Cover not available
Article published In:
Cognitive Perspectives on Genre
Edited by Carla Vergaro
[Pragmatics & Cognition 25:3] 2018
► pp. 430–458

A cognitive framework for understanding genre

The Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model

| University of Perugia

The purpose of this paper is to apply the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model (EC-Model hereafter; see Schmid 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018; Schmid & Mantlik 2015) of language knowledge to genre, with the aim of showing how a unified theory of the relation between usage and linguistic knowledge and convention can shed light on the way genre knowledge becomes entrenched in the individual and shared conventional behavior in communities. The EC-Model is a usage-based and emergentist model of language knowledge and convention rooted in cognitive linguistics and usage-based approaches. It sees knowledge as emerging from language usage, and explains the processes underlying the intertwining of social practice and cognition. However, so far, no suggestion has been advanced on how to extend the model to account for entrenchment and conventionalization at the supra-sentential level. In the area of genre studies various attempts have been made by scholars to develop or apply theories belonging to different scientific domains to understand the nature of genre. However, so far, there has been no research that applies a unified model in the attempt to link entrenchment of genres in individuals to their conventionalization at the societal level. I largely focus on the long tradition of rhetorical studies of genre, one among the different approaches that, over time, have regarded genre as their main topic of investigation. I concentrate on this tradition as it opens up the entire field of enquiry that defines contemporary genre research. To these I add by showing how the explanations provided so far can be cognitively clarified and unified under the EC-Model. The paper, then, argues that the EC-Model is theoretically apt to address questions about the nature of genre, capturing in an elegant way the interplay between cognition and social interaction in genre emergence, evolution, stabilization and variation.

Keywords: conventionalization, emergence, entrenchment, genre, social action, usage
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Converging lines in genre studies and cognitive linguistics
  • 3.The EC-Model
  • 4.Looking at genre through the lens of the EC-Model
    • 4.1Emergence, persistence, variation, and change
      • 4.1.1The sermon and the blog
    • 4.2Contextualized generic forms
      • 4.2.1Combination of blessing–cursing speech acts in the Puritan sermon
      • 4.2.2Concessivity in business letter discourse
  • 5.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 10 January 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.19003.ver
References
Andrews, James R.
(ed.) 2007 Rhetoric, religion and the roots of identity in British colonial America. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.Google Scholar
Antonopoulou, Eleni & Kiki Nikiforidou
2009 Deconstructing verbal humour with Construction Grammar. In Geert Brône & Jeroen Vandaele (eds.), Cognitive Poetics: Goals, gains and gaps, 289–314. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2011 Construction Grammar and conventional discourse. Journal of Pragmatics 43(10). 2594–2609. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Austin, John L.
1975 [1962] How to do things with words. Harvard: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakhtin, Mikhail
1986 The problem of speech genre. In Caryl Emerson & Michael Holquist (eds.), Speech genres and other late essays, 60–102. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Barlow, Michael & Suzanne Kemmer
(eds.) 2000 Usage-based models of language. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Bercovitch, Sacvan
1975 The Puritan origin of the American self. Yale: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Berkenkotter, Carol & Thomas N. Huckin
1995 Genre knowledge in disciplinary communication: Cognition, culture, power. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bitzer, Lloyd F.
1968 The rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 11. 1–14.Google Scholar
Blumenthal-Dramé, Alice
2012 Entrenchment in usage-based theories: What corpus data do and do not reveal about the mind. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boggel, Sandra
2009 Metadiscourse in Middle English and Early Modern English religious texts. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Bremer, Francis J.
2003 John Winthrop. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Brown, Penelope & Stephen Levinson
1987 Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Burke, Kenneth
1966 Language as a symbolic action. Berkeley: University of California Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1969a A grammar of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
1969b A rhetoric of motives. Berkeley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L.
2006 From usage to grammar: The mind’s response to repetition, Language 82(4). 711–733. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. & Paul J. Hopper
(eds.) 2001 Frequency and the emergence of linguistic structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chang, Yu-Chun
2016 The entrenchment and conventionalization of linguistic knowledge: A neurolinguistics perspective. PhD dissertation, LMU Munich.Google Scholar
Clark, Herbert H.
