Abstract

In the study of syntactic variation, genre has been an unstable term: fluctuating in the level of generality at which it is applied; intuiting rather than ascertaining the social situations it suggests. In contrast, rhetorical studies of genre have fixed genre at a low level of generality, in local socio-historical scenes, and claimed priority for situation over form. This chapter reviews the debates which led to genres rhetorical definition as "social action" (Miller 1984), and the benefit and also the cost in disavowing form as definitive of genre. Rhetorical and variation studies of genre can seem fundamentally incompatible in their perspectives on form, yet there may be fertile meeting ground for them. Both invoke function for form, but each in ways incomplete for the study of genre: While rhetorical studies insist on the functionality of form in situation, they do not inquire into form itself; syntactic-variation studies also assume function for form, but define function at such a high level of generality as to fail to capture the social motives in genre's domain. By revisiting function as acutely sensitive to situation—responding to local exigencies and also indicating them—rhetorical and variation studies can meet on the common ground of form, each contributing to the others discoveries of genre as a site of social differentiation.