TARDY, C. ET AL. (2020) - Teaching and Researching Genre Knowledge.
TARDY, C. ET AL. (2020) - Teaching and Researching Genre Knowledge.
TARDY, C. ET AL. (2020) - Teaching and Researching Genre Knowledge.
research-article2020
WCXXXX10.1177/0741088320916554Written CommunicationTardy et al.
Article
Written Communication
Teaching and
1–35
© 2020 SAGE Publications
Article reuse guidelines:
Researching Genre sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0741088320916554
https://doi.org/10.1177/0741088320916554
Knowledge: Toward an journals.sagepub.com/home/wcx
Enhanced Theoretical
Framework
Abstract
Increased attention to genre in writing studies has brought a proliferation
of new terms and concepts for capturing the complexity of writers’
knowledge about genres, including genre knowledge, genre awareness,
recontextualization, conditional knowledge, and metacognition. Definitions
of these concepts have at times conflicted, and their interrelationships are
often unclear. Furthermore, scholarship has tended to overlook the role of
multiple languages in writers’ genre knowledge. In this article, we first trace
the use of related terminology and demonstrate the need for theoretical
clarity. We then propose a theoretical framework that articulates key
layers of genre knowledge and their interrelations, presuming a multilingual
writer. Finally, we share examples of how this proposed framework may be
used in teaching and researching genre knowledge. Ultimately, we aim to
contribute to ongoing theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical explorations
and applications of knowing and learning genres.
Keywords
genre theory, metacognition, genre knowledge, genre awareness,
multilingualism, recontextualization, genre pedagogy
1
University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA
Corresponding Author:
Christine M. Tardy, University of Arizona, Tucson, AZ 85721, USA.
Email: ctardy@arizona.edu
2 Written Communication 00(0)
The term genre entered the lexicon of writing and language scholarship in the
1980s, most notably with the publication of Swales’s (1980/2011) Aspects of
Article Introductions, Miller’s (1984) “Genre as Social Action,” and Martin’s
(1984) “Language, Register, and Genre.” Though rooted in different disci-
plinary traditions and pedagogical concerns, these scholars all noted the
value of genre in researching and teaching written communication. Over the
past few decades, genre has emerged as an important concept for understand-
ing how people develop as writers in and out of classroom contexts. Increased
attention to genre has also brought a proliferation of new terms and concepts
for capturing the complexity of writers’ knowledge about genres, including
genre knowledge, genre awareness, recontextualization, conditional knowl-
edge, and metacognition. Scholars have offered at times conflicting defini-
tions of these concepts, and their relationships have not yet been sufficiently
teased apart or explained. Our aim in this article is twofold: first, we review
and explore uses of concepts related to genre knowledge (including tensions
and inconsistencies in the literature), and, second, in an attempt to resolve
existing ambiguities, we offer a theoretical framework that articulates key
layers of genre knowledge and their interrelations, presuming a multilingual
writer. This framework serves to clarify terminological uses and inform
ongoing theoretical, empirical, and pedagogical applications of knowing and
learning genres.
In the following sections, we first demonstrate the need for a more robust
and comprehensive theoretical framework for understanding, teaching, and
researching writers’ genre knowledge (development). Next, we propose a
framework of genre knowledge, clarifying key terms and their relationships.
Finally, we offer examples of how the framework can be employed within
pedagogical and empirical contexts.
Pedagogical Considerations
In discussions of genre pedagogy, the differentiation between genre knowl-
edge and awareness has been reinforced through a distinction between teach-
ing for genre acquisition versus awareness (Devitt, 2004; Russell & Fisher,
2009). According to Russell and Fisher (2009), the former is characterized by
“teaching in an explicit (though not necessarily presentational) way certain
generic ‘moves’ or conventions of genres . . . [with the goal of providing]
linguistic resources that students are assumed to then use in new contexts”
(pp. 164–165). The authors aligned genre acquisition pedagogy with “major
SFL approaches . . . or second language (ESP/EAP) writing approaches”
(p. 165). In contrast, they described genre awareness pedagogy as “distinct
from (but related to) genre acquisition” (p. 165), focusing first on rhetorical
analysis of familiar genres, then on less familiar but related genres, constantly
integrating form and context. Devitt (2004) identifies the goals of teaching
for genre awareness as helping students to “understand the intricate connec-
tions between contexts and forms, to perceive potential ideological effects of
genres, and to discern both constraints and choices that genres make possi-
ble” (p. 198). It bears noting that these distinctions have frequently been
linked to disciplinary differences within genre studies, potentially reinforcing
a view of “camps” of genre and inhibiting interdisciplinary engagement.
