Analysing the meaning of a discourse community
Many researchers and theorists have provided a number of definitions of a discourse community. According to Swales (1990, as cited in Pintos and Crimi, 2010), a discourse community is defined in terms of the following requirements: common goals, participatory mechanisms, information exchange, community-specific genres, highly specialized terminology and high general level of expertise. The purpose of this paper is to show evidence on how different writers support Swales’ (1990) theory.
Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez Torres (2003) show support on some of those characteristics. Teacher reflection is considered a social practice and several discourse communities emphasize how it serves political, pedagogical and phenomenological aims. Participatory mechanisms are believed to be essential when reflection takes place. As the authors state “reflection without participation is as impossible as thought without language” and “teachers function as resources for one another, providing each other with guidance and assistance on which to build new ideas”(p.4).
Kelly-Kleese (2004) also supports Swales’ (1990) theory when she provides a tentative definition of discourse community which includes many of the requirements established by Swales. She defines a discourse community as a “group of people who share certain language-using practices...[that] can be seen as conventionalized”. (Bizzell, 1992, as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2004, p. 2). The author also affirms that the community college can be considered a discourse community as its members share common aims, attitudes, values and understandings. Kelly-Kleese (2004) also supports another characteristic of Swales’ theory (1990): highly specialized terminology. The author proclaims that “the community college can be seen as adopting language that has been given particular meaning within the larger higher education community”(p. 2).
The importance of interactions in a discourse community is also reflected on the cohort-based program named by Wenzlaff and Wieseman (2004). According to them interactions promote meaningful learning as well as a sense of empowerment and, as the authors state, “empowerment within a discourse community is the key to teacher learning”(p. 9). Their program leads to the conclusion that teachers need teachers to grow with and the only way to enrich themselves is to work in groups sharing the same goals.
The authors previously mentioned agree with Swales’ (1990) theory when defining discourse communities. Furthermore, they mention and show evidence on most of the requirements he establishes to define a discourse community.
References
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
