TARDY, C. ET AL. (2020) - Teaching and Researching Genre Knowledge.

916554
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
Christine M. Tardy1, Bruna Sommer-Farias1,

and Jeroen Gevers1
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.
Disentangling a Theoretical Web

In early scholarship, genre knowledge broadly referred to understanding a
genre; explicit definitions were rare. Freedman (1987), for instance,
described genre knowledge (without using the term) as “a sense of shape,
structure, rhetorical stance, thinking strategies” (p. 102). Berkenkotter and
Huckin (1993) offered perhaps the first elaborated definition, describing
genre knowledge as “a form of situated cognition embedded in disciplinary
activities” (p. 477) that “embraces both form and content” (p. 478). Focusing
on academic contexts, they further noted that writers “must know how to
strategically utilize their understanding of genre” (p. 477) to successfully
accomplish the tasks of disciplinary knowledge production.
Tardy et al. 3
In the early 2000s, scholars developed more formal models of genre

knowledge.1 Theorizing disciplinary writing development, for example,
Beaufort (2004) proposed a model for disciplinary writing expertise com-
prised of five domains: genre knowledge, discourse community knowledge,
writing process knowledge, subject matter knowledge, and rhetorical knowl-
edge. Tardy’s (2009) model situated genre knowledge as constitutive of
(rather than separate from) these areas, thus presenting genre as the overarch-
ing theoretical concept. Here, genre knowledge included knowledge of for-
mal, process, rhetorical, and subject-matter knowledge, with genre experts
holding more layered and multidimensional knowledge than novices. Tardy’s
model has been used in numerous studies of genre learning (e.g., Habib et al.,
2015; Kim & Belcher, 2018), but it is not without limitations. Writers’ lan-
guage backgrounds, for example, are addressed primarily in the area of for-
mal knowledge, and the model does not explicitly account for any differences
in the genre knowledge of monolingual as opposed to multilingual writers.
Further, as Gentil (2011) noted, the model does not address meta-knowledge,
or “the explicit understanding of specific genres and of genres as a concept”
(p. 10).
Meta-knowledge, as Gentil (2011) describes it, closely resembles the con-
cept of genre awareness, a term that also appears in scholarship dating back
to the 1990s, though again typically without an explicit definition. Many
early discussions of genre awareness use the term interchangeably with genre
knowledge, referring to an awareness of genre conventions (e.g., Mustafa,
1995). In other cases, the concept of genre awareness is implied but not spe-
cifically mentioned; Johns (2002), for example, described the importance of
students “becom[ing] more aware of the interaction between process, inter-
textuality, and products, and the variations among texts” (p. 246).
The first extensive discussion of genre awareness is found in Devitt’s
(2004) Writing Genres, which defined such awareness as “a critical con-
sciousness of both rhetorical purposes and ideological effects of generic
forms” (p. 192). Devitt argued that genre awareness can help students
approach new genres effectively and can deepen their rhetorical understand-
ing of specific genres. Devitt (2009) later expanded on this definition,
describing genre awareness as “a type of rhetorical awareness” (p. 337), “a
conscious attention to genres and their potential influences on people and the
ability to consider acting differently within genres” (p. 347), and a “con-
sciousness of genres’ rhetorical nature and of their potential for adapting to
writers’ particular purposes and situations” (p. 348). This definition of genre
awareness emphasized consciousness and meta-awareness, a knowledge of
what genres are and how they work more generally. Genre awareness, in this
sense, “ties closely with metacognitive knowledge” (Negretti & Kuteeva,

2011, p. 96). This connection between genre awareness (a conscious knowl-
edge of genre) and metacognition (knowledge of knowledge) is typically ref-
erenced only in broad strokes, though the relationship is important, as writing
scholars increasingly recognize the role metacognition can play in writing
development (Beaufort, 2007; Devitt, 2015; Driscoll et al., 2019; Johns,
2011; Negretti, 2012, 2017; Reiff & Bawarshi, 2011). Genre awareness is
occasionally still used to refer to knowledge of specific genres rather than to
a broader metacognitive knowledge, an issue we expand on below.
In scholarship on genre learning, additional terms like recontextualization
(Cheng, 2007, 2018), conditional knowledge (Negretti & McGrath, 2018),
adaptation (DePalma & Ringer, 2011), and adaptive transfer (DePalma &
Ringer, 2011) have often served to describe the processes through which
writers adapt their genre knowledge to novel writing situations. These con-
cepts have potential for helping teachers and researchers link genre-specific
knowledge, genre awareness, and genre use—though, yet again, precise defi-
nitions and relationships have remained largely unarticulated.
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
undergraduate teaching (often with a tacit assumption of monolingual stu-

dents) (Russell & Fisher, 2009), though both approaches should ideally
address second language or multilingual writers, given the linguistic diver-
sity of most writing classrooms.
Though there is value in distinguishing teaching for genre awareness and
genre acquisition, problems arise as well. In particular, we find it problem-
atic to claim that “genre acquisition approaches” do not focus on interrela-
tionships between text and context, as these interrelationships are indeed at
the heart of both SFL and ESP/EAP approaches. Genre acquisition and
awareness approaches also share an emphasis on “rhetorical consciousness-
raising,” a term used in the earliest descriptions of genre pedagogy (Swales,
1990). For Swales, genre pedagogy is essentially one of “consciousness-
raising, of discussing texts, and of offering—to the best of our abilities—
prototypical examples of relevant genres” (1990, p. 215). Cheng (2018) sees
rhetorical consciousness-raising as bringing together “two interrelated
instructional objectives: (1) to develop students’ awareness of genre analysis
as a conceptual framework (genre awareness) . . . and (2) to increase stu-
dents’ awareness of discipline-specific features in research genres (aware-
ness of genres, the plural form, or discipline- and genre-specific features)”
(p. 31). Devitt (2015) has also noted the importance of embracing both an
attention to awareness and acquisition in our instruction. Following Swales
(1990), Cheng (2018), and Devitt (2015), we see broader awareness-raising
of both genre and genres to be at the heart of all genre pedagogies; it is, in
fact, what distinguishes genre pedagogies from simply “teaching genres.” It
is surprising, then, that most existing theoretical frameworks do not articu-
late the relationship between genre knowledge and awareness, nor do they
consider how classroom pedagogies (focused on awareness versus acquisi-
tion) may support both.
In critiquing the pedagogical distinction between genre acquisition and
awareness, we do not mean to suggest that all genre approaches are identical.
Differences exist, as they should, given the varied contexts and diverse stu-
dent populations of genre-based classrooms. Yet, we see these differences as
primarily of emphasis rather than kind: Some approaches emphasize meta-
knowledge of genre as a concept and genre analysis as a writing strategy,
while others focus on developing sophisticated understandings of target
genres—but all are ultimately interested in rhetorical awareness-raising
through genre exploration (Tardy, 2016). Further, research suggests that
genre awareness can be developed in part through a focus on specific genres
and their features in the classroom, and writers’ genre-specific knowledge
can in turn be enhanced through a rich rhetorical awareness of genre as a
concept (Hyon, 2002; Yasuda, 2011). By articulating a framework that both
distinguishes these constructs and demonstrates their interrelations, we hope