Furthermore, genre acquisition approaches are often associated with instruc-
tion of second language learners and genre awareness approaches with early
Tardy et al. 5
Research Challenges
While the pedagogical binary of teaching genre awareness versus genre-
specific knowledge is problematic, the tendency to conflate these constructs
in research poses additional challenges. For example, in reviewing a num-
ber of well-cited and largely recent articles in genre studies,2 we noted that
at times no specific definitions of the constructs were provided, and occa-
sionally the two terms were used interchangeably. In some cases, research-
ers defined genre awareness as a broader metacognitive knowledge of genre
but collected data that illustrated the participants’ knowledge of specific
genre features. In other cases, multiple studies examined similar types of
data—that is, students’ reflections on or annotations of their own writing—
but characterized them differently: as genre awareness in one study and
genre knowledge in another. An additional challenge lies in the need to
study both genre-specific knowledge and broader genre awareness. Most
studies have focused only on one of these two constructs, so there are few
examples that explore the constructs separately or that strive to understand
how they work together for writers—including how they may work across
languages. Some of this challenge, to be sure, relates to the limits of study-
ing cognition in any form, but more consistent use and application of termi-
nology would enable researchers to draw comparisons across studies more
easily.
Several scholars have noted overlaps or suggested interrelationships
among genre knowledge, genre awareness, and metacognition (Cheng, 2018;
Gentil, 2011; Negretti & McGrath, 2018), yet there is a lack of consistent
agreement in genre scholarship more generally. Shared definitions that
describe and distinguish genre-specific knowledge and awareness can pro-
vide useful frameworks for researchers studying what writers know about
genres. Such research can help us understand how genre-specific knowledge
and awareness are developed and how each may contribute to the other over
time. More precision in defining different kinds of genre knowledge (knowl-
edge of specific features as opposed to broader awareness) can also lead to
more consistent ways of operationalizing these terms in pedagogy. For exam-
ple, clearer definitions of these constructs can assist teachers in identifying
Tardy et al. 7
Acknowledging Multilingualism
Much genre pedagogy and research focuses on students who are writing in an
additional language, so it is somewhat surprising that the role of writers’ mul-
tilingual resources has been given such limited attention to date. Gentil’s
(2011) rich theoretical exploration of biliteracy and genre learning provides
an important exception. Synthesizing research on genre knowledge, writing
expertise, language proficiency, and biliteracy, Gentil hypothesized that
“multilingual genre learning should promote genre awareness, rhetorical
flexibility, and audience sensitivity, although this remains an empirical ques-
tion” (p. 20). Nearly a decade after Gentil made this claim, we still lack a
clear understanding of how writers’ multilingual resources might contribute
to their genre-specific knowledge and genre awareness.
In constructing our theoretical framework of genre knowledge, we have
presumed a multilingual writer for several reasons. First, by explicitly
addressing multilingualism, we hope to make it more visible and less likely
to be overlooked, thus highlighting the need for further research. Second, the
majority of people worldwide are multilingual. Even if we restrict our focus
to literacy and, more narrowly, to academic writing, bi/multiliteracy would
appear to the norm rather than the exception. Indeed, as academic journals
have decidedly taken an Anglophone orientation, researchers worldwide face
great pressure to publish in English as an additional language (Corcoran,
2019; Curry & Lillis, 2017). Third, as applied linguists and language teachers
ourselves, we have a particular interest in how our students’ multilingual
genre repertoires may contribute to their developing understanding of
genre(s) and also how we can support continued expansion of those reper-
toires. Given Gentil’s (2011) suggestion that multilingualism could serve as a
valuable resource for genre learning, ignoring it would be to the detriment of
our multilingual students. And finally, we hope that by integrating multilin-
gualism into an interdisciplinary framework, we can encourage all scholars to
consider its role in developing genre knowledge.