1998 Communal lexicon. In Kirsten Malmkjær & John Williams (eds.), Context in language learning and language understanding, 63–87. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
1999 On the origins of conversation. Verbum 21(2). 147–161.Google Scholar
Cowley, Stephen J.
2017 Entrenchment: A view from radical embodied cognitive science. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, 409–431. Boston: APA and Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Croft, William
2000 Explaining language change: An evolutionary approach. New York: Longman.Google Scholar
2009 Toward a social cognitive linguistics. In Vyvyan Evans & Stephanie Pourcel (eds.), New directions in cognitive linguistics, 395–420. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Devitt, Amy
2009 Re-fusing form in genre study. In Janet Giltrow & Dieter Stein (eds.), Genres in the Internet: Issues in the theory of genre, 27–47. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dijk, Teun van
2006 Introduction: Discourse, interaction and cognition. Discourse Studies 8(1). 5–7. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Djik, Teun van
2014 Discourse and knowledge: A socio-cognitive approach. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin
2010 Beyond the sentence: Constructions, frames and spoken interaction. Constructions and Frames 2(2). 185–207. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 Situation in grammar or in frames? Evidence from the so-called baby-talk register. Construction and Frames 7(2). 258–288. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 Designing speech for a recipient. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fishelov, David
1993 Metaphors of genre: The role of analogies in genre theory. University Park: The Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
1999 The birth of a genre. European Journal of English Studies 3(1). 51–63. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fisher, Walter A.
1970 A motive view of communication. The Quarterly Journal of Speech 56(2). 131–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fotion, Nick
1971 Master speech acts. Philosophical Quarterly 21(4). 232–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1979 Speech activity and language use. Philosophia 8(4). 615–638. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003 From speech acts to speech activity. In Barry Smith (ed.), John Searle, 34–51. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freadman, Anne
1994 Anyone for tennis? In Aviva Freedman & Peter Medway (eds.), Genre and the New Rhetoric, 43–66. London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
2002 Uptake. In Richard Coe, Lorelei Lingard & Tatiana Teslenko (eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre: Strategies for stability and change, 39–53. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
2012 The traps and trappings of genre theory. Applied Linguistics 33(5). 544–563. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Geeraerts, Dirk
2017 Entrenchment as onomasiological salience. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, 153–174. Boston: APA and Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Giltrow, Janet
2002 Meta-genre. In Richard Coe, Lorelei Lingard & Tatiana Teslenko (eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre: Strategies for stability and change, 187–205. Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.Google Scholar
Giltrow, Janet & Dieter Stein
(eds.) 2009 Genres in the Internet: Issues in the theory of genre. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, Ian
2000 Print and Protestantism in Early Modern England. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hall Jamieson, Kathleen
1973 Generic constraints and the rhetorical situation. Philosophy and Rhetoric 6(3). 162–170.Google Scholar
Harder, Peter
2010 Meaning in mind and society. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas
2015 Cognitive sociolinguistic aspects of football chants: The role of social and physical context in usage-based construction grammar. Zeitschrift für Anglistik und Amerikanistik 63(3). 273–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, Thomas & Alexander Bergs
2018 A construction grammar approach to genre. CogniTextes 181 [URL] (5 November 2018). DOI logo
Hopper, Paul J.
1987 Emergent grammar. Berkeley Linguistics Society 131. 139–157. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iza Erviti, Aneider
2015 Complementary alternation discourse constructions in English: A preliminary study. International Journal of English Studies 15(1). 71–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jost, Ethan & Morten H. Christiansen
2017 Statistical learning as a domain-general mechanism of entrenchment. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, 227–244. Boston: APA and Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kerswill, Paul & Ann Williams
2002 “Salience” as an explanatory factor in linguistic change: Evidence from dialect levelling in urban England. In Mari C. Jones & Edith Esch (eds.), Language change: The interplay of internal, external and extra-linguistic factors, 81–110. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kohnen, Thomas
2010 Religious discourse. In Andreas Jucker & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Historical Pragmatics, 523–547. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Labov, William