to problematize suggestions that teachers might “choose” either genre aware-
ness or genre acquisition pedagogy. Instead, we argue, following Cheng
(2018), that attention to both can and should be usefully integrated in class-
rooms that aim to develop students’ rhetorical flexibility within and across
genres and languages.
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
instructional goals and in designing tasks aimed at building different aspects

of genre knowledge (e.g., Cheng, 2018).
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.
Toward an Enhanced Theoretical Framework of

Genre Knowledge
Our primary aim here is to outline a theoretical framework for conceptualiz-
ing genre knowledge, clarifying key constructs (including genre-specific
knowledge, genre awareness, metacognition, recontextualization, and
multilingualism) and their relationships to each other. We see this not as a

radically new framework but instead as one that brings together existing
scholarship in an effort to more clearly align that work. We believe such clari-
fication can contribute to a shared understanding of these constructs and cre-
ate an enhanced understanding of genre learning and teaching in multilingual
settings, thus offering a productive stepping stone for future research and
pedagogical developments in writing and language studies. Our framework is
not intended to characterize learning per se (a more complex process) but
rather depicts understanding or knowledge development, which has impor-
tant implications for genre learning and use, including in additional lan-
guages. In this section, we address each major construct in turn, offering a
definition, discussing its relationship to other constructs, and considering
how it may be operationalized in empirical research or pedagogical practice.
Following each of these separate discussions, we synthesize the full frame-
work and use it to describe one writer’s genre knowledge across writing
tasks.
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
Figure 1. Domains of genre-specific knowledge. From Building Genre Knowledge by

Christine Tardy. © 2009 by Parlor Press. Used by permission.
a particular language setting. That said, we recognize that a multilingual

genre user has access to their knowledge of specific and related genres in any
language, and that such cross-lingual genre knowledge informs their genre-
and language-specific knowledge. We elaborate on multilingual aspects of
genre knowledge below.
To study a writer’s genre-specific knowledge, researchers may look at
writers’ performance of the genre (e.g., Cheng, 2011; Rounsaville, 2014;
Yasuda, 2011) (indicating a procedural knowledge of the genre), or they
may look at writers’ descriptions of the specific genre, such as through inter-
views (Tardy, 2009), written reflections (Negretti & Kuteeva, 2011), or writ-
ten analyses (Kuteeva, 2013) (indicating a declarative knowledge of the
genre). Genre-specific knowledge may also be elicited by showing writers
sample text genres out of context and asking them the text source (Artemeva
& Fox, 2010). Antecedent genre-specific knowledge has also been opera-
tionalized in some studies as prior encounters with a genre, which can be
examined through surveys (Reiff & Bawarshi, 2011; Yasuda, 2015) or inter-
views (Rounsaville, 2014).
Many classrooms aim to teach genre-specific knowledge. In a genre-based
approach, this is typically done through discovery-oriented tasks in which
students explore common conventions, variations, and even outliers or inno-
vations within the target genre. Even within a classroom, students can develop
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
Figure 2. Proposed model of genre knowledge, integrating genre-specific

knowledge and genre awareness.
This example illustrates that although distinguishing genre awareness and

genre-specific knowledge is valuable, there is also fluidity and interaction
between the two—as Cheng (2018) notes, they are “mutually supporting, and
one is not necessarily more ‘ideal’ than the other because neither can be
achieved without the other” (p. 47). We attempt to depict these interrelations
in Figure 2 through a porous boundary between the two constructs (in the
form of a dotted line) and an arrow which indicates that they may contribute
to one another. We assume, in this model, that the multiple dimensions of
genre-specific knowledge (Figure 1) form part of this broader construct of
genre knowledge as well. Because genre awareness is not bound to a specific
genre, it would seem to be language-independent. In other words, genre
awareness is in principle available across a user’s multiple languages and
may be drawn upon when writing in any language; it may be that instruction
could facilitate the cross-lingual use of genre awareness.
As we have defined it here, genre awareness is a conscious knowledge of
how genres work, allowing writers to use strategies (like genre analysis) to
learn more about genres. Research data that demonstrates writers’ genre
awareness might include visualizations of broader concepts like “academic

writing” (Negretti & McGrath, 2018), reflective commentary about disciplin-
ary writing (Negretti & McGrath, 2018), in-depth comparative analyses of
two different genres (Kuteeva, 2013), or interviews about strategies used in
producing genres (Cheng, 2007). So far, research has been limited in explic-
itly examining genre awareness, but we hope that a clearer demarcation of
related constructs can contribute to the development of data collection tools.
To support development of genre awareness, teachers may consciously try
to build students’ genre repertoires, introducing them to new genres that build
on their prior experiences (including those in multiple languages) and “help-
ing them learn how to transfer from one set of genre material to new writing
tasks” (Devitt, 2009, p. 347). Instructors may use heuristics for analyzing and
understanding how genres work, applying those heuristics repeatedly to new
and increasingly less familiar genres (Devitt, 2009; Johns, 2008). Devitt
(2009) has suggested a process that includes analysis, writing, critique, and,
finally, genre change or transformation, constantly linking text and context
and building a “heightened sensitivity” (p. 349) that can be brought to any
genre. Genre awareness can be developed even through instruction of spe-
cific genres, as in Hyon’s (2002) study of a genre-based reading classroom or
Cheng’s (2007) study of a genre-based writing classroom.
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
(rhetorical) task, including awareness of ourselves as learners (or writers) and

