DEVITT-Amy J. Devitt Generalizing About Genre
DEVITT-Amy J. Devitt Generalizing About Genre
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless
you have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you
may use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.
Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained at
http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ncte.
Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printed
page of such transmission.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].
National Council of Teachers of English is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
College Composition and Communication.
http://www.jstor.org
Generalizing about Genre:
New Conceptions of an Old Concept
Amy J. Devitt
Our field has become riddled with dichotomies that threaten to undermine our
holistic understanding of writing. Form and content (and the related form and
function, text and context), product and process, individual and society-these
dichotomies too often define our research affiliations, our pedagogies, and our
theories. If we are to understand writing as a unified act, as a complex whole,
we must find ways to overcome these dichotomies. Recent conceptions of genre
as a dynamic and semiotic construct illustrate how to unify form and content,
place text within context, balance process and product, and acknowledge the
role of both the individual and the social. This reconception of genre may even
lead us to a unified theory of writing.
The most recent understandings of genre derive from the work of several
significant theorists working with different agendas and from different fields:
from literature (M. M. Bakhtin, Tzvetan Todorov, Jacques Derrida), linguistics
(M. A. K. Halliday, John Swales), and rhetoric (Carolyn Miller, Kathleen
Jamieson). However, this work has not yet widely influenced how most scholars
and teachers of writing view genre. Our reconception will require releasing old
notions of genre as form and text type and embracing new notions of genre as
dynamic patterning of human experience, as one of the concepts that enable us
to construct our writing world. Basically, the new conception of genre shifts the
focus from effects (formal features, text classifications) to sources of those
effects. To accommodate our desires for a reunified view of writing, we must
shift our thinking about genre from a formal classification system to a rhetorical
and essentially semiotic social construct. This article will explain the new
conception of genre that is developing and will suggest some effects of this new
conception on our thinking about writing.1
Amy J. Devitt is associate professor of English at the University of Kansas and, beginning in
January 1994, Director of Freshman-Sophomore English. She teaches courses in composition
theory, writing, and the English language. Her publications include Standardizing WrittenEnglish
and articles on genre and professional writing. She is currently completing a book manuscript,
Writing Genres.
College Composition and Communication, Vol. 44, No. 4, December 1993 573
574 CollegeCompositionand Communication44 (December1993)
system deriving from literary criticism that names types of texts according to
their forms. Viewed in this way, genre is not only a rather trivial concept but
also a potentially destructive one, one that conflicts with our best under-
standings of how writing, writers, and readers work, one that encourages the
dichotomies in our field.
Treating genre as form requires dividing form from content, with genre as
the form into which content is put; but we have largely rejected this container
model of meaning in favor of a more integrated notion of how meaning is made:
"Form and content in discourse are one," as Bakhtin writes ("Discourse" 259).
Similarly, treating genre as form and text type requires binding genre to a
product perspective, without effect on writing processes or, worse yet, inhibit-
ing those processes. As a product-based concept, in fact, this view of genre
seems to have more to do with reading than with writing (as attested to by the
frequency of genre interpretations among literary critics). Finally, a formal view
of genre exaggerates one of the most troubling current dichotomies, that be-
tween the individual and the group or society. It makes genre a normalizing and
static concept, a set of forms that constrain the individual; genuine writers can
distinguish themselves only by breaking out of those generic constraints, by
substituting an individual genius for society's bonds.
Though this conventional conception of genre contradicts our best knowl-
edge of how writing works, it has a long history and is not so easily discarded.
Formalisms in general have sustained much of the work in linguistics, rhetoric,
and literature in the past, the fields out of which genre theories have developed.
Not surprisingly, then, most genre theories in the past have been concerned
with classification and form, with describing the formal features of a particular
genre, describing the embodiment of a genre in a particularwork, or delineating
a genre system, a set of classifications of (primarily literary) texts. The emphasis
on classification can be traced back to the followers of Aristotle, who turned his
initial treatment in the Poeticsof the epic, tragedy, and comedy into an infinitely
modifiable classification scheme. The rhetorical division of discourse into
epideictic, judicial, and deliberative can be seen as a similar classification sys-
tem, one still in use by some today. Other writers propose broader or narrower
schemes of text types: literature and nonliterature; narrative and nonnarrative;
narrative, exposition, argument, description; the lyric, the sonnet; the Petrar-
chan sonnet. Whether called genres, subgenres, or modes, whether comprehen-
sive or selective, whether generally accepted or disputed, these systems for
classifying texts focus attention on static products.
