Defining discourse community

The aim of this work is to find evidence to support Swales´ theory concerning a discourse community and its components. A discourse community can be easily described as a group of people with common goals that share the same culture, language and beliefs. According to Swales (1990) there are six main characteristics to be part of a discourse community:The first characteristic aims at achieving certain objectives and having specific interests.

Swales deals with the concept of membership in which all participants should know the general aims of the community. Kutz states “The discourse community developed a common discourse that involves shared knowledge, common purposes, common relationships, similar attitudes and values, shared understanding about how to communicate their knowledge and achieve their shared purposes, and a flow of discourse that has a particular structure and style” (Kelly-Kleese, Editor´s choice: An Open Memo To Community Faculty and Administrators).

The second characteristic states the group should participate by providing information and feedback. “In order to connect theory to practice the teachers learned best -by doing- meaning they learned best by having authentic experiences and practical course assignments, reflecting on their –doing-, and having input on graduate design and content” (Wenzlaff & Wiesman, Teachers need teachers to grow).

Third Swales´ characteristic states the group should be intercommunicated. Swales affirms there is a peripheral way of participating in which experts lead the community and peripheral teachers learn and familiarize with the aims, genre, jargon, etc. Clark states: “The discourse community tends to minimize or exclude the participation of some people as they establish the dominance of others”. (Kelly-Kleese, Editor´s choice: An Open Memo To Community Faculty and Administrators).

The fourth characteristic says the group should have a common genre that defines their associations. This characteristic is strongly bond with conversations of the discipline in

which students produce texts that respond to a particular discourse community. The fifth characteristic states the group should use specialized terminology. Kutz defines speech communities in terms of the words that are used, the ways they are pronounced, he subjects talked about, who gets to ask and answer questions, what is stated explicitly, and what implications might be understood (Kelly-Kleese´s, Editor´s choice: An Open Memo To Community Faculty and Administrators).

The last characteristic affirms the group should achieve a certain level of knowledge. Zito states that “within a discourse community 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”. (Kelly.Kleese, UCLA community college review)

There are many requirements to belong to a discourse community; we, as part of this e-learning programme are already building up a specific discourse community with common aims, genre, etc.

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_mONQM/is_3_42/ai_108442653

Kelly-Kleese, C. (2001). Editor`s Choice: An Open Memo to Community College Faculty and Adninistrators. Community College Review. Retrieved October 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_mOHCZ/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_mOHCZ/is_1_32/ai_n6361541

Wenzlaff, T. L., & Wieseman, 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_n9349405