The Forge Of New Genres Conceptual

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

According to Giltrow and Stein (2009) "genre works as a common intuitive concept – a sense that features of language aggregate in recognizable patterns, and that these aggregations indicate something important in the uses of language in context" (p. 1). Therefore, genre operates as the hub of language where various features accumulate in order to indicate prominent interrelations between them, which further generates the vibrant points within the contextualised use of language. Furthermore, the fact that such interactions should occur provides the opportunity to investigate how the fundamental concepts in genre work. Giltrow and Stein address these salient points by asking "what kind of work do these patterns do? how do they do it? – but also in the recognition itself: is it the language user’s recognition that counts in identifying a genre, or the analyst’s?" (p. 1). The observations made by Giltrow and Stein stress some of the most essential facets of genre, i.e. since genre is the hub of language, there are discernible connections between the units which are atracted to the hub and interact so as to produce that concextualised prominence. That is why, the understanding of the mechanisms which direct these units and their fundamental interactions plays an important part in identifying the receiver, employed strategies as well as the results that are eventually produced in response to these units.

Genre might be perceived as a thing of the past, yet the advent of the Internet and therefore the new media throws the light upon the issue again. Giltrow and Stein (2009) inform us that:

There are new genres on the Internet, but in some cases it is a matter of contention whether the genre is new, or an old one in new medial garb. The new genres and/or old genres on the Internet catalyse the debate in and amongst theories of genre. (p. 2)

Moreover, on the basis of the logical conclusions, it is possible to state that "the notion of genre to the extent that it comes with language, will touch on the issue of the "text" and its "context" as a bone of contention from linguistic to literary theory" (Giltrow & Stein, 2009, p. 2). As a result of that linguistic encounter, it may be observable that the "text" and its "context" are prone to generate new curves with the purpose of demonstrating and arranging new posible paths that they will follow in order to cross-section their borders. Nevertheless, there is another significant observation which concernes the process of adapation and organisation. In accordance with Virtanen (1997) "the relationship between genre and bundles of linguistic features has been seen as "functional", in the sense that function determines form. But function also underdetermines form insofar as form/function is conventional or ritualized, traditional-historical and cultural." That is why, the link between genre and its linguistic features is moderated by function as well as form as long as there is the space for flexibility in the operation of that link. It also appears that the functional determination would be beneficial either for cross-lingual and cross-cultural similarities between genres. That is why, Giltrow and Stein (2009) specify that:

At this level of analysis, similarity in function could not be discovered by the recurrence of bundles of linguistic features, for cross-lingual situations would obviously differ in the linguistic resources available for executing the function, and even in cross-cultural situations socio-historical contingencies would dispose language users towards some features rather than others to execute function. (p. 2)

Additionally, there are two essential agruments that are highlighted by Giltrow and Stein as they explicate that the unity based on the function and form is possible and profitable, but only to a certain extent. The occurrence of shortages of linguistic resources in the case of cross-lingual situations poses a threat for the proper execution of functions between two languages. What is more, it is crucial to underline that the shortcomings in the previous situation should be mirrored in the case of the cross-cultural function on account of the fact that the necessity of socio-historical ocurrences seems to be imminent, so that their presence impaires the quality and durability of the connection. That discrepancy is precisely ilustrated by Giltrow and Stein (2009) who specify that:

Theories of genre insist on the fusion of features and function, and would therefore not recognise as equivalent — that is, as the same genre—functions rendered in different forms: the socio-historical, i.e. cultural, contingencies which select and conventionalise some forms over others are part-and-parcel of definitions of function. (p. 2)

As a result of these shortcomings, the connection is devalued in its purest form, so that the apprehension about the feasibility of its functions and applications in the expected domains arises. It appears to be substantial to remark on the fact that the lack of stability in the creation of such a connection enlivens the question of whether this connection is resistant to any interactions that may occur in the course of the exchange of the valuable linguistic pieces of information. Finally, there is the point to be added in the case of how these shrinking resources should be allocated in order to secure the more volatile units which are exposed to the inauspicious occurences threatening the existence of the unity of the already expanded connections which might serve as those effective ones.

New communication forms emerge following new communication means

First of all, the topic of genre has been a long-debated issue amongst linguists who have scrutinised "the nature and individual properties of genres" (Giltrow & Stein, 2009, Hess-Lüttich, Holly & Püschel, 1996, Fritz & Jucker, 2000). In addition to it, Virtanen (1997) has also produced the meaningful evidence accounting for the changes of the linguistic aspect as well as the character of genres.