1966 The social stratification of English in New York City. Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W.
2000 A dynamic usage-based model. In Michael Barlow & Suzanne Kemmer (eds.), Usage-based models of language, 1–63. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
2001 Discourse in Cognitive Grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 12(2). 143–188. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008 Cognitive Grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Investigations in Cognitive Grammar. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lassen, Inger
2016 Making sense of a generic label: A study of genre (re)cognition among novice genre analysts. In Ninke Stukker, Wilbert Spooren & Gerard Steen (eds.), Genre in language, discourse and cognition, 395–426. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Lewis, David
1969 Convention. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Michaelis, Laura & Hanbing Feng
2015 What is this, sarcastic syntax? Constructions and Frames 7(2). 148–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michaelis, Laura & Knud Lambrecht
1996 Toward a construction-based theory of language function: The case of nominal extraposition. Language 72(2). 215–247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Carolyn
1984 Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech 70(2). 151–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 Genre change and evolution. In Natasha Artemeva & Aviva Freedman (eds.), Genre studies around the globe: Beyond the three traditions, 154–185. Edmonton, AB: Inkshed Publications.Google Scholar
2016 Genre innovation: Evolution, emergence or something else? The Journal of Media Innovations 3(2). 4–19. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 Where do genres come from? In Carolyn Miller & Ashley R. Kelly (eds.), Emerging genres in new media environments, 1–34. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Miller, Carolyn & Dawn Shepherd
2004 Blogging as social action. In Laura Gurak, Smiljana Antonijevic, Laurie Johnson, Clancy Ratliff & Jessica Reymann (eds.), Into the blogosphere: Rhetoric, community and the culture of the weblogs. [URL] (7 September 2018).
2009 Questions for genre theory from the blogosphere. In Janet Giltrow & Dieter Stein (eds.), Genres in the Internet: Issues in the theory of genre, 263–290. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nikiforidou, Kiki
2009 Constructional analysis. In Frank Brisard, Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds.), Grammar, meaning and pragmatics, 16–32. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010 Viewpoint and construction grammar: The case of past + now. Language and Literature 19(3). 265–284. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015 Grammatical constructions and cross-text generalizations: Empathetic narration as a genre. Constructions and Frames 7(2). 181–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 ‘Genre knowledge’ in a constructional framework: Lexis, grammar and perspective in folk tales. In Ninke Stukker, Wilbert Spooren & Gerard Steen (eds.), Genre in language, discourse and cognition, 331–359. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Nir, Bracha
2015 Frames for clause combining: Schematicity and formulaicity in discourse patterns. Constructions and Frames 7(2). 348–379. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Østergaard, Svend & Peer F. Bundgaard
2014 The double feedback loop and the parameter theory of text genres. In Jan Engberg, Carmen Daniela Maier & Ole Togeby (eds.), Reflections upon genre: Encounters between literature, knowledge, and emerging communicative conventions, 17–43. Tübingen: Narr Verlag.Google Scholar
2015 The emergence and nature of genres – a social-dynamic account. Cognitive Semiotics 8(2). 97–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Östman, Jan-Ola
2005 Construction discourse: A prolegomenon. In Jan-Ola Östman & Mirjam Fried (eds.), Construction Grammars: Cognitive grounding and theoretical extensions, 121–144. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Paltridge, Brian
1995 Working with genre: A pragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics 24(4). 393–406. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reid, Ronald F.
