Evolving Genres in Online Domains: The Hybrid Genre of the Participatory News article

  • Ian BruceEmail author
Part of the Text, Speech and Language Technology book series (TLTB, volume 42)


The genre modelling and research presented in this chapter originate from the sub-branch of Applied Linguistics concerned with theorising and designing courses for the teaching of academic literacy skills. Specifically, a model previously employed in the analysis of academic genres [13– 18] is used here as a basis for examining the particular web genre of an online news article followed by postings of reader comments – termed here a participatory news article. The chapter first provides an overview of approaches to the categorisation of texts in terms of genres, referring to a number of landmark studies and publications and considering some of the key difficulties in establishing systematic and comprehensive models that are able to account for all of the types of knowledge that writers and readers draw upon in order to identify and ratify a text as belonging to a particular genre category.


Text Discourse News article Social genre Cognitive genre 


  1. 1.
    Adam, J.-M. 1985. Quels types de texts? Le Français dans le Monde 192:39–43.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Adam, J.-M. 1992. Les textes – types et prototypes. Paris: Nathan.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Barsalou, L.W. 1983. Ad hoc categories. Memory and Cognition 11:211–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bhatia, V.K. 1993. Analysing genre – language use in professional settings. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bhatia, V.K. 1998 Generic conflicts in academic discourse. In Genre studies in English for academic purposes, eds. I. Fortanet, S. Posteguillo, J.C. Palmer, and J.F. Coll, 15–28. Castello de la Plana: Publicacions de al Universitat Jaume.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bhatia, V.K. 2002. Applied genre analysis – analytical advances and pedagogic procedures. In Genre in the classroom – multiple perspectives, ed. A. Johns, 279–283. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bhatia, V.K. 2004. Worlds of written discourse – a genre based view. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Biber, D. 1988. Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Biber, D. 1989. A Typology of English texts. Linguistics 27:3–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Biber, D., E. Csomay, K. Jones, and C. Keck. 2007. Introduction to the identification and analysis of vocabulary-based discourse units. In Discourse on the move – using corpus analysis to describe discourse structure studies in corpus linguistics, eds. D. Biber, U. Connor, T.A. Upton, vol. 28, 173. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bloor, M. 1998. Variations in the methods sections of research articles across disciplines – The case of fast and slow text. In Issues in EAP writing research and instruction, ed. P. Thompson, 84–106. Reading UK: CALS, The University of Reading.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Borg, E. 2003. Key concepts in ELT – discourse community. ELT Journal 57:398–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bruce, I. 2003. Cognitive genre prototype modelling and its implications for the teaching of academic writing to learners of English as a second language. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Waikato, Hamilton, New Zealand.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bruce, I. 2005. Syllabus design for general EAP courses – a cognitive approach. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 4:239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bruce, I. 2007. Defining academic genres – an approach for writing course design. In Proceedings of the 2005 Joint BALEAP/SATEFL Conference: New Approaches to Materials Development for Language Learning, ed. O. Alexander, 103–116. Oxford, Bern, Berlin, Bruxelles, Frankfurt am Main, New York, Wien: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bruce, I. 2008a. Cognitive genre structures in methods sections of research articles – a corpus study. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7:39–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Bruce, I. 2008b. Academic writing and genre. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bruce, I. 2009. Results sections in sociology and organic chemistry articles – a genre analysis. English for Specific Purposes 28:105–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carrell, P.L. 1981. Culture-specific schemata in L2 comprehension. In Selected Papers from the Ninth Illinois TESOL/BE Annual Convention, First Midwest TESOL Conference, eds. R. Orem and J. Haskell, 123–132. Chicago, IL: TESOL/BE.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carrell, P.L. 1988. Content and formal schemata in ESL reading. TESOL Quarterly 21:461–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Celce-Murcia, M., and Z. Dornyei. 1995. Communicative competence – a pedagogically motivated model with content specifications. Issues in Applied Linguistics 6:5–35.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Connor, U., and A. Mauranen. 1999. Linguistic analysis of grant proposals – European Union Research Grants. English for Specific Purposes 18:47–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Council of Europe. 2001. Common European framework of reference for languages – learning teaching assessment. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Crombie, W.H. 1985. Process and relation in discourse and language learning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Crowston, K., and B.H. Kwasnik. 