Secondly, the Internet serves as a new communication environment in which the settings are adjusted in a way which allows for the reconfiguration of "conditions to which pragmatic features of language respond" (Giltrow & Stein, 2009, p. 9). Therefore, the Internet is a phenomenon which encompasses and includes complex components. Additionally, Giltrow and Stein explicate that the new communication setting is:

The vast and variable range, new pull and push mechanisms, new distance-synchronic forms of communication, new combinations of N-to-N—the number of people speaking and the number of people receiving the communication—and the high speed as well as the archiving of interaction, to name only a few. (p. 9)

On the one hand, these components of the Internet have a profound impact on the area of genres as the new communicational settings are already present there. On the other hand, there are the secondary effects of the communicative setting, such as: "new copresence perceptions, or new measures and images of audience, or a different set of perceptions arising out of the intervening technicity of the medium" (Giltrow & Stein, 2009, p. 9). Furthermore, as long as the theory of genre is taken into consideration, it is possible to enumarate certain debatable points which appear as the results of modifications introduced by the components of the Internet.

The first quality refers to the automatic classification of the new medium and the question whether it should be, indeed, classified as a new genre as soon as it emerges. Therefore, Giltrow and Stein (2009) attempt to diagnose if "it is possible for a traditional genre in the spoken or written media to migrate into the Internet without loss of identity" (p. 9). However, when such a situation eventually takes place and the genre is subjected to the loss of identity, there is another question of how much should be affected or retained for a genre in order to hold its identity as well as if it is possible to keep genre at a relatively stable level when distributed across various changes in the media.

Second of all, it might be a peculiar decision to consent to the fact that genres on the Internet possess characteristics which are either variants of or absolute deviations from the characteristic hold by traditional spoken or written genres. That is why, Giltrow and Stein (2009) endeavour to establish if there are "systematic changes to genres in cases where genres are held to have felicitously migrated into the Internet" (p.9).

Thirdly, Giltrow and Stein (2009) seem to be lively interested in the area of new genres on account of their emergence if they emerge at all. They theoretise that if new genres emerge, there might expectedly be a certain common ground between them and their ancestors whose features would perhaps be found in new genres. As a matter of fact, if new genres are to include particular features they ought to have ancestors, but the question concerns the speculation that all of new genres have ancestors which provide the vital qualities, and if there are no ancestores, then what the processes that facilitate the combinations of features within genres are. Finally, Giltrow and Stein elaborate on the issue of the conceptualisation of the new genres performance. They investigate how it should be executed in the light of the fact that new genres interact.

Netspeak

Nevertheless, the Internet unveils as the world which witnesses the rapid revolutions and evolutions caused by ever-changing genres and technologies which accompany them. It should be stressed that the "existing genres quickly differentiate into sub-species" (Giltrow & Stein, 2009, p. 9), so that it might be too far-fetched to bracket all the similar genres under the same label since even the minute idiosyncracies present between them will not allow for that process.

The first meaningful concept and at the same illustration of the above issue present on the Internet is connected with the term "Netspeak" which Crystal (2001) explicates as "an alternative to ‘Netlish’, ’Weblish’, ‘Internet language’, ‘cyberspeak’, ‘electronic discourse’, ‘electronic language’, ‘interactive written discourse’, ‘computer-mediated communication’ (CMC), and other more cumbersome locutions" (p. 17). It does not come as a surprise that each term has its own meaning, i.e. ‘Netlish’ derives from ‘English’ and its usefulness diminishes on behalf the ‘Net’ which is widespread and more multilingual. Then, the ‘electronic discourse’ puts emphasis on dialogue elements as well as the interactive, while ‘CMC’ is the medium itself. Whats is more, Crystal highlights that "as a name, Netspeak is succint, and functional enough, as long as we remember that ‘speak’ here involves writing as well as talking, and that any ‘speak’ suffix also has a receptive element, including ‘listening and reading’". As Crystal further observes "the Internet is so clearly a predominantly written medium […], and yet, as we shall see, the question of how speech is related to writing is at the heart of the matter" (p. 18). However, it should not be taken for granted that there is another facet to the interrelation between language and speech on the Internet because the ratio of how much a person receives either in terms of the written or spoken form of information is far beyond how much a person produces. Since the Internet is a medium which heavily relies on the written form and the ellicitation of responses from the users, the responsiveness as well as interaction remain at the core of the connection between users’ awareness and reactions to written messages. Furthemore, Crystal focuses on the linguistic intuition present in people’s minds because he specifies that "some sort of Netspeak exists – a type of language displaying features that are unique to the Internet, and encouraged in all the above situations, arising out of its character as a medium which is electronic, global and interactive". What is more, Crystal further argues that it is especially meaningful that there is the consciousness of something ‘out there’, which is demonstrated by the way that other languages are affected by Netspeak. The obvious signs of such a behaviour, i.e. the linguistic variation, would be the allusions to it, e.g. by introducing references. The suitable exemplification of the aforementioned behaviour is wittngly provided by Crystal as he refers to the situation in the comic courtroom sketch, which is broadcast via the medium of television. The presented comic courtroom is embedded in the legal language environment as the parties involved in the presented situation inspire various references which are supposed to be encoded in the linguistic representations of the legal language and subsequently decoded by the individuals who operate as the receivers of these allusions.