The efforts spent on devising a classification scheme may be time well spent
for some purposes: for supporting or elaborating an interpretation of literature
(that literature'simport is its effect on readers, for example, or that all literature
tells stories), or, to use Anne Freadman'sexamples (106), for developing a filing
system, a library classification system, or disciplinary divisions within a univer-
sity. For our purposes, perhaps it is enough to agree with Todorov that "We do
not know just how many types of discourse there are, but we shall readily agree
Generalizingabout Genre:New Conceptionsof an Old Concept 575
that there are more than one" (9). Or, along with Miller, perhaps we can accept
that "the number of genres current in any society is indeterminate and depends
upon the complexity and diversity of the society" (163). Understanding genre
requires understanding more than just classification schemes; it requires under-
standing the origins of the patterns on which those classifications are based. As
I. R. Titunik comments in summarizing P. M. Medvedev's ideas about genre,
"Genre is not that which is determined and defined by the components of a
literary work or by sets of literary works, but that which, in effect, determines
and defines them" (175).
Once our attention shifts to the origins of genres, it also shifts away from
their formal features. Traditional genre study has meant study of the textual
features that mark a genre: the meter, the layout, the organization, the level
of diction, and so on. Where literary criticism has delineated its invocation to
the muse and its fourteen-line sonnet, composition has delineated its five-
paragraph theme, the inverted-triangle introductory paragraph, the division
into purpose, methods, results, and discussion of the lab report, and the
you-attitude in the business letter. Certainly, such formal features are the physi-
cal markings of a genre, its traces, and hence may be quite revealing. In merging
form and content, we do not wish to discard the significance of form in genre
(see Coe, "Apology"). But those formal traces do not define or constitute
the genre (see Freadman 114). Historical changes in generic forms argue
against equating genre with form; note the formal changes in what we call a
poem, for example, or in the familiar letter. The forms may change but the
generic label stays the same. Distinguishing definitive from insignificant forms
has proven troublesome, perhaps possible only after the fact. More importantly,
equating genre with form is tenable only within the container model of
meaning. By integrating form and content within situation and context, re-
cent work in genre theory makes genre an essential player in the making of
meaning.
To begin seeing how much more than classification or textual form genre
comprehends, consider what we know when, as readers,we recognize the genre
of a text. Based on our identification of genre, we make assumptions not only
about the form but also about the text's purposes, its subject matter, its writer,
and its expected reader.If I open an envelope and recognize a sales letter in my
hand, I understand that a company will make a pitch for its product and want
me to buy it. Once I recognize that genre, I will throw the letter away or scan
it for the product it is selling. If, in a different scenario, I open an envelope and
find a letter from a friend, I understand immediately a different set of purposes
and a different relationship between writer and reader, and I respond/read
accordingly. What I understand about each of these letters and what I reflect in
my response to them is much more than a set of formal features or textual
conventions. Our theory of genre, therefore, must allow us to see behind
particular classifications (which change as our purposes change) and forms
(which trace but do not constitute genre). Genre entails purposes, participants,
576 CollegeCompositionand Communication44 (December1993)
To develop our new genre theory, we begin with rhetorical situation and expand
it to encompass a semiotic situation and social context. One major strain of
recent genre theory which connects genre to purposes, participants, and themes
derives from the notion of genre as response to recurring rhetorical situation.
