Discourse community and its basis characteristics

Discourse community and its basis characteristics

The aim of this paper is to describe what Swales (1990) has claimed as a discourse community as well as to find support from other sources. Furthermore, we will be able to read about the six requirements that a discourse community should meet in order to be considered as such.

To begin with, Swales (1990) has stated that a discourse community is a group of people who share common purposes, attitudes, values and who agree in what way they could achieve their shared aims. Swales (1990) has also proposed six requirements that are specific to discourse communities: common goals, participatory mechanisms, information exchange, community-specific genres, highly specialized terminology as well as high general level of expertise.

The concept of common goals refers to each group who should have specific commitments and share the same interests. According to Kelly-Kleese (2001), “the community college can be seen as a discourse community: its members have developed a common discourse that involves shared knowledge, common purposes, common relationships, similar attitudes and values, shared understandings about how to communicate their knowledge and achieve their shared purposes, and a flow of discourse that has a particular structure” (p.1).

The next concept is that of participatory mechanisms which are used in order to provide information and feedback among the members of the community. Wenzlaff and Wieseman (2004) have stated that “for teaching learning to occur, teachers need opportunities to participate in professional communities that discuss learning theories and various teacher materials and pedagogy” (p.1). What is more, Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez-Torres (2003) have taken into account Vigotsky’s concept of Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD) which suggests that reflection would be impossible without the socially guided participation.

In reference to the requirement of information exchange, the members of the group should be intercommunicated so as to survive as a group. According to Kelly-Kleese (2004), “sharing knowledge is more than research and publication” (p.5). In addition to this, Wenzlaff and Wieseman (2004) have stated that “interactions with the people in one’s environment are major determinants of both what is learned and how learning takes place” (p.1).

Taking into consideration the concept of community-specific genres, the group should have at least one genre/style that connects each one of the members with the rest. Kelly-Kleese (2004) has pointed out that “community colleges have institutional missions that differ from the universities and four-year-colleges because their student bodies are comprised largely of nontraditional and at-risk students” (p.2). Furthermore, Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez-Torres (2003) have claimed that “phenomenology is a discourse community that focuses on the individual’s personal experiences, thoughts and feelings” (p.7).

Highly specialized terminology points out that all discourse communities should have their own use of abbreviations and acronyms that gives them identity. Taking into account Kelly-Kleese’s review (2001), “the community college can be seen as adopting language that has been given particular meaning within the larger higher education community, meaning that is less applicable to its own community but is nonetheless consistently used. The use of such language and definitions exemplifies the argument that the communicative competence within academe belongs to the university discourse community” (p.2).

The last concept is high general level of expertise which emphasizes that each community should arrive at a certain level of knowledge. In the article Community College Review, Kelly-Kleese (2004) has proposed that “within a discourse community, only those qualified by some socially institutionalized agency may engage in such discourse and be taken seriously” (p.3).

In conclusion, not only have we reflected upon the definition of discourse community, but we have also stated the six requirements that should take place within any discourse community. On top of that, we have supported Swales’ notions and found enough evidence in favor of them.



References


Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A.J., & Lopez Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection: teacher learning as praxis. Theory into practice. Retrieved September 2009, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_mONQM/is_3_42/ai_108442653

Kelly-Kleese, C. (2001). Editor’s choice: An open memo to Community College Faculty and Administrators. Community College Review. Retrieved September 2009, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_mOHCZ/is_1_29/ai_n77481463

Kelly-Kleese, C. (2004). UCLA community college review: community college scholarship and discourse. Community College Review. Retrieved September 2009, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_mOHCZ/is_1_32/ai_n6361541

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

Wenzlaff, T. L., & Wieseman, K. C. (2004). Teachers need teachers to grow. Teacher Education Quarterly. Retrieved September 2009, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_n9349405