Discourse Communities

Discourse Communities

Swales (1988) has described a discourse community as being “the center of a set of ideas” (p.212) and not merely a speech fellowship.  For this reason, he suggests six inherent characteristics or requirements in any discourse community:

1.  Members share common goals.  “The goal-directed nature of human activity (. . .) supports learning environments.”  (Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles & Lopez-Torres, 2003, p. 2).  Borg (2003) makes a distinction between sharing common interests and sharing common goals.

2.  The discourse community may use different mechanisms for intercommunication between members.  According to Wenzlaff and Wieseman (2004), members may engage in professional discourse and group work through face-to-face study groups or through electronic devices.

3.  In any discourse community there should be information exchange and feedback.  Ideas are not only for the individual, but they can be “distributed through sign systems and artifacts” (Hoffman et al., 2003, p. 3).

4.  Members use community specific genres.  Bizzell (1992) defined a discourse community as sharing “language-using practices… [that] can be seen as conventionalized” (as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2004, p.1) by interactions within the group.

5.  The discourse community may use specialized terminology.  Kelly-Kleese (2001) has suggested that the community members share their knowledge, create policy and redefine language.  For example, the term “open door" has acquired a specific meaning.

6.  This community has acquired “relevant discoursal and content expertise.” (Swales, 1988, p. 213).  Kutz (1997) has defined communicative competence as what we should know for using the language properly (cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2004).

Research has shown evidence to support Swales’ requirements for a discourse community. This goal-oriented kind of community uses mechanisms for communication in order to exchange ideas. The use of specific genres and specialized terminology leads to expertise.

References

Borg, E. (2003). Key Concepts in ELT: Discourse community. ELT Journal, 57/4, 398-400. Retrieved November 2011 from http://eltj.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/4/398.full.pdf+html

Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez Torres, L. (2003).  Beyond reflection: teacher learning as praxis.  Theory into Practice.  Retrieved September 2011, 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 September 2011, 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 September 2011, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_32/ai_n6361541/

Swales, J.  (1988).  Discourse communities, genres and English as an international language.  World Englishes, 7/2, 211-220.   Retrieved September 2011, from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/71887/1/j.1467-971X.1988.tb00232.x.pdf

Wenzlaff, T.  L., & Wieseman, K.  C.  (2004).  Teachers need teachers to grow.  Teacher Education Quarterly.  Retrieved September 2011, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_n9349405/