In particular, Miller defines genres as "typified rhetorical actions based in
recurrent situations" (159). Although potentially deriving from Aristotle or
Burke, the connection of genre to rhetorical situation has been most frequently
drawn from the 1968 work of Lloyd Bitzer. In his elaborate exploration of
rhetorical situation, Bitzer refers to what happens when situations recur:
Due to eitherthe natureof things or convention,or both, some situations
recur.... From day to day, year to year, comparablesituations occur,
promptingcomparableresponses;hence rhetoricalforms are born and a
special vocabulary,grammar,and style are established.. . The situation
recursand, becausewe experiencesituationsand the rhetoricalresponseto
them, a formof discourseis not only establishedbut comesto havea power
of its own-the traditionitself tends to function as a constraintupon any
new responsein the form. (13)
Genres develop, then, because they respond appropriately to situations that
writers encounter repeatedly.In principle, that is, writers first respond in fitting
ways and hence similarly to recurring situations; then, the similarities among
those appropriate responses become established as generic conventions. In prac-
tice, of course, genres already exist and hence already constrain responses to
situations. Genre's efficiency and appropriateness appear clearly in a relatively
fixed genre like the lab report: its particularpurposes and reader'sneeds can best
be met by its formal features-such as a quick statement of purpose or separate
methods and results sections. If all writers of lab reports use these forms, then
all lab reports will respond in some appropriate ways to the needs of their
situation. Even a more loosely defined genre reveals the appropriateness of
generic conventions to situation. The opening of a letter to a friend, for
example, just like all our everyday greetings, signals affection and maintains
contact, whether the standard "Hi! How are you?" or a more original nod to the
relationship. The features that genres develop respond appropriately to their
situations.
If each writing problem were to require a completely new assessment of how
to respond, writing would be slowed considerably. But once we recognize a
recurring situation, a situation that we or others have responded to in the past,
our response to that situation can be guided by past responses. Genre, thus,
depends heavily on the intertextuality of discourse. As Bakhtin points out in his
Generalizingabout Genre:New Conceptionsof an Old Concept 577
important essay on speech genres, a speaker "is not, after all, the first speaker,
the one who disturbs the eternal silence of the universe" (69). The fact that
others have responded to similar situations in the past in similar ways-the fact
that genres exist-enables us to respond more easily and more appropriately
ourselves. Knowing the genre, therefore, means knowing such things as appro-
priate subject matter, level of detail, tone, and approach as well as the usual
layout and organization. Knowing the genre means knowing not only, or even
most of all, how to conform to generic conventions but also how to respond
appropriately to a given situation.
This straightforward connection of genre to recurring situation begins but
does not complete our understanding of genre's origins, for recent theory has
expanded the notion of situation. Bitzer's definition of the rhetorical situation
has come under attack (see, for example, Vatz; Consigny), and his requirement
of a narrowly defined rhetorical exigence as a main component of situation has
been troublesome for more wide-ranging composition theory. Based on a fuller
range of language behavior, B. Malinowski's concepts of context of situation and
context of culture have been developed by M. A. K. Halliday and others (see,
especially, Halliday and Hasan), and this conception offers perhaps the best
contemporary understanding of situation. Specifically, as Halliday defines it,
situation consists of a field (roughly, what is happening), a tenor (who is
involved), and a mode (what role language is playing) (31-35). Those compo-
nents of situation determine what Halliday calls "register,"essentially the lin-
guistic equivalent to what I and many of his followers, including Hasan, have
called "genre." Like so many other important concepts in Halliday's system,
register/genre is a semantic as well as functional concept. He defines it as "the
configuration of semantic resources that the member of a culture typically
associates with a situation type. It is the meaning potential that is accessible in
a given social context" (111). Halliday's definition associates genre/register with
situation type and the making of meaning, the most important elements of our
reconception of genre so far. It keeps genre as a semantic and functional
concept.
Even with a more comprehensive definition of situation, one problem re-
mains with our treatment of genre as response to recurringsituation: where does
the "situation"come from? In light of recent nonfoundational philosophy and
social construction, I would suggest that our construction of genre is what helps
us to construct a situation. Genre not only responds to but also constructs
recurring situation.
Context, often seen as the larger frame of situation, has long been a troubling
concept for linguists and rhetoricians because, among other reasons, it is diffi-
cult to specify what context includes. Not everything about the surrounding
environment (the temperature, what is happening in the next block) is relevant
for the language use being considered, and some things outside the surrounding
environment (potential readers, previous texts) are relevant. The concepts of
context of situation and context of culture were devised in part to deal with this
578 CollegeCompositionand Communication44 (December1993)
problem of framing. Yet, if the context of situation is not a physical fact of the
surrounding environment, as it clearly is not, where does it come from? Today's
answerwould be that writers and readersconstruct it. Halliday and Hasan come
close to this perspective when they write, "Any piece of text, long or short,
spoken or written, will carry with it indications of its context. . . . This means
that we reconstruct from the text certain aspects of the situation, certain
features of the field, the tenor, and the mode. Given the text, we construct the
situation from it" (38). In fact, the situation may exist only as writers and
readers construct it. As Miller writes, "Situations are social constructs that are
the result, not of 'perception,' but of 'definition'" (156), or what Halliday would
call semiotic structures. Even more clearly, the recurrence of situation cannot
be a material fact but rather what Miller calls "an intersubjective phenomenon,
a social occurrence" (156).