relevant concepts and strategies that may help perform this task (Negretti &
McGrath, 2018; Schraw & Dennison, 1994). This component can further be
subdivided into declarative, procedural, and conditional knowledge dimen-
sions, or “awareness of what we know (declarative knowledge), how to apply
it (procedural) and why it is relevant to the current learning conditions (con-
ditional)” (Negretti & McGrath, 2018, p. 15). Metacognitive regulation, in
turn, refers to the various skills that are necessary to regulate learning and
problem solving, for example by planning our learning (or writing) process,
formulating goals and strategies, and measuring or judging our performance.
Our framework follows a sociocognitive or ecological perspective, recogniz-
ing that successful writers adapt their knowledge to external criteria and
expectations and assess their performance within a broader sociorhetorical
context (Negretti, 2017; Van Lier, 2008).
Conditional knowledge, or the ability to determine when and why to use
certain skills and strategies, links genre knowledge and metacognition.
Indeed, while conditional knowledge is often described as an aspect of meta-
cognitive knowledge, some have proposed that it also forms an integral part
of metacognitive regulation (Veenman et al., 2006). Even if writers possess
the declarative and procedural knowledge necessary to perform a certain
genre, they may lack the conditional knowledge of how to use it in a given
situation that requires them to adapt their knowledge in response to new
demands. Conditional knowledge may enable learners to compensate for
their lack of knowledge in one task by strategically drawing from their
knowledge about similar tasks (Negretti, 2017). This kind of strategic com-
pensation can take place across languages, and regardless of writers’ level of
proficiency. Even highly proficient language users rely on their conditional
knowledge to account for new demands in unfamiliar writing situations and
to regulate their learning.
Previous research suggests that metacognitive processing allows writers
to use genre knowledge across contexts and languages and thus effectively
apply their knowledge to new writing tasks or goals (e.g., Driscoll et al.,
2019; Gentil, 2011; Reiff & Bawarshi, 2011; Schoonen et al., 2011). For
instance, Negretti (2012, 2017) has examined the role of metacognition
among L2 graduate student writers in facilitating effective rhetorical choices
in academic genres. Negretti (2017) specifically considered the writers’ abil-
ity to accurately assess the quality of their writing (through written self-
assessments) and examined to what extent writers’ metacognitive judgments
aligned with the social or contextual expectations of genre experts. Her find-
ings suggest that effective self-regulatory behavior largely depends on genre
knowledge, including knowledge about “both situated and rhetorical aspects
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
defined as “an act of transfer that assumes some degree of metacognitive

awareness and a positive outcome for the student” (p. 34).
Although genres are typified responses to recurring rhetorical situations, it
is important to note, following Miller (1984), that rhetorical situations do not
themselves recur; rather, it is the perception of recurrence or similarity that
leads people to respond in similar ways. In other words, every instance of
genre use involves recontextualization, as users must adapt existing knowl-
edge to new circumstances. Some new instances involve relatively simple
adaptation (in similar situations and language settings, for example), whereas
others are more demanding (involving more significant changes to a rhetori-
cal situation, such as performing the genre in a new community or in a differ-
ent language, or opting for a slightly different genre).
In our framework, recontextualization thus refers to the deployment of
genre knowledge in new genre uses, engaging a writer’s genre-specific knowl-
edge and—to varying degrees—genre awareness. The more familiar the
genre, the more automatic the recontextualization process, not necessarily
requiring heavy engagement in genre awareness. When writers perform less
familiar genres (or a genre in a new language and/or discourse community),
genre awareness may become more important as they align and adapt existing
knowledge to the new task. Their knowledge of which features are similar,
which differ, and why some features may require more radical adaptation is
applied “in a strategic and contextualized fashion” (Negretti & Kuteeva, 2011,
p. 100). We agree with Nowacek’s (2011) characterization of recontextualiza-
tion along a spectrum of metacognitive awareness, with some acts of recon-
textualization involving “a tacit, unconscious process” and others “requiring
explicit attention and effort” (p. 30). We emphasize, as well, that recontextual-
ization describes a process but does not assume its success or appropriacy.
Recontextualization can be studied in various ways. In Cheng’s (2007)
study, for example, students analyzed research article introductions in their
field and then wrote three different introductions for their current project—for
example, a grant proposal, a conference proceeding, and a research article.
Students also annotated their writing, accounting for their use of genre features.
Together, the students’ genre performances and justifications for specific fea-
tures provided insight into their recontextualization process as they drew on
their ever-evolving genre knowledge. These tasks demonstrate how recontex-
tualization can also be given a prominent role in genre-based pedagogy.
Social Context
Because genres are social practices and rhetorical categories, genre knowl-
edge has been described as a kind of situated cognition (Berkenkotter &
Huckin, 1993), a knowledge that includes a rich understanding of a tool (in

this case, a genre) and the world in which it is used (Brown et al., 1989). For
example, writers need to know not just preferred forms of a genre but how
and when a genre can be used to further a community’s goals, the common
practices and values of the genre users, the identities taken on through genres,
and the possibilities for exploiting genre for their own agendas. This knowl-
edge is not just internal but is knowledge of social practice, and it is devel-
oped, in large part, through participation in social communities and activities.
Our framework therefore recognizes the overarching role of social context in
genre knowledge. In genre studies, social context has been variously theo-
rized through constructs such as rhetorical situation (Miller, 1984), discourse
community (Swales, 1990), discipline (Hyland, 2000), disciplinarity (Prior,
1998), activity (Prior, 1998; Russell, 1997), materiality (Devitt et al., 2003),
and situational and cultural contexts (Devitt, 2004). Genres have been
described as “forms of life” (Bazerman, 2002, p. 15) that are learned through
deep engagement with the activities and people associated with those life
forms; when we write in a particular genre, we take on (and come to know)
the roles, relations, identities, and ideologies that are already woven into the
genre as a social practice (Paré, 2002).
Situated qualitative studies have shown the facilitative role of participa-
tion, mentoring, oral interactions, collaboration, and social networks on
developing genre knowledge (Tardy, 2006). Social ecologies can support or
constrain genre learning, depending on the availability of and access to these
resources for individuals. Jacobson’s (2019) case studies of undergraduates,
for example, illustrate how first-year undergraduate students benefited from
access to participatory activities that create opportunities for meaningful
writing practice, the kind in which they take on roles and identities that go
beyond “student” and “knowledge-teller.” Tardy’s (2009) case studies of
graduate students similarly showed that lack of access to such practices limit
writers’ resources for developing their genre knowledge. Further, individuals
may experience social ecologies in unique ways because these ecologies
reflect various structures of power, advantaging some genre users (including
novice) over others.
The situated and social nature of genres has led some scholars to question
whether or how they might be learned in classroom contexts (e.g., Freedman,
1993), given that most classrooms are somewhat removed from a genre’s
more authentic site of use and community of users. Johns (1997) addresses
this challenge by having students explore the socioliterate contexts of univer-
sity writing, analyzing genres, interviewing their authors, and observing their
use through ethnography-inspired tools. Similar strategies have been
described by Brian Paltridge, Anis Bawarshi, and Mary Jo Reiff (Johns et al.,
Tardy et al. 17
2006). Social context, instantiated as disciplinary community, can also be

