How to recognize a discourse community
Swales`s (1990) characterization of a discourse community can be defined as such if it follows six basic criteria which would serve to prove if a given community would suit into this category. The aim of this paper is to find evidence of those elements in different groups of people in order to see if they follow those requirements.
The first element Swales (1990) mentions is that of having specific common goals. This implies the group should achieve certain objectives and have specific interests. The conceptualization of group work as a means for professional development is supported by Wenzlaff and Wiseman (2004) who describe a group of teachers who need teachers to grow with.
The second element Swales establishes is that of providing information and receiving feedback from the community. According to Wenzlaff and Wiseman, it is the exploration that occurs through group work conversation and collaboration that builds a relationship between group work and cohort. It is a cohort structure which fosters a collaborative culture to provide a powerful force to change. They reveal that group work may be a key factor to facilitate professional development.
As for the third element, which is connected to information exchange, Swales sates that group members should be intercommunicated. Mc Laughlin and Talbert, (1993) argue that a “discourse community can not exist in the absence of a collaborative culture and an environment that supports risk-taking and reflection.” (as cited in Wenzlaff and Wieseman, 2004, p.9). The community needs to interact and be in continuous change through the ideas and ways of thinking that its members bring to discourse.
The fourth established criterion involves making use of at least one genre that defines the group association. Hoffman, Artiles and Lopez.Torres (2003) discuss that in the case of teachers` reflective practice, they may establish a culture in which reflection and enquiry are the normative ideal artifacts by which they learn.
A specialized jargon and a high level of expertise are two more requirements within a discourse community. That is the case of the UCLA community college mentioned by Kelly-Kleese (2004) where all their members are communicative competent. “Higher education has a discourse community that governs the university`s spoken and written words” (p. 2). She adds that “[I]ts members have, over time, developed a common discourse that involves shared knowledge, common purposes, common relationships, and similar attitudes and values” ( p. 2).
To conclude, it has been found that there are many evidences which support Swales`s conceptualization of a discourse community making it of great importance among its members.
References
Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection: teacher learning as praxis. Theory into Practice. Retrieved October 2011, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NQM/is_3_42/ai_108442653
Kelly-Kleese, C. (2004). UCLA community college review: community college scholarship and discourse. Community College Review. Retrieved October 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 October 2011, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_n9349405
Dear all,
ResponderEliminarIt is a pleasure to share with you all the work that I have done with such effort along this short period of time. It is incredible how much one learns through research, writing, proofreading, re-writing and sharing information with all the members of a discourse community. I am very proud of having taken the decision to make the attempt to become a better professional. It inspires me to go on working hard.
29 de noviembre de 2011 06:13