Genre-Specific Knowledge
We use the term genre-specific knowledge to refer to the knowledge that writ-
ers hold of a particular genre or group of genres. This term is, as we under-
stand it, synonymous with Cheng’s (2018) term “awareness of genres” and
Tardy’s (2009) term “genre knowledge,” but aims to be more precise in its
nomenclature. Our framework builds on Tardy’s (2009) description of genre
knowledge (what we call “genre-specific knowledge” here) as multidimen-
sional and encompassing a layered and dynamic knowledge of several over-
lapping domains (see Figure 1). These domains may include formal (e.g.,
content, organization, lexicogrammatical features), process (e.g., composing,
distributing), rhetorical (e.g., discourse community, social relations), and
subject-matter knowledge (e.g., disciplinary conversations).
By resituating (and renaming) Tardy’s (2009) genre knowledge as genre-
specific knowledge, we acknowledge that the broader concept of genre
knowledge may also include genre awareness (a meta-awareness of genre,
discussed in the next section), as proposed by Gentil (2011). When we learn
to use genres with ever-increasing sophistication and flexibility, we develop
genre-specific knowledge and genre awareness—both are part of our genre
knowledge and both may, in theory, help develop knowledge of new genres
across these four dimensions depicted in Figure 1.
Genre-specific knowledge may be tied at least partially to one language,
by which we mean that users may be (most) familiar with the formal and
rhetorical conventions, content, and practices of a genre as it is carried out in
Tardy et al. 9
genre-specific knowledge that goes beyond form. They can explore, for
example, common practices of use and the dynamics of a rhetorical situation
through ethnographic exploration of the genre, observing genres in action
and interviewing their users (e.g., Devitt, 2004). Exploration of related
genres, including antecedent genres or interlinked sets of genres may also
support writers in learning specific genres (Bawarshi, 2003; Devitt, 2004;
Tardy, 2009).
The key points we wish to make in defining genre-specific knowledge are
that (a) it is knowledge about a specific genre, (b) it is multidimensional,
including more than formal knowledge, and (c) it may draw on, or be built
with, knowledge of other, related genres. Further, as our discussion has sug-
gested, genre-specific knowledge cannot be entirely separated from aware-
ness of how genre (as a broader concept) works.
Genre Awareness
Following Devitt (2004, 2009, 2015), we define genre awareness as explicit
awareness or understanding of how genres work—“a consciousness of and
process for analyzing, learning, and critiquing any genre” (2015, p. 46). As “a
type of rhetorical awareness” (2009, p. 337) or a “consciousness of genres”
(2009, p. 343), genre awareness includes a broad understanding of rhetorical
contexts and how writers may effectively respond to exigencies within such
contexts, as well as an explicit framework for analyzing such contexts, for
example through genre analysis (Cheng, 2018).
Genre awareness overlaps with the rhetorical knowledge (and rhetorical
consciousness) that a writer develops for a specific genre (see Figure 1).
However, we see genre awareness as more general, including a broader
understanding of writing and genres that writers can bring to familiar and
unfamiliar genres; it is, therefore, a kind of metacognitive knowledge. For
example, imagine an undergraduate biology student who must create a poster
of her senior thesis project for a department event. The student has some
formal knowledge of the science poster (from seeing them in the department
hallways and even at elementary school science fairs) but limited knowledge
of the rhetorical situation of, and production processes for, her senior project
poster. As a biology student, however, she has developed an awareness that
writing is adapted to specific rhetorical situations: She knows that the poster
content and design will differ from a research report, she has learned to look
at examples to identify conventions and variations, and she is able to ask
astute questions to her advisor to understand better what readers will expect
in a poster. She therefore is able to use her genre awareness to build knowl-
edge of the science poster.