analyzed through text-focused genre analysis that engages students with
explorations of disciplinary values and practices (e.g., Cheng, 2018; Negretti
& McGrath, 2018). Given the inequities inherent to learning genres simply
“by doing” (a process that privileges some novices and marginalizes others),
instruction may play a role in providing access to valuable knowledge-build-
ing resources.
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
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).
Summary and Example

Our framework adopts a sociocognitive approach to genre and genre knowl-
edge, seeing the cognitive and social as mutually constituted. Such an
approach, as described by Atkinson (2004), does not limit language (or, in
our case, genre) as social or cognitive but instead “argues for the profound
interdependence and integration of both” (p. 537). A sociocognitive perspec-
tive allows us to see genre knowledge as “in the world at the same time as it
is in the head” (Atkinson, 2004, p. 537). The framework attempts to bring
together the social and cognitive resources that genre users may draw upon as
they develop their knowledge (see also Bruce, 2016). We depict these rela-
tionships in Figure 3, with the caveat that a visualization is necessarily reduc-
tive and cannot capture the complexity of knowledge and its adaptation. We
see this visual serving as a heuristic rather than a depiction of reality, but we
hope that its simplicity (however reductive) helps to communicate in broad
strokes the relationships we are suggesting among these constructs.
Figure 3 illustrates several features of our framework. First, it distinguishes
but also integrates genre-specific knowledge and genre awareness. The dashed
line around genre-specific knowledge indicates the permeability between
genre-specific knowledge (Figure 1) and genre awareness, with both together
constituting the larger construct of genre knowledge (Figure 2). Research
suggests that genre awareness (as a kind of metacognitive knowledge) is
Figure 3. A theoretical framework for genre knowledge, metacognition, and

recontextualization.
language-independent, whereas some dimensions of genre-specific knowledge

are language-specific (Kim & Belcher, 2018). Continued research in this area
might help clarify the language-dependence of different aspects of genre
knowledge and also provide more examples of how genre awareness and
genre-specific knowledge contribute to each other.
This framework layers social context, metacognition, and genre knowl-
edge, acknowledging the role of the social and cognitive in learning genres
(in general and for specific instances) and in adapting or recontextualizing
that emerging knowledge to new writing tasks. By making metacognition a
visible layer in our visual, we do not mean to over-emphasize its role or to
imply that genre knowledge is a purely cognitive process or that it is always
metacognitive in nature. Our goal instead is to account for its potential role or
availability within a social process, given the associations made between
genre awareness and metacognition (e.g., Devitt, 2015; Negretti & McGrath,
2018) and the potentially facilitative role of metacognition on genre knowl-
edge development (Driscoll et al., 2019). Through recontextualization, writ-
ers draw on what they know about genre(s) as they write for new communities
or contexts, in different languages, and in new genres. The large bidirectional
arrow indicates the path through which the recontextualization process is
Tardy et al. 21
realized, emphasizing the interdependence of genre-specific knowledge and

genre awareness (i.e., genre-specific knowledge and genre awareness as con-
stitutive of genre knowledge) and demonstrating how declarative, procedural,
and conditional knowledge bridge metacognition, genre knowledge, and
genre use. Metacognition is “language-independent or language-neutral”
(Schoonen et al., 2011, p. 44), and therefore available for writers across lan-
guages. This framework depicts genre use as lying somewhat outside of the
other knowledge-related components (i.e., genre knowledge and its constitu-
tive elements) because it generates a tangible artifact—typically, a practice
and a text—while the other areas are conceptual representations.
Finally, this framework situates genre knowledge and metacognition within
a social context. In line with current conceptions of genre, we understand
genre knowledge and awareness to be socially oriented, learned primarily
through social interaction and practice within social groups (Berkenkotter &
Huckin, 1993; Tardy, 2009). Although genre learning requires social engage-
ment, metacognitive scaffolds can facilitate such development. Although our
visual does not fully account for this mutually constituted and interdependent
relationship, we hope that an extended example might do so.
The illustration that we share here draws on Bruna’s (a coauthor of this
article) own experiences as a multilingual doctoral student, language teacher,
and early-career scholar. Although it is a patchwork of her real-life experi-
ences, it also bears resemblance to numerous studies of genre knowledge
(e.g., Beaufort, 2007; Cheng, 2007; Gentil, 2005; Parks, 2001; Tardy, 2009).
Our example begins with Bruna, writing a proposal for American Association
for Applied Linguistics (AAAL), a conference she has previously attended
and presented at. Writing her proposal, she draws on her genre-specific
knowledge, developed in part through her participation in the conference
and discussions with colleagues and peers. Because she has already written
successful AAAL proposals, Bruna is able to recontextualize her knowledge
of the genre and her genre awareness with less conscious thought or diffi-
culty (Nowacek, 2011)—thus, not requiring as much metacognitive moni-
toring and self-regulation as the first time she composed a AAAL conference
abstract. A few months later, Bruna prepares a proposal for the American
Council on the Teaching of Foreign Languages (ACTFL) Convention. She
has not attended ACTFL before, but her work as a Portuguese language
teacher is relevant to the conference. Her genre awareness helps her under-
stand that ACTFL and AAAL proposals would share many similarities, but
that audience or community expectations might differ somewhat. To under-
stand these differences better, she consults colleagues about the expectations
for ACTFL and gathers successful ACTFL proposals to identify any unique
features. In writing her proposal, Bruna draws on conditional knowledge (an
aspect of metacognition), adapting her genre-specific knowledge to this new

