Discourse Community

Discourse community


This assignment aims at providing evidence to support Swales (1990) theory regarding Discourse Community and its six central requirements.
The American linguist (1990) describes a Discourse Community as a group of people who share the same culture, language, beliefs and social conventions. Nonetheless, for such community to be recognised, certain distinguishing characteristics should be accomplished.
The first requirement highlights the importance of having common goals and particular interests. Bizzell (1992) defines a discourse community as a “group of people who share certain language-using practices…that can be seen conventionalized” (as cited in Kelly-Kleese; 2004). Additionally, Kurtz (1997) claims that within a discourse community “Its members have, over time, developed a common discourse that involves shared knowledge, common purposes, common relationships, similar attitudes and values, (…) and achieve their shared purposes and a flow of discourse that has a particular structure and style” (p.200).
The second prerequisite deals with the importance of members’ participation to provide information and feedback. As suggested in Wenzlaff & Wieseman (2004) teachers should be situated in other contexts where they can work in cohorts so as to share experiences, learn from each other and grow professionally.
The third condition points out that members of a discourse community should be intercommunicated otherwise such community will not survive. According to Clark’s (1994) “the members of a discourse community are more or less equally politically, that they have equal access to and equal influence upon the discourse that determines the beliefs and purposes they will share. But, in fact, these communities tend to minimize or exclude the participation of some people as they establish the dominance of the others” (as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2001, power and Influence in a Discourse Community section, para. 1).
Regarding the fourth requirement, the participants within a given discourse community make use of a particular genre which defines their membership. As noted in Kelly–Kleese (2004) such members develop a common communicative competence – specific genre and style- and an understanding about how to communicate certain shared knowledge.
The fifth precondition identifies the use of specialized terminology among the group. Bowers (1987) indicates that “individuals and groups with greater skill in using and manipulating the language system will exercise the power in naming and controlling how others will view social reality”. Besides, Kurtz (1997) acknowledges speech communities in terms of the words used, how they are pronounced, the subjects talked about, who gets to talk and answer questions, what is stated and what implications might be brought about. (Kelly-Kleese, 2004)
Lastly, the sixth characteristic implies a high level of academic knowledge. As cited in Kelly-Kleese (2004) “only those qualified by some social institutionalized agency may engage in such discourse and be taken seriously (…)” (Power and Influence in a Discourse Community section, para. 3) .In addition, Kurtz (1997) states the importance of communicative competence, he defines it as “what one must know in order to use language appropriately in particular discourse communities”. (Communicative Competence and Boundaries section, para. 1)
Accordingly, and considering the above mentioned prerequisites, we EAP -English for academic purposes- students are becoming part of an e-learning discourse community since common objectives and share specific knowledge are pursued. Besides, we are also involved in sharing informational feedback and consequently, we are beginning to use academic terminology and developing discourse competence.




References

Hoffman-Kipp, P Artiles, A. J, & Lopez Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection: teacher learning as praxis. Theory into Practice.

Kelly-Kleese, C. (2001). Editor's Choice: An Open Memo to Community College Faculty and Administrators. Community College Review.

Wenzlaff, T. L & Wieseman, K. C. (2004). Teachers Need Teachers To Grow. Teacher Education Quarterly.

Kelly-Kleese, C. (2004). UCLA community college review: community college scholarship and discourse. Community College Review.