Tardy et al. 11
Genre awareness
Genre-specific
knowledge
Metacognition
Metacognition broadly refers to higher-order cognition, or cognition about
cognition (Veenman et al., 2006). Although metacognition has been defined
differently, educational psychologists agree that it plays a crucial role in
enabling learners to use and assess their knowledge, respond to task require-
ments, and take control of their learning (Negretti, 2012, 2017; Schraw &
Dennison, 1994; Veenman et al., 2006). Following writing scholars who have
noted an association between metacognition and genre awareness (Devitt,
2015; Negretti & Kuteeva, 2011), our framework recognizes the availability
of metacognition in developing genre knowledge (Figure 2). For our pur-
poses, metacognition can be understood in the most basic terms as a writer’s
ability to consider and regulate cognitive processes while planning or writ-
ing. As Hacker et al. (2009) proposed, writing should essentially be consid-
ered a form of applied metacognition, though it is important to keep in mind
that acts of writing involve both cognitive (“object-level”) and metacognitive
(“meta-level”) processes (Negretti & McGrath, 2018; Veenman et al., 2006).
Theorists typically distinguish between two components of metacogni-
tion: metacognitive knowledge and metacognitive regulation. Metacognitive
knowledge refers to our understanding of what we know about a specific
Tardy et al. 13
of the task” (Negretti, 2017, p. 533) (see “Summary and Example” for an
illustration). Following these research findings, we see metacognition as
playing a facilitative role in the adaptation of genre knowledge to new writ-
ing situations.
Genre pedagogy typically incorporates metacognitive learning activities.
Devitt (2015) argues that genre pedagogy should incorporate frequent reflec-
tion “to develop students’ metacognitive awareness” (p. 49) and therefore
encourage transfer of learning. Negretti and McGrath (2018) provide an
example of how tasks that scaffold genre awareness can help students to
articulate their genre knowledge and to consider how they can deploy that
knowledge effectively as writers. In their study, one metacognitive scaffold is
conducted at the start of their graduate-level L2 writing course, with students
writing a one-page description of their academic research writing context and
explaining how their work contributes to their research community. This task
activates students’ prior knowledge before they engage in genre analysis
tasks of research writing. The second metacognitive scaffold occurs at the
end of the course, when students create a visualization of academic writing in
their own research community by drawing on what they learned through
genre analysis in the course. Students write an accompanying short reflection
on the concepts they found most useful, the observations they made in their
genre analysis, how they used their genre knowledge in their writing, and
what they think will be useful in future writing. These tasks can serve the
purposes of supporting students’ genre learning and exploring learning from
a research perspective.
Recontextualization
We see recontextualization (Cheng, 2007, 2011, 2018) as a process through
which writers draw on and adapt existing genre knowledge (as depicted in
Figure 2) each time they perform a genre. As such, recontextualization may be
thought of as the action through which conditional knowledge is utilized.
Whenever we produce a genre, we recontextualize or adapt our existing knowl-
edge, performing appropriately for the unique rhetorical circumstances of the
task. Recontextualization involves “learners’ abilities not only to use a certain
generic feature in a new writing task, but to use it with a keen awareness of the
rhetorical context that facilitates its appropriate use” (Cheng, 2007, p. 303).
This process seems largely synonymous with what DePalma and Ringer (2011)
referred to as adaptive transfer, “the conscious or intuitive process of applying
or reshaping learned writing knowledge in order to help students negotiate new
and potentially unfamiliar writing situations” (p. 135). Nowacek (2011) has
used the term recontextualization similarly but in conjunction with integration,
Tardy et al. 15
Social Context
Because genres are social practices and rhetorical categories, genre knowl-
edge has been described as a kind of situated cognition (Berkenkotter &
16 Written Communication 00(0)
Multilingualism
Scholars have defined multilingualism differently (Bassetti & Cook, 2011;
Cenoz, 2013; Grosjean, 2010; Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2016); here, we under-
stand multilingualism as a dynamic and socially oriented ability to participate
in social practices involving two or more languages or language varieties.3
Multilingual genre users may need to combine and adapt genre knowledge
built across languages and language varieties to enable participation in social
settings.
