Genre Conversation
English 131 W
2010. Jan. 28
Genre Conversation
Although genre is commonly regarded as a tool for conventional assortment, it is necessary to recognize that a genre is not defined by its formal features, but by its situational factors. The contextual identification of a genre is highlighted by Carolyn Miller, who describes genres as the “typified rhetorical ways of acting in recurring situations” (qtd. in Bawarshi 7). The word “situation” is crucial in her definition because writing results from situational demands. Such situational nature of writing is emphasized by many scholars including Amy Devitt, Anis Bawarshi, and Stanley Fish. Synthesizing the works of these authors, we can derive that genre unites writing and context. Thus instead of focusing on formal features, a genre should be acknowledged as a publicly established form identified by its contextual features, in which writers and readers are socially connected.
Since genre is socially defined, it can only function when there is a rhetorical situation that calls for a response. Returning to Miller’s definition, genres are responses to recurring situations. Because similar situations trigger similar rhetorical responses, these responses develop into a default ways of answering a particular type of situation (Bitzer 13). Nonetheless, not all situations stimulate responses; only situations in which one or more exigences exit trigger production. According to Lloyd Bitzer, an exigence is an “imperfection marked by urgency” (6). Writers are only motivated to write due to the presence of such imperfection. Since a rhetorical writing is invented to address an exigence, the purpose of such writing is therefore to modify the situation and so to alleviate the presented problem. Such contextual dependency of writing is highlighted when Bawarshi connects writer’s purpose and situation, indicating that writing “begins and takes place within the social and rhetorical conditions constituted by genres” (11). In
2010. Jan. 28
Genre Conversation
Although genre is commonly regarded as a tool for conventional assortment, it is necessary to recognize that a genre is not defined by its formal features, but by its situational factors. The contextual identification of a genre is highlighted by Carolyn Miller, who describes genres as the “typified rhetorical ways of acting in recurring situations” (qtd. in Bawarshi 7). The word “situation” is crucial in her definition because writing results from situational demands. Such situational nature of writing is emphasized by many scholars including Amy Devitt, Anis Bawarshi, and Stanley Fish. Synthesizing the works of these authors, we can derive that genre unites writing and context. Thus instead of focusing on formal features, a genre should be acknowledged as a publicly established form identified by its contextual features, in which writers and readers are socially connected.
Since genre is socially defined, it can only function when there is a rhetorical situation that calls for a response. Returning to Miller’s definition, genres are responses to recurring situations. Because similar situations trigger similar rhetorical responses, these responses develop into a default ways of answering a particular type of situation (Bitzer 13). Nonetheless, not all situations stimulate responses; only situations in which one or more exigences exit trigger production. According to Lloyd Bitzer, an exigence is an “imperfection marked by urgency” (6). Writers are only motivated to write due to the presence of such imperfection. Since a rhetorical writing is invented to address an exigence, the purpose of such writing is therefore to modify the situation and so to alleviate the presented problem. Such contextual dependency of writing is highlighted when Bawarshi connects writer’s purpose and situation, indicating that writing “begins and takes place within the social and rhetorical conditions constituted by genres” (11). In