rhetorical situation; that is, she recontextualizes her existing knowledge. In
learning how to adapt the conference proposal genre, she is also building
genre-specific knowledge, which in turn contributes to her broader under-
standing of how genres vary across communities (genre awareness). She
shares drafts of her proposal with peers and receives feedback. In the end,
her proposal is rejected, and she discusses the rejection with peers, further
building her knowledge of the conference community and her knowledge of
the conference proposal genre.
Shortly after receiving her ACTFL rejection, Bruna decides to submit a pro-
posal to the Brazilian Congress of Applied Linguistics / Associação de
Linguística Aplicada do Brasil (CBLA/ALAB), a research-oriented conference
similar to AAAL. The conference medium is Portuguese, which is Bruna’s first
language and a language she has used in submitting to and presenting at confer-
ences in Brazil. Yet, after five years in the United States, Bruna finds that her
proposal knowledge is now more tied to English-language conventions for U.S.
conferences, making this task more challenging. As she writes, she draws on
her knowledge of academic conferences, the language research profession, the
conference proposal genre, and the local context, and she considers how expec-
tations may differ for this conference proposal. Here, her process of recontex-
tualization is less perfunctory than it was when writing her AAAL proposal,
instead requiring more conscious engagement with her genre awareness (utiliz-
ing her metacognition) as she tries to align her proposal with the new task. As
Bruna recontextualizes her knowledge, she thinks and writes across languages,
though she ultimately composes her proposal in Portuguese.
A few weeks later, Bruna decides to apply for a U.S. grant to fund research
of Portuguese language learning. It is her first external grant proposal, and
she has not yet seen many examples. She does have knowledge of conference
proposals, which she surmises (drawing on her genre awareness) share some
similar features. She starts with her (Brazilian Portuguese) conference pro-
posal, because some of the content will be useful for her (English) external
grant proposal. Writing the proposal, she modifies language, adds and
removes content, and adds headings and citations. Though conference and
grant proposals share some characteristics, Bruna realizes (because of her
genre knowledge) that they are not identical, making recontextualization
more demanding and therefore relying more on her metacognitive resources.
This example illustrates that genre-specific knowledge and genre aware-
ness are both utilized when approaching new genres, and that each can inform
the other, as Bruna gradually accumulates experiences with new genres and
communities of users. Metacognition facilitates Bruna’s recontextualization
of genre knowledge across languages and tasks, with some instances of genre
Tardy et al. 23
use requiring more significant recontextualization than others. Although

Bruna is highly proficient in both English and Portuguese language varieties,
it is important to note that beginner- and intermediate-level language learners
will similarly draw on their previous experiences with genres and metacogni-
tive processing to recontextualize their existing knowledge. Indeed, genre
knowledge and conditional knowledge cannot directly be equated with lan-
guage proficiency. For example, a learner might have access to a wide range
of vocabulary or grammatical structures but limited knowledge of the spe-
cific genre at hand or difficulty recognizing new contextual demands, and
vice versa. This example also illustrates that genre learning is not necessarily
(or even typically) a linear process and may instead involve apparent back-
tracking as a writer faces unfamiliar contexts and task demands.
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.
Pedagogical Tasks for Building Genre Knowledge Across

Languages
Bawarshi and Reiff (2010), among others, have noted how recontextualiza-
tion “is akin to translation” (p. 93). While cross-lingual translation has long
been banished from the language classroom (Carreres & Noriega-Sánchez,
2011; Pennycook, 2008), scholars have recently displayed a renewed interest
in its possible uses in foreign language teaching (e.g., Colina & Lafford,
2017; Cook, 2010; Gramling & Warner, 2016) and composition studies (e.g.,
Horner & Tetreault, 2016; Kiernan et al., 2016; McCarty, 2018; see also
Gentil, 2018). Connor (2011) has further considered the productive connec-
tions between translation studies, an area of study that is especially promi-
nent in Europe, and intercultural rhetoric, which adopts a dynamic,
nonessentialist view of culture to understand how writers navigate linguistic
and cultural differences. Our framework similarly suggests that translation
(in the broadest, even metaphorical, sense of the term) can provide an attrac-
tive pedagogical tool to stimulate conscious engagement with the process of
cross-lingual recontextualization among student writers with differing levels
of language proficiency. It is worth noting the parallels between professional
translator training and genre-based writing pedagogy in this regard. For

example, prospective translators might be asked to conduct a rhetorical anal-
ysis of original texts (source texts) to identify aspects that pose translation
problems and to weigh possible solutions, noting differences in genre expec-
tations (Nord, 1991, 2018). Translator training also commonly relies on small
corpora of “parallel texts,” or independent texts that arise from similar situa-
tions across language settings (Nord, 2018, p. 53). These practices can inform
a multilingual genre pedagogy, in which students build genre awareness
while drawing on their multiple linguistic resources and reflecting on writers’
movement across languages (Canagarajah, 2006; Gentil, 2011).
In one sample task, students select magazine articles in their first or domi-
nant language on a chosen topic (e.g., fashion, music, or science), after which
they provide a translation for a target audience of their choosing. Students
first consider possible translation difficulties related to culturally specific
information, historical or geographical references, presumed shared knowl-
edge, and humor. Students then propose and draft a translation, justifying
adaptations. Teachers should encourage students to provide details regarding
the motive or exigency for a translation and its targeted readers (e.g., college-
aged North American readers of lifestyle and travel magazines), urging them
to move beyond a focus on national-cultural groups to account for the needs
and interests of their specific readership (Connor, 2011; see also Holliday &
MacDonald, 2019). Students can report these considerations in the form of a
translation brief or commission (Nord, 2018), a professional genre that docu-
ments salient aspects of the translation and could help students reflect on the
recontextualization process. If multiple students share the same languages,
they can collaborate, comparing or discussing their individual translations
and providing peer feedback (Cook, 2010; Kiernan et al., 2016). Afterward,
students share experiences or choose a successful translation within groups
and present it to the class, facilitating a more general discussion of audience
and purpose shifts inherent in the translation process.
Our second sample task, again inspired by translator training (Carreres &
Noriega-Sánchez, 2011; Nord, 2018), genre pedagogy (Hyland, 2007; Tardy,
2019), and intercultural rhetoric (Connor, 2011), consists of a cross-lingual
genre analysis.5 In this task, students examine multiple genre samples or par-
allel texts in two languages, noting differences and similarities. It might be
easiest to introduce this task with everyday genres, such as job application
letters or Facebook event invitations, but later students can also analyze per-
sonal academic blogs, infographics, or even academic articles. As with any
genre analysis task, one central aim is to identify recurring and varying fea-
tures among genre exemplars, but in this case students might also notice
cross-lingual patterns and variation. This analysis could serve as the basis for
Tardy et al. 25
a subsequent cross-lingual genre redesign, in which students repurpose a text