Notions of translanguaging and language fluidity conceptualize the lin-
guistic resources of multilingual speakers as one integrated repertoire that is
socially constructed as countable, named languages (García & Wei, 2014;
Jaspers & Madsen, 2019). Translingualism similarly treats multilinguals’ rep-
ertoires as beneficial resources rather than negative interferences of language
differences (e.g., Canagarajah, 2006, 2013). We share this view of language
repertoires as fluid and this value in multilingual resources, while also recog-
nizing that languages are often perceived and thus continue to function as
distinct codes tied to specific communicative contexts, and that they are
socially and culturally meaningful as such (Gentil, 2018; Gevers, 2018;
Jaspers & Madsen, 2019). As a result, cross-lingual acts of recontextualiza-
tion may be more demanding than recontextualization processes within the
same language (variety), given the expanded linguistic repertoires and the
possibly diverging (cultural) conventions writers must negotiate.
Relevant to our theoretical framework is the question of to what extent
genre awareness and genre-specific knowledge are available across lan-
guages. Language scholars have argued that there is underlying knowledge
accessible across languages (Cumming, 1989, in press; Cummins, 1979;
Gentil, 2011, 2018; Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2016). The Common Underlying
Proficiency (CUP) proposed by Cummins (1979) provides a useful heuristic
to understand cognitive interdependence that allows for transfer of linguistic
practices even if surface-level linguistic elements appear different. Recent
studies on bilingual neural processing have corroborated this hypothesis,
showing that both languages are active when one single language is being
18 Written Communication 00(0)
used (e.g., Kroll & Bialystok, 2013). Findings on adult L2 learning research
also suggest a permeability of language systems in which the newly acquired
and existing languages interact dynamically to the point where “the two lan-
guages begin to converge, with changes to the L1 as well as to the L2” (Kroll
et al., 2014, p. 3). Several studies have utilized Cook’s (2008) multicompe-
tence concept to explore multilingual writers, finding that such writers do
draw on their writing repertoires across languages even as they write in one
language (e.g., Gentil, 2018; Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2013). A multilingual
lens, then, highlights some of the benefits of multilingual writing develop-
ment, such as refined awareness of different rhetorical patterns, audience
expectations, and composing process knowledge, potentially resulting in
increased writer agency (Rinnert & Kobayashi, 2016) and enhanced creativ-
ity (Canagarajah, 2006).
The role of multilingualism is particularly germane to genre knowledge
because genres are not necessarily equivalent across languages and contexts.
For example, we may perceive some genres to be realized differently across
languages and contexts, as in the case of academic articles (Canagarajah,
2006), dissertations (Swales, 2004), nursing notes and patient care plans
(Parks, 2001), and apartment listings (Nord, 2018). In other instances, differ-
ent genres may be used to respond to similar exigencies across linguistic and
social groups. Take, for example, the unique genre of “matrimonials,” a kind
of classified advertisement which specifically facilitates arranged marriages
amongst some social groups in India (Ramakrishnan, 2012) but appears to be
unique to that sociorhetorical context. Finally, genre names may be consistent
across languages while the genre itself differs; for example, crônicas, as real-
ized in Brazilian Portuguese, are normally first published as columns in
newspapers, whereas chronicles, in English and certain other languages (e.g.,
kronieken, in Dutch), are typically conceived as historical (travel) accounts.
Kim and Belcher (2018) distinguished between two dimensions of multi-
lingual genre knowledge: non-language-specific and language-specific genre
knowledge. They theorized that non-language-specific genre knowledge
includes Cummins’s (2000) CUP, Kobayashi and Rinnert’s (2012) rhetorical
features, and Tardy’s (2009) subject-matter and process knowledge.