2004. A framework for creating a facetted classification for genres – addressing issues of multidimensionality. In Proceedings of the 37th Hawaii Internation Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Dudley-Evans, A. 1986. Genre analysis – an investigation of the introductions and discourse sections of MSc dissertations. In Talking about text – discourse analysis monographs No. 13, ed. M. Coulthard, 128–145. Birmingham: English Language Research, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Dudley-Evans, T. 1989. An outline of the value of genre analysis in LSP work. In Special language – From humans thinking to thinking machines, eds. C. Laurén and M. Nordman, 72–79. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Dudley-Evans, T. 1993. Variation in communication patterns between discourse communities – the case of highway engineering and plant biology. In Language learning and success – studying through English, ed. G.M. Blue, 141–147. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Dudley-Evans, T. 1994. Genre analysis – an approach to text analysis for ESP. In Advances in written text analysis, ed. M. Coultard, 219–228. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eggins, S. 1994. An introduction to systemic functional linguistics. London: Pinter.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Feez, S. 2002. Heritage and innovation in second language education. In ed. A. Johns, Genre in the classroom – multiple perspective, 43–69. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fowler, A. 1982. Kinds of literature – an introduction to the theory of genres and modes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Giddens, A. 1984. The constitution of society – outline of the theory of structuration. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Grabe, W. 2002. Narrative and expository macro-genres. In Genre in the classroom – multiple perspectives, ed. A. Johns, 49–267. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Halliday, M.A.K. 1978. Language as a social semiotic. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Halliday, M.A.K., and R. Hasan. 1989. Language, context and text – aspects of language in a social-semiotic perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Hasan, R. 1989. The identify of a text. In Language, text and context, M.A.K. Halliday and R. Hasan, 97–118. Mahwah, NJ: Oxford University Press (Original work published in 1985).Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Hearst, M.A. 1997. TextTiling – segmenting text into multi-paragraph subtopic passages. Computational Linguistics 23:33–64.Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Herring, S., L. Scheidt, S. Bonus, and E. Wright. 2004. Bridging the gap – a genre analysis of weblogs (DDGDD04). In Proceedings of the Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences, (Conf 37), 101. Hawaii.Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Hoey, M. 1979. Signalling in discourse. Discourse Analysis Monograph No. 6. Birmingham: English Language Research, University of Birmingham.Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hoey, M. 1983. On the surface of discourse. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hoey, M. 1994. Signalling in discourse – a functional analysis of a common discourse pattern in written and spoken English. In Advances in written text analysis, ed. M. Coulthard, 26–45. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hoey, M. 2001. Textual interaction – an introduction to written discourse analysis. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Hopkins, A., and Dudley-Evans, T. 1988. A genre-based investigation of the discussion section in articles and dissertations. English for Specific Purposes 7:113–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Hyland, K. 2005. Metadiscourse – exploring interaction in writing. London: Continuum.Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Johns, A.M. 1997. Text role and context – developing academic literacies. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Johns, A.M. 2001. The future is with us – Preparing diverse students for the challenges of university texts and cultures. In Academic writing in context – implications and applications, ed. M.A. Hewings, 30–42. Birmingham: University of Birmingham Press.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Johnson, M. 1987. The body in the mind – the bodily basis of meaning imagination and reason. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Lackstrom, J., L. Selinker, and L. Trimble, L. 1973. Technical rhetorical principles and grammatical choice. TESOL Quarterly 15:51–57.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Lakoff, G. 1987. Women fire and dangerous things – what categories reveal about the mind. Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Lave, J., and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated learning – legitimate peripheral participation. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Lea, M.R., and B. Street. 1998. Student writing in higher education – an academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education 23:157–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Martin, J.R. 1984. Language register and genre. In Children’s writing – reader, ed. F. Christie, 21–30. Geelong, Australia: Deakin University Press.Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    Martin, J.R. 1986. Intervening in the process of writing development. In Writing to mean – teaching genres across the curriculum, C. Painter, J.R. Martin, Applied Linguistics Association of Australia (Occasional Paper 9, 11–43). Bundoora: Applied Linguistics Association.Google Scholar
  55. 55.
