3. Theoretical Framework

The conceptual context of this study and its methodological framework is flexible given that new unforeseen situations connected to the subject of study may arise. This may result in changes to the hypotheses and aims, as well as other data collection and processing techniques (Vasilachis, 2006: 67).

The research is carried out from a pragmatic-sociocognitive approach (Heinemann and Vieghweger, 1991; Bathia, 2014; Parodi, 2010, 2015; Parodi and Burdiles, 2015). It proposes a multilevel approach to professional genres, since a classification that considers only one criterion does not allow us to account for the complexity and dynamism of the features that characterize the genres.

Regarding genres, we adhere to the guidelines proposed by Bathia (2013, 2014), Cassany (2006), Parodi (2015), and Navarro (2012). In this sense, we understand genres as cognitive constructs that are articulated integrally in three dimensions: cognitive, social, and linguistic. These constitute constellations of potentialities for discursive conventions, supported by speakers’ and listeners’ previous knowledge based on constrictions and contextual, social, and cognitive parameters (Parodi, 2015: 26). They are varieties of a language that operate through sets of linguistic-textual features systematically co-occurring through the plots of a text. They are linguistically circumscribed according to different factors such as communicative purposes, participants involved, fields of use, electronic devices, and media, among others (ibíd).

In this context, Parodi places professional genres within specialized discourse along with academic genres, both form a continuum that allows for the articulation of learning combined with specific professional practice. Likewise, we share Navarro’s (2012) conception of this subject even though he prefers the term “professional discourse,” we consider professional genres to be “the set of discursive genres that carry out the organisation’s specific objectives, where they circulate. These constitute discursive practices that are standardised and institutionally regulated” (2012: 1297-1298).

On the other hand, the interactional dimension will be one of the main points of analysis since, as Gómez de Enterría Sánchez highlights, this “will contribute powerfully to facilitating all the extralinguistic meanings that are put into practice during the communicative exchange, as well as all the symbolism that arises from the relationship between language and culture within each specialization field” (2009: 130); especially given the nature of the production and circulation contexts of the genres studied, in particular verbal modality.

In this sense, we adhere to the Interactional Sociolinguistics’ (Gumperz, 1982 y 2001; Tannen, 2004), and the Sociocultural Pragmatics’ (Bravo and Briz, 2004) guidelines and we incorporate theoretical notions corresponding to the Analysis of Institutional Discourse (Prego Vázquez, 1998; Drew and Sorjonen, 2001; Benwell and Stokoe, 2006; Heritage and Clayman, 2010).

4. Methodological considerations

López Ferrero states that in order “to account for the complexity of the construction and interpretation of the genres produced in professional contexts, it is necessary to build bridges between different methodologies” (2002: 195). Thus, following the theoretical framework above, we work with the methodological guidelines for the multilevel models