they previously wrote into a new genre of their choice, preparing versions in
both their L1 and L2. Apart from adapting the content of the original text to
be suitable and relevant to a new audience and genre, students must consider
differences in expectations or rhetorical preferences observed in their cross-
lingual genre analyses. Along with final texts, students can write reflections
examining their recontextualization strategies.
These tasks illustrate how our theoretical framework can inform teaching
activities that build genre-specific knowledge and genre awareness while
emphasizing the importance of metacognition and multilingual resources.
The act of translation encourages metacognitive reflection on multilingual
genre knowledge and potentially highlights cross-lingual differences and
similarities in genre conventions. These activities allow students to engage in
and reflect on recontextualization processes, which could ultimately help
them recognize that any written communication involves a degree of recon-
textualization. Although our examples are with advanced L2 users, these
tasks may be adapted to students with other proficiency levels.
Researching Genre Knowledge Across Languages

Our theoretical framework can also guide researchers in operationalizing
constructs related to genre knowledge development in various settings,
including formal contexts, such as L2 and L1 writing courses, or nonclass-
room settings, such as dissertation writing or writing for research purposes.
In this section we illustrate two research methods that can elicit data on writ-
ers’ genre-specific knowledge, genre awareness, and the recontextualization
of genre knowledge to new tasks. We discuss these methods primarily as
research tools, though they have the convenient advantage of also serving as
pedagogical tasks.
The first research tool is a visual mind map, created by writers to demon-
strate their existing knowledge of a specific genre. Wette (2017) examined
graduate L2 writers’ mind maps of book reviews and literature reviews cre-
ated both before exploring the genre and after carrying out genre analysis
tasks. The mind maps were accompanied by reflective comments. Wette
argued that this tool can activate writers’ genre awareness while revealing
how writers understand genre dimensions as represented by nodes, chunks,
and associations in their maps. While Wette used these tools in a classroom
setting, they could easily be employed in nonclassroom research. Drawing on
our earlier example, if we were studying Bruna’s developing knowledge of
conference and grant proposals, we could ask her to create mind maps of
these genres at various points in time. She could also write commentaries or
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
authentic and varied rhetorical situations. There are numerous influences on

the extent to which knowledge is developed, how easily or quickly it is devel-
oped, or even which dimensions of knowledge might be developed, inte-
grated, and recontextualized. These influences include opportunities for
authentic (and guided) genre practice; participation in discourse communi-
ties and their activities; access to those communities and their expert mem-
bers; the power dynamics of a community and of individual interactions;
mentoring; collaboration; classroom or nonclassroom instructional sup-
port; encounters with relevant texts; individual agency; and the complex
development, shifts, and tensions of writers’ identities. Given these many
ecosocial influences, the framework we offer must be further contextual-
ized and integrated with broader approaches to situated learning (for
example, through theories such as legitimate peripheral participation,
socio-historical or sociocultural approaches, or activity theory). Here,
however, we have temporarily extracted knowledge from the larger issues
of learning, learning contexts, and social relationships to home in on the
constructs that we see as needing closer discussion and disentanglement.
Nevertheless, we believe that the theoretical definitions and frameworks
we have offered are fully aligned with a situated and social view of genre
and genre learning.
For teachers, we hope that this articulation of genre knowledge and its
relationship to multilingualism, metacognition, and recontextualization can
provide some guidance in determining instructional aims and developing
pedagogical tasks to develop students’ genre-specific knowledge and genre
awareness as well as strategies for recontextualizing that knowledge across
contexts, languages, and genres. We recognize that classrooms differ in their
goals and that appropriate instruction will vary across student populations
and pedagogical contexts. As such, our framework may be used as a heuristic
for teachers in identifying their primary aims and considering how they may
work toward those aims. For researchers, we hope that this framework makes
strides in aligning constructs and suggesting interrelations. We also hope that
the framework can inform our understanding of learning processes and can
highlight some of the important layers involved in genre learning, including
a recognition that such learning often happens across languages. Further, the
conceptualization of genre knowledge as encompassing genre awareness and
genre-specific knowledge might encourage researchers and teachers to ask
which aspects of genre learning they are attempting to facilitate or trace.
Future empirical work will likely locate tensions in or limitations to the pro-
posed framework; we welcome continued dialogue around research that
engages similar questions and issues, and we hope this article offers a spring-
board for such scholarly synergy.
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.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
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.
Cheng, A. (2018). Genre and graduate-level research writing. University of Michigan