We do not construct the situation directly through the text, however; rather,
we reach the situation through the genre. Since genre responds to recurring
situation, a text's reflection of genre indirectly reflects situation. Thus the act of
constructing the genre-of creating or perceiving the formal traces of a genre-
is also the act of constructing the situation. As discussed earlier, when we as
readersrecognize the genre of a particular text, we recognize, through the genre,
its situation. Like readers,writers also construct situation by constructing genre.
A writer faced with a writing task confronts multiple contexts and must define
a specific context in relation to that task (teachers tells writers to "figure out
who your audience is" or "stateyour purpose"). By selecting a genre to write in,
or by beginning to write within a genre, the writer has selected the situation
entailed in that genre. The assignment may ask for a letter to the editor, but the
writer who begins with an inverted-triangle introduction is still writing for the
teacher.
Writers and readers may, of course, mix genres and situations and may use
genres badly. Consider, for example, what happens when writers or readers
match genre and situation differently. A writer may try to vary the situation-
say by treating the audience as a friend in a formal scholarly article-but the
readers will likely note a change in the genre (either noting a flawed text that
violates the genre or concluding that the writer is changing the genre). Simi-
larly, a writer who shifts genre in the middle of a text causes confusion for the
reader, not because the reader cannot label the genre but because the reader
cannot be sure of the writer'spurpose or the reader'srole-cannot be sure of the
situation. For a final example, a readerwho "misreads"a text's genre-who reads
"AModest Proposal"as a serious proposal, say-most significantly misreads the
situation as well. Genre and situation are so linked as to be inseparable, but it
is genre that determines situation as well as situation that determines genre.
If genre not only responds to but also constructs recurring situation, then
genre must be a dynamic rather than static concept. Genres construct and
respond to situation; they are actions (see Miller). As our constructions of
situations change and new situations begin to recur, genres change and new
Generalizingabout Genre:New Conceptionsof an Old Concept 579
Dynamic genres are also fluid rather than rigid, are possible responses that
writers choose and even combine to suit their situations. "The wealth and
diversity of speech genres are boundless," Bakhtin writes, "because the various
possibilities of human activity are inexhaustible, and because each sphere of
activity contains an entire repertoire of speech genres that differentiate and
grow as the particular sphere develops and becomes more complex" ("Problem"
60). The connection to social spheres and groups has led some to tie genre to
the constructions of a discourse community, a promising connection developed
most fruitfully by John Swales in his 1990 book on genre. Whether through
discourse communities or some other social frame, genre must respond dynami-
cally to human behavior and social changes.
One concern that has been raised in the past is that genre can become
deterministic. Especially for such a social view of genre as this, some worry that
the individual writer no longer matters. The split between the individual and
society, however, is another false dichotomy that our new conception of genre
can help to resolve. Denigrating genre became popular with the glorification of
the individual, a romantic strain in literary criticism that considers genre and
previous texts as constraints, as something that great writers must transcend, as
producing anxiety for the writer. Yet an opposing trend has seen the inherent
intertextuality of all writing, has discerned that T. S. Eliot's "historical sense"
enriches rather than constrains the individual writer. Writers work creatively
within the frame of past texts and given genres just as they work within the
frame of a given language.
It is indeed true that "the single utterance, with all its individuality and
creativity, can in no way be regarded as a completelyfree combinationof forms of
language" (Bakhtin, "Problem"81). Genres are existing and somewhat norma-
tive constructs, some more rigid than others, but so too are all language forms.
All language constrains the individual to the extent that language is an existing
set of forms; however, as Bakhtin points out, "Speech genres are much more
changeable, flexible, and plastic than language forms are" ("Problems" 80).
Language and genre constrain but do not eliminate the individual writer. As
constituents of society, individuals create language and create genre. Being part
of society enables individuals to change society, and hence to change genres, for
genres, as Volosinov/Bakhtin writes, "exhibit an extraordinarysensitivity to all
fluctuations in the social atmosphere" (20). Individuals may, of course, combine
580 CollegeCompositionand Communication44 (December1993)
Implications
struggle to explain to others, the latter a more recent split whose divorce we are
just beginning to contest. Can we speak of context apart from text? Contexts
are always textualized. Through genre we can speak of both, as do many scholars
who study particular genres in particular communities (such as Bazerman and
Myers, in their studies of the experimental article in science and articles in
biology, respectively). Studies of particular genres and of particular genre sets
(as, for example, the research-processgenres in Swales, or the genre sets of tax
accountants in Devitt, "Intertextuality") can reveal a great deal about the
communities which construct and use those genres, and studies of particular
texts within those genres can reveal a great deal about the choices writers make.
The reintegration of product and process that this new genre theory enables
can clarify the value of studying products or texts, but it also can contribute to
our understanding of process and text-making. Some of the longstanding (and
often unspoken) questions about writing processes can be addressed through
considering genre's role. Two such questions will illustrate: Where do writers'
goals come from? How do writers know what to change when they are revising?
One of the classic articles on writing processes, Linda Flower and John
Hayes's 1981 article "A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing," might have had
a different emphasis had a better understanding of genre been well shared when
it was written. Flower and Hayes concentrated in part on how writers generate
and regenerategoals. In one paragraph,they acknowledge a small role for genre:
but we shouldnot forgetthat manywritinggoalsarewell-learned,standard
ones stored in memory.For example,we would expect many writersto
drawautomaticallyon those goals associatedwith writingin general,such
as, "interestthe reader,"or "startwith an introduction,"or on goals asso-
ciatedwith a given genre,such as makinga jingle rhyme.These goalswill
often be so basic that they won't even be consciouslyconsideredor ex-
pressed.And the more experiencedthe writerthe greaterthis repertoryof
semi-automaticplansand goalswill be. (381)
With our new conception of genre, we would agree that "well-learned, stand-
ard" goals are "so basic that they won't even be consciously considered or
expressed," and that more experienced writers will be well-stocked with "semi-
automatic plans and goals." However, rather than being uninteresting because
unconscious and rather than being trivial ("such as making a jingle rhyme"),
these "basic" and "well-learned" generic goals may be the stuff of which all
writing goals (at least partly) are made. Bakhtin ("Problem"), for example,
describes "primary"speech genres, which are the culturally established building
blocks of more complex "secondary"genres, most written genres being secon-
dary genres. To understand the situational and social constructs behind such
primary and secondary genres may be to understand more deeply the goals that
writers have and the forces at work in their generation and regeneration.
Understanding writing processes, then, must include understanding generic
goals: what they are-the historical, community, and rhetorical forces that
shape them-how writers learn them, and how writers use them.
582 CollegeCompositionand Communication44 (December1993)
As someone who has been working on understanding genre for many years,
I, course, see the potential benefits of genre in virtually every article or book
of
I read on composition theory and teaching. Studies of the relationship between
reading and writing need to acknowledge that genre connects readers and
writers, both their products and their processes, and need to investigate how
their interpretations of genre vary (or do not). Research on assessment and on
assignments needs to consider the power of differing generic demands to influ-
ence results. Judith A. Langer, for example, found that "genredistinctions were
stronger than grade distinctions in their effects on student writing" (167).
Researchersof basic writing need to go beyond the forms of academic genres to
see their situational constructs, with ideologies and roles that may pose conflicts
for some basic writers. A study of Athabaskans, a group of Alaskan Indians,
discussed by Michael B. Prince, found that learning to write a new genre
"implied cultural and personal values that conflicted with pre-existing patterns
of thought and behavior" (741). Christie goes so far as to assert that "Those
who fail in schools are those who fail to master the genres of schooling: the ways
of structuring and of dealing with experience which schools value in varying
ways" ("Language"24).
Although it may be premature to outline full programs, many powerful
revolutions in our teaching might develop from a better understanding of genre.
Teachers of writing need to discover how to teach novices the situations and
forms of the genres they will need without undermining the wholeness of a
genre. Aviva Freedman'sresearch suggests that some novices may learn to write
particular genres without explicit instruction, even ignoring explicit feedback.
Richard M. Coe, on the other hand, argues for making all such models con-
scious "so that we may use them critically instead of habitually" ("Rhetoric"
11). Research needs to be done to discover the most effective techniques of
translating our better genre theory into better writing instruction and thence
into practice.