2007 Puritan rhetoric and America’s civil religion: A study of three special occasion sermons. In James Andrews (ed.), Rhetoric, religion and the roots of identity in British colonial America, 65–120. East Lansing: Michigan State University Press.Google Scholar
Rütten, Tanja
2011 How to do things with texts: Patterns of instruction in religious discourse 1350–1700. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
2012 Forms of early mass communication: The religious domain. In Terttu Nevalainen & Elizabeth Closs Traugott (eds.), The Oxford handbook of the history of English, 295–303. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sbisà, Marina
1989 Linguaggio, ragione, interazione: Per una teoria pragmatica degli atti linguistici. Bologna: Il Mulino.Google Scholar
2002 Cognition and narrativity in speech act sequences. In Anita Fetzer & Christiane Meierkord (eds.), Rethinking sequentiality: Linguistics meets conversational interaction, 71–97. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg
2014 Lexico-grammatical patterns, pragmatic associations and discourse frequency. In Thomas Herbst, Hans-Jörg Schmid & Susen Faulhaber (eds.), Constructions – collocations – patterns, 239–293. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
2015 A blueprint of the Entrenchment-and-Conventionalization Model. Yearbook of the German Cognitive Linguistics Association 31. 1–27. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016 Why cognitive linguistic must embrace the pragmatic and social dimensions of language and how it could do so more seriously. Cognitive Linguistics 27(4). 543–557. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017 A framework for understanding entrenchment and its psychological foundations. In Hans-Jörg Schmid (ed.), Entrenchment and the psychology of language learning: How we reorganize and adapt linguistic knowledge, 9–36. Boston: APA and Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2018 Ein integratives soziokognitives Modell des dynamischen Lexikons. In Stefan Engelberg, Henning Lobin, Kathryn Steyer & Sascha Wolfer (eds.), Wortschätze: Dynamik, Muster, Komplexität, 215–231. Berlin/Boston: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schmid, Hans-Jörg & Annette Mantlik
2015 Entrenchment in historical corpora? Reconstructing dead authors’ minds from their usage profiles. Anglia 133(4). 583–623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Searle, John R.
1976 A classification of illocutionary acts. Language in Society 5(1). 1–23. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1995 The construction of social reality. New York: The Free Press.Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard
2011 Genre between the humanities and the sciences. In Marcus Callies, Wolfram R. Keller & Astrid Lohöfer (eds.), Bi-directionality in the cognitive sciences, 24–41. Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stukker, Ninke, Wilbert Spooren & Gerard Steen
(eds.) 2016 Genre in language, discourse and cognition, 331–359. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Swales, John
1990 Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2004 Research genres. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Worlds of genre – Metaphors of genre. In Charles Bazerman, Adair Bonini & Débora Figueiredo (eds.), Genre in a changing world, 3–16. Lafayette: Parlor Press.Google Scholar
Tomasello, Michael
2008 Origins of human communication. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vergaro, Carla
2005 “Dear Sirs…con la presente ci pregiamo di…”. Il genere business lettere in italiano e in inglese. Roma: Aracne.Google Scholar
2008 On the pragmatics of concessive constructions in Italian and English business letter discourse. Multilingua 27(3). 255–283. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017a Come fare le cose con i testi: A Modell of Christian Charity di John Winthrop. L’Analisi Linguistica e Letteraria 25(1). 99–116.Google Scholar
2017b Logica illocutoria e azione in A Modell of Christian Charity di John Winthrop. In Mirella Vallone (ed.), Faith in literature. Religione, cultura e identità negli Stati Uniti d’America, 19–37. Perugia: Morlacchi UP.Google Scholar
Wells, Susan
2014 Genres as species and spaces. Philosophy and Rhetoric 47(2). 113–136. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wenger, Etienne
1999 Communities of practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Zwaan, Rolf A.
1994 Effects of genre expectations on text comprehension. Journal of Experimental Psychology 20(4). 920–933.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 3 other publications

Tseng, Ming-Yu & Grace Zhang
2022. Conceptual metonymy and emotive-affective meaning at the interface: Examples from online medical consultations. Lingua 268 ► pp. 103192 ff. DOI logo
Vergaro, Carla
2020. The Contribution of Metadiscourse to the Illocutionary Logic of Winthrop’sA Modell of Christian Charitiy. English Studies 101:8 ► pp. 921 ff. DOI logo
Yu, Danni
2023. A Cross-Cultural Genre Analysis of Leadership Statements in Italian and American University Sustainability Reports. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 66:1 ► pp. 26 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.