lead to more serious types of
miscommunication as well as misunderstanding. Generic competence, to a large extent, is
embedded in generic knowledge, which includes the experience or understanding of the
discursive practices associated with disciplinary cultures, and ensures pragmatic success in
communicative tasks embedded within specialized settings.
A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1997
318
Vijay K. Bhatia
The need, therefore, in most second language learning contexts is to transfer native social
semiotic to the second language, without being dictated to by the standards of the native
culture. In the emerging language learning and teaching contexts of variation in the use of
English across the international boundaries, it is necessary to recognize nativized norms
for intranational functions within specific speech communities, and then to build a norm
for international use on such models, rather than enforcing or creating a different norm in
addition to that. What needs to be done is that international English should be considered
a kind of superstructure rather than an entirely new concept. The best way this superstructure can be added is by making the learner aware of cross-cultural variations in the
use of English and by maximizing his or her ability to negotiate, accommodate and accept
plurality of norms. For language teaching pedagogy, as Kachru (1981: 37) points out, this
will require the use of a `dynamic' approach based on a polymodel concept rather than a
static monomodel approach to the teaching of professional communication. `Linguistic
homogeneity' as rightly pointed out by Kachru (1981: 26) `is the dream of an analyst, and a
myth created by the language pedagogues.'
Current work in applied discourse and genre studies has paid very little attention to
cross-cultural and intercultural variation resulting from a variation in the use of English
A Blackwell Publishers Ltd. 1997
319
globally. In order to cope with the rapidly increasing international mobility and the everchanging socio-political and economic influences on the use of discourse genres in the
changing context, I suggest we need to look more carefully and promote a more general
understanding of generic norms, suggesting accommodation, negotiation and plurality of
models, so that many of the second language learners' legitimate adaptations are seen as
exploitation of generic resources to reflect the meanings they assume, the social relations
they refer to, and the functions they seem to serve, rather than mere deviations. I hope that
contributions in the present volume will serve this purpose and add to the growing body of
literature in this area.
REFERENCES
Bailey, Richard W. (1991) Images of English: A Cultural History of the Language. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Berkenkotter, C. and Huckin, Thomas N. (1995) Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication Cognition/
Culture/Power. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Bhatia, Vijay K. (1993) Analysing Genre: Language Use in Professional Settings. London: Longman.
Bhatia, Vijay K. (1995) Genre-mixing in professional communication the case of private intentions v. socially
recognized purposes. In Explorations in English for Professional Communication. Edited by Paul Bruthiaux, Tim
Boswood and Bertha Du-Babcock. City University of Hong Kong. pp. 119.
Bhatia, Vijay K. (1997) Genre-mixing in Academic Introductions. English for Specific Purposes, 16(3), 181195.
Fairclough, N. (1992) Discourse and Social Change. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Featherstone, M. (1991) Consumer Culture and Postmodernism. London: Sage.
Kachru, Braj B. (1981) The pragmatics of non-native varieties of English. In English for Cross-Cultural
Communication. Edited by Larry Smith. London: Macmillan. pp. 539.
Kachru, Braj B. (1988) The spread of English and the sacred linguistic cows. In GURT 1987: Language Spread and
Language Policy: Issues, Implications and Case Studies. Edited by Peter Lowenberg. Washington DC:
Georgetown University Press.
Kachru, Braj B. (1991) World Englishes and applied linguistics. In Languages & Standards: Issues, Attitudes, Case
Studies. Edited by Makhan L. Tickoo. Singapore, RELC. pp. 178205.
Kachru, Braj B. (ed.) (1982, 2nd revised edition 1992) The Other Tongue: English across Cultures. Urbana:
University of Illinois Press.
Martin, J. R. (1985) Process and text: two aspects of human semiosis. In Systemic Perspectives on Discourse 1.
Edited by J. D. Benson and W. S. Greave. Norwood, NJ: Ablex. pp. 248274.
Martin, J. R. (1993) A Contextual Theory of Language. In The Powers of Literacy - A Genre Approach to Teaching
Writing. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press. pp. 116136.
Quirk, Randolph, Greenbaum, Sidney, Leech, Geoffrey and Svartvik, Jan (1972) A Grammar of Contemporary
English. London: Longman.
Steve, Peter (1994) Norms and meaning potential. World Englishes, 13(3), 395410.
Strevens, Peter (1992) English as an international Language. In The Other Tongue: English across Cultures. (2nd
revised edition). Edited by Braj B. Kachru. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press. pp. 2747.
Swales, John, M. (1990) Genre Analysis English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
(Received 15 June 1996.)