Language-specific genre knowledge, on the other hand, might include lin-
guistic knowledge (Kobayashi & Rinnert, 2012) or formal genre knowledge
(Tardy, 2009). However, as Gentil (2019) has pointed out, it may be more
accurate to describe these relations as “language-dependent” rather than “lan-
guage-specific,” given the emergent and evolving nature of both language(s)
and genre(s). The complexity and multifaceted nature of crosslinguistic influ-
ence (Jarvis & Pavlenko, 2008) is also seen in multilingual genre knowledge,
which is likely more complex than a binary categorization suggests. A
Tardy et al. 19
writer’s genre awareness can help them identify similarities and differences
across genres, languages, and cultures and adapt these features as needed
(Gentil, 2011), though writers “differ in terms of (metacognitive) knowledge
they have about writing and also in terms of which knowledge they can put
into use” (Schoonen et al., 2011, p. 79).4 Genre awareness, then, can help
multilingual writers draw on their entire linguistic repertoire when producing
language- and audience-specific instances of a genre (Gentil, 2011, 2018).
Scholars have acknowledged the potential value of multilingualism in
developing genre knowledge, but few studies have examined genre knowl-
edge development through a multilingual lens (cf. Artemeva & Fox, 2010;
Artemeva & Myles, 2015; Sommer-Farias, 2020); similarly, examples of
multilingual genre pedagogies are still limited. In Sommer-Farias’s (2020)
study, students were able to draw on and develop their genre knowledge
cross-lingually, demonstrating that explicit discussion of cross-lingual genre
use facilitated this process. Our theoretical framework suggests, however,
that multilingual writers can benefit from classroom tasks that explore and
compare genre uses across languages, fostering heightened genre awareness
and rhetorical flexibility (see also Gentil, 2011).
Applications
We now demonstrate how this theoretical framework may be put to use peda-
gogically and empirically. First, we illustrate how it can guide the design of
pedagogical activities, providing examples of bilingual genre analysis and
translation tasks for multilingual student writers. Next, we show how the
framework may be operationalized in the study of multilingual genre knowl-
edge development.
be interviewed about her understanding of the genre and reasons for repre-
senting it visually as she has, allowing us to identify changes in her genre-
specific knowledge of proposals and her metacognitive awareness of genre
more generally over time. We could investigate the extent to which Bruna
drew on familiar genres through reflective comments or interview questions
that discuss features noticed in other genres across linguistic and disciplinary
domains and how those features were adapted in new writing. Given that
metacognition is language-independent (Schoonen et al., 2011), pairing mind
maps with reflections allows researchers to investigate how multilingual
writers draw on knowledge of genres across languages. These tools also have
the potential to elicit what writers consider when they “shuttle between lan-
guages” (Canagarajah, 2006) to recontextualize specific genres.
The second research tool is inspired by Cheng’s (2007, 2018) recontextu-
alization and annotation task. As an assignment in a graduate L2 writing
course, Cheng’s students analyzed academic article introductions and then
wrote three versions of introductions for different audiences; they were also
asked to annotate their texts, explaining choices they made. Like Wette’s
(2017) mind maps, Cheng’s (2007, 2018) task provides a window into stu-
dents’ genre-specific knowledge, but it goes further in also demonstrating
students’ conditional knowledge and recontextualization, showing how they
employ and adapt that knowledge in new rhetorical contexts. The accompa-
nying annotation elicits writers’ genre awareness. Cheng’s task can be
adapted as a research tool in which writers’ share their writing in a genre
(possibly across languages) and annotate those texts for the researcher. Again
imagining a study of Bruna’s genre knowledge of proposals, we could exam-
ine the changes made as she recontextualized her knowledge of conference
proposals to new conference tasks across languages and later to a related
genre (the grant proposal). In a discourse-based interview of the self-annota-
tion task, we could ask Bruna to indicate linguistic or rhetorical choices in her
texts (e.g., choice of vocabulary/expressions, verb tense, rhetorical moves)
and explain the rhetorical functions she aimed to convey. Her responses and
annotations could help reveal her knowledge of how formal features serve
rhetorical purposes and demonstrate how her conditional knowledge was
activated and applied. To learn more about Bruna’s multilingual genre knowl-
edge, we might ask her to indicate features that she believes were influenced
by her experience writing in other languages.