    Martin, J.R. 1992. English text – system and structure. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Martin, J.R. 1994. Macro-genres – the ecology of the page. Network 21:29–52.Google Scholar
  57. 57.
    Martin, J.R. 1995. Text and clause – fractal resonance. Text 15:5–42.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Martin, J.R. 1997. Analysing genre – functional parameters. In Genre and institutions – social processes in the workplace and school, eds. F. Christie and J. Martin, 3–39. London: Cassell.Google Scholar
  59. 59.
    Martin, J.R. 2000. Design and practice – enacting functional linguistics. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 20:116–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Miller, C.R. 1984. Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70:151–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Murphy, G.L., and D.L. Medin. 1985. The role of theories of conceptual coherence. Psychological Review 92:289–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Nwogu, K.N. 1991. Structure of science popularisations – a genreanalysis approach to the schema of popularised medical texts. English for Specific Purposes 10:111–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Oller, J.W. 1995. Adding abstract to formal and content schemata – results of recent work in Peircean semiotics. Applied Linguistics 16:273–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Paltridge, B.R. 1993. A challenge to the current concept of genre: Writing up research. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Waikato, Hamilton.Google Scholar
  65. 65.
    Paltridge, B. 1997. Genre frames and writing in research settings. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  66. 66.
    Paltridge, B. 2002. Genre text type and the English for Academic Purposes (EAP) Classroom. In Genre in the classroom – multiple perspectives, ed. A. Johns, 73–90. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Pilegaard, M., and F. Frandsen. 1996. Text type. In Handbook of pragmatics, eds. J. Verschueren, J.-O. Ostaman, J. Blommaert, and C.C. Bulcaen, 1–13. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
  68. 68.
    Quinn, J. 1993. A taxonomy of text types for use in curriculum design. EA Journal 11(2):33–46.MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Rosch, E. 1978. Principles of categorisation. In Cognition and categorization, eds. E. Rosch, and B.B. Lloyd, 27–47. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  70. 70.
    Sanford, A.J., and S.C. Garrod. 1981. Understanding written language. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Santini, M. 2005. Automatic text analysis – Gradations of text types in web pages. In Proceedings of the 10th European Summer School in Logic, Language and Information Student Session, ed. J. Gervain, 276–285. Edinburgh, UK.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Shepherd, M., and C. Watters. 1998. The evolution of cybergenres. Proceedings of the Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 31(2):87–109.Google Scholar
  73. 73.
    Silva, T. 1990. Second language composition instruction – developments, issues and directions in ESL. In Second language writing – research insights for the classroom, ed. B. Kroll, 11–23. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Swales, J.M. 1981. Aspects of article introductions (Aston ESP Research Rep. No. 1). The University of Aston, Language Studies Unit, Birmingham.Google Scholar
  75. 75.
    Swales, J.M. 1988. Discourse communities genres and English as an international language. World Englishes, 7:211–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Swales, J.M. 1990. Genre analysis – English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Swales, J.M. 1998. Other floors other voices – a textography of a small university building. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Swales, J.M. 2004. Research genres – exploration and applications. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Van Dijk, T.A. 1980. Macrostructures – an interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction and cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  80. 80.
    Ventola, E. 1985. Orientation to social semiotics in foreign language teaching. Applied Linguistics 5:275–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Virtanen, J. 1992. Issues of text typology – Narrative – a ‘basic’ type of text? Text 12:292–310.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Wenger, E. 1998. Communities of practice. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  83. 83.
    Werlich, E. 1976. A text grammar of English. Heidelberg: Quelle and Meyer.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    Widdowson, H.G. 2000. On the limitations of linguistics applied. Applied Linguistics 21:3–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Widdowson, H.G. 2004. Text, context and pretext. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Yates, J., and W. Orlikowski. 1992. Genres of organizational communication – a structurational approach to studying communication and media. Academic of Management Review 17:299–326.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Yoshioka, T., J. Yates, and W. Orlikowski. 2002. Community-based interpretative schemes – exploring the use of cyter meetings within a global organization. In Proceedings of the 35th Hawaii Internation Conference on System Sciences. Hawaii.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Young, A. 2006. Teaching writing across the curriculum (Prentice Hall resources for writing). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of WaikatoHamiltonNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations