Volume 18, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0155-0640
  • E-ISSN: 1833-7139
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes


At one time or another most of us have probably been involved in processes we dislike whose outcomes we fear simply to subvert what we assume to be someone else’s agenda. We become involved, for example, in national curriculum planning because we believe we might be able to alter outcomes for the better. We might even believe we can subvert attempts to reinforce cultural norms in the name of ‘standards’ by ensuring that ‘access’ includes access to the ‘genres of power’. If, however, there is no direct relationship between stylistic control and access for marginalised groups to real power, if current approaches to ‘genre literacy’ actually tend to reinforce traditional pedagogical practices and even, in doing so, threaten to reconstitute the cultural deficit model our participation may actually reinforce the agendas we seek to subvert. Is there a possible, positive response to this sort of dilemma? It is argued here that in seeking a healthy fusion of power, applied linguistics is in a position to discover the appropriate response.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Chamberlain, J.
    (1993) Our illiteracy: Reading thewriting on the wall. North and South. July.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Cherryholmes, C.
    (1988) Power and criticism: Poststructuralist investigations in education.. Washington, Teachers’ College Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Christie D. , F. Freebody , A. Luke , J. Martin , T. Threadgold and C. Walton
    (1991) Teaching English literacy: A project of national significance on the preservice preparation of teachers for teaching English literacy. 3vols.Darwin, Northern Territory University, Centre for Studies of Language in Education.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Education Forum
    Education Forum (1994) Response to English in the New Zealand Curriculum. Unpublished typescript.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Fraser, N.
    (1989) Unruly practices: Power, discourse and gender in contemporary social theory. Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Gilbert, P.
    (1992) Literacy and gender. Plenary address atthe Working Conference on Critical Literacy Conference Materials. Griffith University, Brisbane.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Gould, B.
    (1989) A future for socialsm. xxx, xxx.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Kalantzis, M. and B. Cope
    (1987) Social literacy: An overview. (3rd.ed.) Sydney, Common Ground.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Kalantzis, M.
    (1988) The cultural deconstruction of racism: education and multiculturalism. In M. de Lepervanche and G. Bottomley (eds) The Cultural construction of race. Sydney, Sydney Association for Studies in Society and Culture.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Kress, G. and T. Threadgold
    (1988) Towards a social theory of genre, Southern Review21:215–243.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Newsam, P.
    (1990) Why we shall go for fact not fiction. The Guardian4Sept 1990.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Paltridge, B.
    (1994 in press) Working with genre: A pragmatic perspective. Journal of Pragmatics21.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Selinker, L. , M. Todd-Trimble and L. Trimble
    (1978) Rhetorical function – Shifts in EST discourse. TESOL Quarterly12,3:311–320. doi: 10.2307/3586057
    https://doi.org/10.2307/3586057 [Google Scholar]
  14. Threadgold, T.
    (1989) Talking about genre: Ideologies and incompatible discourses. Cultural Studies3,1:101–127. doi: 10.1080/09502388900490071
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09502388900490071 [Google Scholar]
  15. Walkerdine, V.
    (1990) Schoolgirl fictions. London: Verso.
    [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error