Conclusion
It bears emphasizing that genre knowledge is situated; that is to say, genre
knowledge exists and develops in social contexts through interactions and in
Tardy et al. 27
Acknowledgments
We would like to thank Chad Wickman, three anonymous reviewers, Brad Jacobson,
Fang Xu, and Chris’s Fall 2019 Genre seminar class for their extremely thoughtful
and engaging comments on previous versions of this article. Your generous feedback
has helped us strengthen the article in numerous ways and has pushed our thinking in
this area. Remaining weaknesses are ours alone.
Funding
The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publica-
tion of this article.
Notes
1. Throughout this article, we use the term “model” to refer specifically to a model
of the construct of genre knowledge and its dimensions or components. In con-
trast, we use “theoretical framework” (or, simply, “framework”) to refer to our
framework for defining multiple interrelated constructs.
2. We specifically looked at Artemeva and Fox (2010), Cheng (2006, 2007), Driscoll
et al. (2019), Kim and Belcher (2018), Kuteeva (2013), Mustafa (1995), Negretti
and Kuteeva (2011), Negretti and McGrath (2018), Reiff and Bawarshi (2011),
Rounsaville (2014), Wette (2017), Yasuda (2011, 2015), and Yayli (2011).
3. Our definition of multilingualism encompasses one’s knowledge of both lan-
guages and language varieties (also referred to as dialects).
4. The cross-lingual adaptation in Canagarajah’s (2006) account of Sivatamby, a
Tamil scholar who skillfully adapts the genre conventions of academic articles
across languages and audiences, illustrates how a multilingual writer can nego-
tiate resources across languages. The social practices that multilinguals take
part in throughout their lives (i.e., differences between stimuli) shape their use
of attentional resources and focus on environmental features (Chung-Fat-Yim
et al., 2017), thus influencing how writers negotiate choices over a spectrum of
language and non-language-specific features when producing genres.
5. This assignment was developed by Jeroen Gevers, Christine Tardy, and Shelley
Staples for a writing course at University of Arizona.
References
Artemeva, N., & Fox, J. (2010). Awareness versus production: Probing students’
antecedent genre knowledge. Journal of Business and Technical Communication,
24(4), 476–515.
Tardy et al. 29
Artemeva, N., & Myles, D. (2015). Perceptions of prior genre knowledge: A case
of incipient biliterate writers in the EAP classroom. In G. Dowd & N. Rulyova
(Eds.), Genre trajectories: Identifying, mapping, projecting (pp. 225–245).
Palgrave Macmillan.
Atkinson, D. (2004). Toward a sociocognitive approach to second language acquisi-
tion. Modern Language Journal, 86(4), 525–545.
Bassetti, B., & Cook, V. (2011). Relating language and cognition: The second lan-
guage user. In V. Cook & B. Bassetti (Eds.), Language and bilingual cognition
(pp. 143–190). Psychology Press.
Bawarshi, A. (2003). Genre and the invention of the writer: Reconsidering the place
of invention in composition. Utah State University Press.
Bawarshi, A., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre: An introduction to history, theory,
research, and pedagogy. Parlor Press.
Bazerman, C. (2002). Genre and identity: Citizenship in the age of global capitalism.
In R. Coe, L. Lingard, & T. Teslenko (Eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre
(pp. 13–37). Hampton Press.
Beaufort, A. (2004). Developmental gains of a history major: A case for building a
theory of disciplinary writing expertise. Research in the Teaching of English,
39(2), 136–185.
Beaufort, A. (2007). College writing and beyond: A new framework for university
writing instruction. Utah State University Press.
Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1993). Rethinking genre from a sociocognitive
perspective. Written Communication, 10(4), 475–509.
Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of
learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), 32–42.
Bruce, I. (2016). Constructing critical stance in university essays in English literature
and sociology. English for Specific Purposes, 42, 13–25.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2006). Toward a writing pedagogy of shuttling between lan-
guages: Learning from multilingual writers. College English, 68(6), 589–604.
Canagarajah, A. S. (2013). Negotiating translingual literacy: An enactment. Research
in the Teaching of English, 48(1), 40–67.