Press.
Chung-Fat-Yim, A., Sorge, G. B., & Bialystok, E. (2017). The relationship between
bilingualism and selective attention in young adults: Evidence from an ambigu-
ous figures task. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 70(3),
366–372.
Colina, S., & Lafford, B. (2017). Translation in Spanish language teaching: The inte-
gration of a “fifth skill” in the second language curriculum. Journal of Spanish
Language Teaching, 4(2), 110–123.
Connor, U. (2011). Intercultural rhetoric in the writing classroom. University of
Michigan Press.
Cook, G. (2010). Translation in language teaching. Oxford University Press.
Cook, V. (2008). Multi-competence: Black hole or wormhole for second language
acquisition research. In Z. Han (Ed.), Understanding second language process
(pp. 16–26). Multilingual Matters.
Corcoran, J. (2019). Address the “bias gap”: A research-driven argument for criti-
cal support of plurilingual scientists’ research writing. Written Communication,
36(4), 538–577.
Cumming, A. (1989). Writing expertise and second-language proficiency. Language
Learning, 39(1), 81–135.
Cumming, A. (in press). L2 writing and L2 learning: Transfer, self-regulation, and
identities. In R. M. Manchón (Ed.), Writing and language learning: Advancing
research agendas. John Benjamins.
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of
bilingual children. Review of Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251.
Cummins, J. (2000). Language, power, and pedagogy: Bilingual children in the
crossfire (Vol. 23). Multilingual Matters.
Curry, M. J., & Lillis, T. (2017). Problematizing English as the privileged language
of academic publishing. In M. J. Curry & T. Lillis (Eds.), Global academic pub-
lishing: Policies, perspectives and pedagogies (pp. 1–20). Multilingual Matters.
DePalma, M. J., & Ringer, J. M. (2011). Toward a theory of adaptive transfer:
Expanding disciplinary discussions of “transfer” in second-language writing and
composition studies. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 134–147.
Devitt, A. J. (2004). Writing genres. Southern Illinois University Press.
Devitt, A. J. (2009). Teaching critical genre awareness. In C. Bazerman, A. Bonini,
& D. Figueiredo (Eds.), Genre in a changing world: Perspectives on writing (pp.
337–351). WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press.
Devitt, A. J. (2015). Genre performances: John Swales’ Genre Analysis and rhetorical-
linguistic genre studies. Journal of English for Academic Purposes, 19, 44–51.
Devitt, A. J., Bawarshi, A., & Reiff, M. J. (2003). Scenes of writing: Strategies for
coping with genres. Pearson/Longman.
Driscoll, D. L., Paszek, J., Gorzelsky, G., Hayles, C. L., & Jones, E. (2019). Genre
knowledge and writing development: Results from the writing transfer project.
Written Communication. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1177
/0741088319882313
Tardy et al. 31
Freedman, A. (1987). Learning to write again: Discipline-specific writing at univer-

sity. Carleton Papers in Applied Language Studies, 4, 95–115.
Freedman, A. (1993). Show and tell? The role of explicit teaching in the learning of
new genres. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(3), 222–251.
García, O., & Wei, L. (2014). Translanguaging and education. Palgrave Macmillan.
Gentil, G. (2005). Commitments to academic biliteracy: Case studies of francophone
university writers. Written Communication, 22(4), 421–471.
Gentil, G. (2011). A biliteracy agenda for genre research. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 20(1), 6–23.
Gentil, G. (2018). Modern languages, bilingual education, and translation studies:
The next frontiers in WAC/WID research and instruction? Across the Disciplines,
15(3), 114–129.
Gentil, G. (2019). Response to colloquium on the theory, research, and pedagogy
of multilingual genre learning. Paper presented at the Symposium on Second
Language Writing, Tempe, AZ.
Gevers, J. (2018). Translingualism revisited: Language difference and hybridity in L2
writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 40, 73–83.
Gramling, D. J., & Warner, C. (2016). Whose “crisis in language”? Translating and
the futurity of foreign language learning. L2 Journal, 8(4), 76–99.
Grosjean, F. (2010). Bilingual: Life and reality. Harvard University Press.
Habib, A. S., Haan, J., & Mallett, K. (2015). The development of disciplinary exper-
tise: An EAP and RGS-informed approach to the teaching and learning of genre
at George Mason University. Composition Forum, 31. https://compositionforum.
com/issue/31/george-mason.php
Hacker, D., Keener, M., & Kircher, J. (2009). Writing is applied metacognition. In D.
Hacker, J. Dunlosky, & A. Graesser (Eds.), Handbook of metacognition in educa-
tion (pp. 154–172). Routledge.
Holliday, A., & MacDonald, M. N. (2019). Researching the intercultural:
Intersubjectivity and the problem with postpositivism. Applied Linguistics.
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amz038
Horner, B., & Tetreault, L. (2016). Translation as (global) writing. Composition
Studies, 44(1), 13–30.
Hyland, K. (2000). Disciplinary discourses: Social interaction in academic writing.
Longman.
Hyland, K. (2007). Genre pedagogy: Language, literacy and L2 writing instruction.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 16(3), 148–164.
Hyon, S. (2002). Genre and reading: A classroom study. In A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre
in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 121–139). Lawrence Erlbaum.
Jacobson, B. (2019). Negotiating transitions: A genre-based study of writing oppor-
tunities across high school and college [Unpublished doctoral dissertation].
University of Arizona.
Jarvis, S., & Pavlenko, A. (2008). Crosslinguistic influence in language and cogni-
tion. Routledge.
Jaspers, J., & Madsen, L. (Eds.) (2019). Critical perspectives on linguistic fixity and
fluidity: Languagised lives. Routledge.
Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies.