Nevertheless, it is undeniable that Netspeak operates within the highly interactive medium which is the Internet. Therefore, Netspeak unveils as a channel serving for the transmission of multiple fundamental influences on the Internet which substantially affect the relations and interactions present between the various linguistic features and units adhering to Netspeak as the core manifesting its magnetising character. The further observations might be pinpointed to the fact that Netspeak is predicted to be utilised as an electronic platform where the user is able to apply seemingly the most basic tool as fas as the environment of the Internet is concerned, i.e. the keyboard which offers a restricted set of options encoded in the keys representing the diverse signs. Furthermore, Crystal (2001) explicates that:

Most obviously, a user’s communicative options are constrained by the nature of the hardware needed in order to gain Internet access. Thus, a set of characters on a keyboard determines productive linguistic capacity (the type of information that can be sent); and the size and configuration of the screen determines receptive linguistic capacity (the type of information that can be seen). (p. 24)

It is worth being considered that the piece of information on the Internet becomes utterly flexible and is subjected to the plethora of modifications which influence the existene of such a piece of information within the digital environment. In addition to these transitions of the transferred piece of information, Crystal notices that "there are, accordingly, certain traditional linguistic activities that this medium can facilitate very well, and others that it cannot handle at all". Therefore, Netspeak appears to be suitable for the numerous solutions connected with the transfer of information which might be perceived as a multilevel and flexible as a result of the transofrmations which it undergoes when it operates within or is processed by means of Netspeak . It is also significant that Netspeak is able to serve as a medium which is capable of providing its users with the options which are attainable only for Netspeak itself and cannot be achieved by any other medium. That is why, it is crucial for users to be aware of the possibilities as well as restrictions of the medium on which they decide. This combination of advantages and disadvantages complements the requests that users have in their possession when it comes to the application of the medium, so that the selection process of the adequate medium may be facilitated. In accordance with Crystal "people have strong expectations of the Internet, and established users evidently have strong feelings about how it should be used to achieve its purposes". These tensions are especially meaningful for the evolution of Netspeak which evolves and changes its shape on account of the fact that its environment is constantly subjected to the expectations and diversified aims, and as Crystal further elaborates on the phenomenon "the heart of the matter seems to be its relationship to spoken and written language". Therefore, the introduction of the electronic discourse paves the way for the innovative interpretations and descriptions of the process of the exchange of information between users. This development is examined by Crystal as he investigates:

But to what extent is it possible to ‘write speech’, given a keyboard restricted to the letters of the alphabet, numerals, and a sprinkling of other symbols, and a medium which – as we shall see – disallows some critical features of conversational speech? (p. 25)

As a result, the answer to the inescapable question should be demanded, i.e. if the embodiment of meanings present in speech turns out to be beyond the form of a written medium, in fact, by being unfeasible, then is it anyhow conceivable that the meanings and the subtle pieces of that informational flow represented in speech may be achieved by way of such a medium as Netspeak? Moreover, Crystal (2001) explains that "the world is composed of many different types of people who talk in many different ways, what kind of speech is it, exactly, that the new style guides want us to be writing down?" (p. 25) Therefore, there is another crucial point in case that is connected with the categorisation of preferences of the people who use the medium as well as the people themselves in accordance with the type of language that they wish to demonstrate by means of Netspeak. As a result of such a possible categorisation the concept which might introduce the inevitable clarification for all the unclear cases of people who want to create using this virtual method of communication is presented by Crystal who explicates that people should "write the way people talk’ sounds sensible enough, until we have to answer the question: which people?".