Carreres, A., & Noriega-Sánchez, M. (2011). Translation in language teaching:
Insights from professional translator training. Language Learning Journal, 39(3),
281–297.
Cenoz, J. (2013). The influence of bilingualism on third language acquisition: Focus
on multilingualism. Language Teaching, 46(1), 71–86.
Cheng, A. (2006). Understanding learners and learning in ESP genre-based writing
instruction. English for Specific Purposes, 25(1), 76–89.
Cheng, A. (2007). Transferring generic features and recontextualizing genre aware-
ness: Understanding writing performance in the ESP genre-based literacy frame-
work. English for Specific Purposes, 26(3), 287–307.
Cheng, A. (2011). Language features as the pathways to genre: Students’ attention
to non-prototypical features and its implications. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 20(1), 69–82.
30 Written Communication 00(0)
Schoonen, R., Van Gelderen, A., Stoel, R. D., Hulstijn, J., & De Glopper, K. (2011).
Modeling the development of L1 and EFL writing proficiency of secondary
school students. Language Learning, 61(1), 31–79.
Schraw, G., & Dennison, R. S. (1994). Assessing metacognitive awareness.
Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(4), 460–475.
Sommer-Farias, B. (2020). “This is helping me with writing in all languages”:
Developing genre knowledge across languages in a foreign language course
[Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. University of Arizona.
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings.
Cambridge University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2004). Research genres: Explorations and applications. Cambridge
University Press.
Swales, J. M. (2011). Aspects of article introductions. University of Michigan Press.
(Original work published 1980)
Tardy, C. M. (2006). Researching first and second language genre learning: A com-
parative review and a look ahead. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2),
79–101.
Tardy, C. M. (2009). Building genre knowledge. Parlor Press.
Tardy, C. M. (2016). Beyond convention: Genre innovation in academic writing.
University of Michigan.
Tardy, C. M. (2019). Genre-based writing: What every ESL teacher needs to know.
University of Michigan.
Van Lier, L. (2008). An ecological-semiotic perspective on language and linguistics.
In B. Spolsky & F. Hult (Eds.), The handbook of educational linguistics
(pp. 596–605). Blackwell.
Veenman, M., Van Hout-Wolters, B., & Afflerbach, P. (2006). Metacognition and
learning: Conceptual and methodological considerations. Metacognition and
Learning, 1(1), 3–14.
Wette, R. (2017). Using mind maps to reveal and develop genre knowledge in a grad-
uate writing course. Journal of Second Language Writing, 38, 58–71.
Yasuda, S. (2011). Genre-based tasks in foreign language writing: Developing writ-
ers’ genre awareness, linguistic knowledge, and writing competence. Journal of
Second Language Writing, 20(2), 111–133.
Yasuda, S. (2015). Exploring changes in FL writers’ meaning-making choices in
summary writing: A systemic functional approach. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 27, 105–121.
Yayli, D. (2011). From genre awareness to cross-genre awareness: A study in an EFL
context. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 10(3), 121–129.
Author Biographies
Christine M. Tardy is Professor of English Applied Linguistics in the Department of
English and interdisciplinary PhD program in Second Language Acquisition and
Teaching at the University of Arizona, where she teaches undergraduate and graduate
courses in TESOL, applied linguistics, and writing studies. Her research interests
Tardy et al. 35
include genre and discourse studies, second language writing, English for academic
purposes (EAP) / writing in the disciplines (WID), and policies and politics of English.
Bruna Sommer-Farias received her PhD in Second Language Acquisition and
Teaching (SLAT) from the University of Arizona. She has taught Portuguese and
English as additional languages in Brazil and the United States. Her research interests
include genre theory, genre and corpus-based approaches to writing, multilingualism,
foreign language education, and curriculum design.
Jeroen Gevers is a doctoral candidate in Second Language Acquisition and Teaching
(SLAT) at the University of Arizona. He has taught academic writing, music history,
and English for Academic Purposes in the Netherlands and the United States. His
research interests include genre, multilingualism, disciplinary socialization, and
authorial identity. His work has appeared in Journal of Second Language Writing.