Cambridge University Press.
Johns, A. M. (2002). Destabilizing and enriching novice students’ genre theories. In
A. M. Johns (Ed.), Genre in the classroom: Multiple perspectives (pp. 237–246).
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Johns, A. M. (2008). Genre awareness for the novice academic student: An ongoing
quest. Language Teaching, 41(2), 237–252.
Johns, A. M. (2011). The future of genre in L2 writing: Fundamental, but contested,
instructional decisions. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(1), 56–68.
Johns, A. M., Bawarshi, A., Coe, R. M., Hyland, K., Paltridge, B., Reiff, M. J., &
Tardy, C. M. (2006). Crossing the boundaries of genre studies: Commentaries by
experts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(3), 234–249.
Kiernan, J., Meier, J., & Wang, X. (2016). Negotiating languages and cultures:
Enacting translingualism through a translation assignment. Composition Studies,
44(1), 89–107.
Kim, M., & Belcher, D. D. (2018). Building genre knowledge in second language
writers during study abroad in higher education. Journal of English for Academic
Purposes, 35, 56–69.
Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (2012). Understanding L2 writing development from a
multicompetence perspective: Dynamic repertoires of knowledge and text con-
struction. In R. Manchón (Ed.), L2 writing development: Multiple perspectives
(pp. 101–134). De Gruyter Mouton.
Kobayashi, H., & Rinnert, C. (2013). L1/L2/L3 writing development: Longitudinal
case study of a Japanese multicompetent writer. Journal of Second Language
Writing, 22(1), 4–33.
Kroll, J. F., & Bialystok, E. (2013). Understanding the consequences of bilingualism
for language processing and cognition. Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 25(5),
497–514.
Kroll, J. F., Bobb, S. C., & Hoshino, N. (2014). Two languages in mind: Bilingualism
as a tool to investigate language, cognition, and the brain. Current Directions in
Psychological Science, 23(3), 159–163.
Kuteeva, M. (2013). Graduate learners’ approaches to genre-analysis tasks: Variations
across and within four disciplines. English for Specific Purposes, 32(2), 84–96.
Martin, J. R. (1984). Language, register, and genre. In F. Christie (Ed.), Language
studies: Children’s writing, reader. Deakin University Press.
McCarty, R. (2018). Translational learning: Surfacing multilingual repertoires.
Composition Studies, 46(2), 52–237.
Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2),
151–167.
Mustafa, Z. (1995). The effects of genre awareness on linguistic transfer. English for
Specific Purposes, 14(3), 247–256.
Negretti, R. (2012). Metacognition in student academic writing: A longitudinal study
of metacognitive awareness and its relation to task perception, self-regulation,
and evaluation of performance. Written Communication, 29(2), 142–179.
Tardy et al. 33
Negretti, R. (2017). Calibrating genre: Metacognitive judgments and rhetorical effec-

tiveness in academic writing by L2 graduate students. Applied Linguistics, 38(4),
512–539.
Negretti, R., & Kuteeva, M. (2011). Fostering metacognitive genre awareness in
L2 academic reading and writing: A case study of pre-service English teachers.
Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(2), 95–110.
Negretti, R., & McGrath, L. (2018). Scaffolding genre knowledge and metacogni-
tion: Insights from an L2 doctoral research writing course. Journal of Second
Language Writing, 40, 12–31.
Nord, C. (1991). Text analysis in translation: Theory, methodology, and didactic
application of a model for translation-oriented text analysis. Rodopi.
Nord, C. (2018). Translating as purposeful activity: Functionalist approaches
explained. Routledge.
Nowacek, R. (2011). Agents of integration: Understanding transfer as a rhetorical
act. Southern Illinois University Press.
Paré, A. (2002). Genre and identity: Individuals, institutions, and ideology. In R. Coe,
L. Lingard, & T. Teslenko (Eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre (pp. 57–71).
Hampton Press.
Parks, S. (2001). Moving from school to the workplace: Disciplinary innovation, bor-
der crossings, and the reshaping of a written genre. Applied Linguistics, 22(4),
405–438.
Pennycook, A. (2008). English as a language always in translation. European Journal
of English Studies, 12(1), 33–47.
Prior, P. A. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account of literate activity
in the academy. Lawrence Erlbaum.
Ramakrishnan, S. (2012). “Wheatish” grooms and “innocent” divorcees: Commodifying
attributes in the discourse of Indian matrimonials. Discourse & Society, 23(4),
432–449.
Reiff, M. J., & Bawarshi, A. (2011). Tracing discursive resources: How students use
prior genre knowledge to negotiate new writing contexts in first-year composi-
tion. Written Communication, 28(3), 312–337.
Rinnert, C., & Kobayashi, H. (2016). Multicompetence and multilingual writing. In
R. M. Manchón & P. K. Matsuda (Eds.), Handbook of second and foreign lan-
guage writing (pp. 365–385). Walter de Gruyter.
Rounsaville, A. (2014). Situating transnational genre knowledge: A genre trajectory
analysis of one student’s personal and academic writing. Written Communication,
31(3), 332–364.
Russell, D. R. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory
analysis. Written Communication, 14(4), 504–554.
Russell, D. R., & Fisher, D. (2009). Online, multimedia case studies for professional
education: Revisioning concepts of genre recognition. In J. Giltrow & D. Stein
(Eds.), Genres in the internet: Issues in the theory of genre (pp. 163–192). John
Benjamins.
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.

TARDY, C. ET AL. (2020) - Teaching and Researching Genre Knowledge.

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

TARDY, C. ET AL. (2020) - Teaching and Researching Genre Knowledge.

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

916554

Christine M. Tardy1, Bruna Sommer-Farias1,

Disentangling a Theoretical Web

In the early 2000s, scholars developed more formal models of genre

sense, “ties closely with metacognitive knowledge” (Negretti & Kuteeva,

undergraduate teaching (often with a tacit assumption of monolingual stu-

distinguishes these constructs and demonstrates their interrelations, we hope

instructional goals and in designing tasks aimed at building different aspects

Toward an Enhanced Theoretical Framework of

multilingualism) and their relationships to each other. We see this not as a

Figure 1. Domains of genre-specific knowledge. From Building Genre Knowledge by

a particular language setting. That said, we recognize that a multilingual

Figure 2. Proposed model of genre knowledge, integrating genre-specific

This example illustrates that although distinguishing genre awareness and

awareness might include visualizations of broader concepts like “academic

(rhetorical) task, including awareness of ourselves as learners (or writers) and

defined as “an act of transfer that assumes some degree of metacognitive

Huckin, 1993), a knowledge that includes a rich understanding of a tool (in

2006). Social context, instantiated as disciplinary community, can also be

Summary and Example

Figure 3. A theoretical framework for genre knowledge, metacognition, and

language-independent, whereas some dimensions of genre-specific knowledge

realized, emphasizing the interdependence of genre-specific knowledge and

aspect of metacognition), adapting her genre-specific knowledge to this new

use requiring more significant recontextualization than others. Although

Pedagogical Tasks for Building Genre Knowledge Across

translator training and genre-based writing pedagogy in this regard. For

a subsequent cross-lingual genre redesign, in which students repurpose a text

Researching Genre Knowledge Across Languages

authentic and varied rhetorical situations. There are numerous influences on

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

Cheng, A. (2018). Genre and graduate-level research writing. University of Michigan

Freedman, A. (1987). Learning to write again: Discipline-specific writing at univer-

Johns, A. M. (1997). Text, role, and context: Developing academic literacies.

Negretti, R. (2017). Calibrating genre: Metacognitive judgments and rhetorical effec-

You might also like