What is a discourse community?

Swales (1990) defines a discourse community as experts being members of a group which operates on the basis of explicit and implicit public goals. These specialists develop and use systems of speech and writing that are quite specific to a community’s needs and goals (Pintos & Crimi, 2010).  Swales (1990) created some basic criteria to verify whether a certain group of people belongs to an academic discourse community. The aim of this paper is to find evidence to account for Swales (1990)’ theory as regards the main characteristics of a discourse community. Common goals, participatory mechanisms, Information exchange, community- Specific genres, highly specialized terminology and high general level of expertise are the basic requirements that a discourse community should have according to Swales (1990).

The first requirement, Common goals, refers to specific objectives and interests that the discourse community has. According to Ovens (2002), different discourse communities whose main objectives are to make some research on reflection have emerged focusing on different aspects of the term: political, pedagogical or phenomenological (cited in Hoffman- Keep; 2003). As noted in Kelly- Kleese (2004), a discourse community is a social construction. Kutz (1997) claims that “its members have, over time, developed  a common discourse that involved shared knowledge, common purposes, similar attitudes and values, (…) (As cited in Kelly- Kleese, 2003, p. 200).

The second requirement refers to Participatory Mechanisms. Swales (1990) states that through these mechanisms the group receives information and feedback. Vigotsky (1978) suggests that socially guided participation is essential for reflection to take place. Through exchange and feedback the information handled within a Discourse community can circulate among its members so as to be analyzed.  According to Soltis (1981),  the sociocentric view of knowledge and learning holds that what we take as knowledge and how we think and express ideas are the products of interactions of groups of people over time (Wenzlaff & Wiseman; 2004).

The third requirement refers to Information exchange. Swales (1990) suggests that members of a discourse community will survive only if they are intercommunicated.  Hoffman- Kipp, Artiles and Lopez Torres (2003) pointed out that teachers function as resources for one another, providing each other with guidance and assistance to build new ideas. 

The fourth requirement is connected to Community- Specific genres.  This item refers to the fact that at least one genre should define the discourse community you belong to. As mentioned in Kelly- Kleese (2004), members of a discourse community develop shared knowledge as well as a particular structure and style. Blanton, Simmons and  Warner (2001) argue that journals or virtual systems of communication can be used (…) so they can recall, share and respond to one another’s experiences (as cited in Hoffman- Kipp, Artiles & Lopez- Torres, 2003).  Members of a given community should produce texts that correspond to their community respecting its structure and style.

Swales also (1990) mentions that a discourse community should have highly specialized terminology. Members of a discourse community develop a collective identity in which they acquire and continually transform social language. According to Holquist and Emerson (cited in Hoffman- Kipp, Artiles and Lopez- Torres, 2003) a social language is “a discourse peculiar to a specific societal group at a specific time.”  A discourse community is “bound together primary by its uses of language, although bound perhaps by other ties as well” (Bizell, p. 222 as cited in Kelly- Kleese, 2004).

Finally,  Swales (1990) affirms that the group should achieve a certain level of knowledge:  high general level of expertise. Zito (1984) states that

 an author is granted a certain binding authority to his intended meaning; this is legitimated by academic credentials, professional associations, and the division of knowledge within the academy  Furthermore, only those qualified by some socially institutionalized agency may engage in such discourse and be taken seriously.  The academic turf is a battleground for the right to speak with authority (cited in Kelly- Kleese; 2001).

In conclusion, a discourse community is analyzed as a social construction that should meet certain characteristics to be identified as such. Sufficient evidence has been found in order to support Swales (1990)’ theory as all the requirements stated by him were present in the articles analyzed.

Reference

Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection: teacher learning as praxis. Theory into practice. Retrieved October 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NQM/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 October 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_29/ai_77481463

Kelly-Kleese, C. (2004). UCLA community college review: community college scholarship and discourse. Community College Review. Retrieved October 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_32/ai_n6361541

Pintos,V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 1: Building up a Community of Teachers and Prospective Researchers. Universidad CAECE: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Wenzlaff, T.L., & Wiseman, K.C. (2004). Teachers Need Teachers To Grow. Teacher Education Quarterly. Retrieved October 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_9349405