ABSTRACT
Genre theory, for quite some time now, has focused primarily on the analysis of generic constructs, of course, with increasing attention to and emphasis on contexts in which such genres are produced, interpreted, and used to achieve disciplinary, institutional, and professional objectives, often giving the impression that constructing genres is an end in itself rather than a means to an end. One of the consequences of this focus is that there has been very little attention paid to the ultimate outcomes of these genre-based discursive activities, which centrally contribute to academic, institutional, organizational, and professional activities or practices that are invariably non-discursive, though often achieved through discursive means. It was with this objective in mind that I proposed to develop conventional genre analysis in the direction of what I have referred to as ‘Critical Genre Analysis’ focusing more particularly on professional actions and practices (Bhatia, 2008a, 2008b). I recognise here the need to defi ne, discuss and reformulate more clearly the ‘critical’ in ‘Critical Genre Analysis’ (CGA), before moving on to other aspects of critical genre theory, as the term ‘critical’ has been popularly used in what has been well established as ‘Critical Discourse Analysis’ (CDA). So I would like to devote some time and space to a clear specifi cation of what I mean by ‘critical’ in ‘Critical Genre Analysis’. However, before I go any further, it is necessary to clarify and distinguish CGA from CDA, which has been a popular fi eld of enquiry employing procedures that are, in some sense, similar to those used in literary criticism, but very different in terms of its goals and objectives.
