Defining a Discourse Community

Swales (1990) proposes six different requirements which must be present in any discourse community: common goals, participatory mechanisms, information exchange, community-specific genre, highly specialized terminology and high general level of expertise. The purpose of the present paper is to analyze four articles in order to provide evidence to Swales’ (1990) view of discourse community for a group to be defined as such or not.

Wenzlaff & Wieseman (2004) described teachers as a team working toward the same goal and believed that having others around them with similar goals helps to keep a clear focus. As regards participatory mechanisms, reference to Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez-Torres (2003), reveals that whether through writing, speaking, or simply listening as a peripheral member of the activity system, teachers are participating in the construction of knowledge as well as crafting identities within the activity system of this inquiry group.

Furthermore, the group needs to be intercommunicated to guarantee their success. As regards this characteristic, McLaughlin & Talbert (1993) states that a discourse community cannot exist in the absence of a collaborative culture and an environment that supports risk-taking (as cited in Wenzlaff, T., 2004). Similarly, the group’s association will be defined by the use of certain specific genres: “Traditional texts that are vested with high authority and still continue to exert their influences by repetition and reiteration within the discourse community” (Foucault, 1984; as cited in Kelly-Kleese, C., 2001).

Taking into account the specialized terminology, “teachers strive to acquire and continually transform a social language. A social language is a discourse peculiar to a specific professional or ethnic group at a given time” (Holquist & Emerson, as cited in Wertsch, 1991, p.57). Finally, the group should achieve a certain level of expertise. In connection with this, Kelly-Kleese (2004) suggests that the power to name “what is” comes also from one’s level of prestige within the community.

To conclude, taking into account the study of different groups which experts provide in the analyzed articles; it can be stated that the authors agree as regards the presence of common aims, particular discourse, intercommunication and a significant understanding of the area of knowledge within the mentioned communities. Thus, there is vast evidence which shows that varied groups can be recognized as a discourse community as they meet Swales’ requirements.

Reference

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. 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 2011, from

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_n9349405

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the Mind: A Sociocultural Approach to Mediated Action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.