Even as we await more substantial knowledge of how novices can best learn
and use genres, we can use the new conception of genre to improve our
teaching, especially our diagnosis and treatment of students' problems. Since
the genre constructs the situation, students will not be able to respond appro-
priately to assigned situations unless they know the appropriate genre. What we
often diagnose as ignorance of a situation or inability to imagine themselves in
another situation may in fact be ignorance of a genre or inability to write a genre
they have not sufficiently read: they may feel great love but be unable to write
a love sonnet. Conversely, since genre and situation are mutually constructive,
what we diagnose as inability to write a particular genre may in fact be unfa-
miliarity with the genre's situation: students may know the genre of letters to
the editor in a superficial way, but if they have never felt the need to write such
a letter-if they have never experienced the situation-they may be incapable
of writing one that appropriately responds to that situation. When we create
assignments and as we evaluate responses to them, we must consider both their
situational and generic demands.
584 CollegeCompositionand Communication44 (December1993)
Notes
1. This article was supported in part by the University of Kansas general research alloca-
tion #3629-0038. I would like to thank those who gave me many helpful comments on an
earlier draft of this article: Richard Coe, Aviva Freedman, James Hartman, Michael Johnson,
Pat McQueeney, and the anonymous readers for CCC.
2. See Devitt, "Genre" for a discussion of the implications of a new genre theory for the
study of language.
3. The notion of genre as template might be indebted to schemata theory and script
theory. These theories, as rich as they are for understanding the complexities of human
conventions, may have been a necessary precursor to this understanding of generic conven-
tions.
Works Cited
Ongstad, Sigmund. "The Definition of Genre and the Didactics of Genre." Rethinking
Genre Colloquium. Ottawa, April 1992.
Prince, Michael B. "Literacyand Genre: Towarda Pedagogyof Mediation." CollegeEnglish
51 (Nov. 1989): 730-49.
Reid, Ian, ed. The Place of Genrein Learning: CurrentDebates. Deakin University:Centre
for Studies in LiteraryEducation, 1987.
Reither,JamesA. "Writingand Knowing: TowardRedefining the Writing Process."College
English47 (Oct. 1985): 620-28. Rpt. in The WritingTeachers'Sourcebook.Ed. GaryTate
and EdwardP.J. Corbett. 2nd ed. New York:Oxford UP, 1988. 140-48.
Sommers, Nancy. "RevisionStrategiesof Student Writersand ExperiencedAdult Writers."
CollegeCompositionand Communication31 (Dec. 1980): 378-88.
Swales, John M. GenreAnalysis: English in Academic and ResearchSettings. Cambridge:
CambridgeUP, 1990.
Titunik, I. R. "The Formal Method and the Sociological Method (M. M. Baxtin, P. N.
Medvedev, V. N. Volosinov) in Russian Theory and Study of Literature."Volosinov
[Bakhtin] 175-200.
Todorov,Tzvetan. Genresin Discourse.Trans.CatherinePorter.Cambridge:CambridgeUP,
1990.
Vatz, Richard."The Myth of the RhetoricalSituation."Philosophyand Rhetoric6 (Summer
1973): 154-61.
Volosinov,V. N. [M. M. Bakhtin]. Marxism and the PhilosophyofLanguage.Trans.Ladislav
Matejkaand I. R. Titunik. Cambridgeand London: HarvardUP, 1986.
The National Council of Teachers of English joins the NCTE Black Caucus in
sponsoring the FIFTHNATIONAL AFRICAN AMERICAN READ-IN CHAINon Sunday,
February 6, 1994, at 4:00 p.m. EST, and on Monday, February 7, 1994, for
schools. Schools, community and professional organizations, businesses,
churches, libraries, bookstores, and interested citizens are urged to make literacy
a significant part of Black History Month by hosting and coordinating Read-Ins
in their communities. For more information about this and future Read-Ins,
contact Dr. Jerrie C. Scott, Central State University, Urban Literacy-Lower
Library, Wilberforce, OH 45384 (513-376-6535); or Dr. Sandra E. Gibbs,
NCTE Special Programs, 1111 W. Kenyon Road, Urbana, IL 61801-1096
(217-328-3870, Ext. 230).