Swales, a pioneer behind current theories of discourse communities

In their attempts to define discourse community, researches and theorists have provided a number of models, all of which share knowledge, social conventions and language practices as their common core. So far, one of the most influential approaches to a definition of discourse communities has been Swales’ (1990; cited in Pintos and Crimi, 2010) identification of certain basic criteria – such as common objectives, expertise, technical language and style conventionsto – to decide whether a group can be called as a discourse community. The purpose of this paper is to examine closely at those defining characteristics and provide evidence of a number of theories which seem to be based on them. In the following quotation, for instance, Kutz mentions most discourse community characteristics introduced by Swales’ (1990):

The community college can be seen as a discourse community: Its members have, over time, developed a common discourse that involves shared knowledge, common purposes, common relationships, similar attitudes and values, shared understandings about how to communicate their knowledge and achieve their shared purposes, and a flow of discourse that has a particular structure and style. (Kutz, 1997; as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2001 p.1)

The first criterion introduced by Swales (1990) is that a group should hold common objectives and specific interests in order to be recognized as a discourse community. There is extensive evidence which supports this point. Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Torres (2003) consider teacher reflection as something else than an isolated practice, the authors note that “several discourse communities in teacher reflection have arisen.…They highlight how teacher reflection itself is mobilised in particular contexts, for particular political, pedagogical, and phenomenological purposes" (p.2).

Similarly, in her attempt to identify a two-year community college as an independent discourse community – included though in the larger scope of higher education – Kelly-Kleese (2004) explains that “the community college discourse community exists…apart from higher education discourse communities because community colleges have institutional missions that differ from those of universities and four-year colleges …”(p.2). It is a fact, then,  that common objectives or goals are at the core of a discourse community and that all discourse communities may pursue a specific objective.

Swales (1990) states that a discourse community is also defined by its ruling language and genre conventions. Groups establish their own lexicon and style to share ideas and viewpoints. “Communicative competence is described as what one must know in order to use language appropriately in particular discourse communities” (Kuts, 1997; as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2004, p.4). Kelly-Kleese argues that reality is but the product of culturally shared language and discourse and “entities we normally call reality, knowledge, thoughts, facts, selves, and so on are constructs generated by communities of like-minded peers” (Bruffee, 1986; as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2001, p.1).

As well as specialized terminology and specific genres, a discourse community uses participatory mechanisms as regards the communication of information and feedback. Kelly-Kleese (2004) notes that “Members of two-year college discourse communities share understandings about how to communicate knowledge” (p.2). Furthermore, one of the main arguments to define a college community, as different from high education, is its spoken language. Members of a community college do not write reports, but put what they know or learn straight into practice. “Their discourse is largely underground in that it flows within their specialized community; it most often takes the form of oral dialogue” (Kelly-Kleese, 2004). Some relationships of power and influence arise as a consequence of the nature of language. Written discourse such as papers and reports produced by university or high-education scholars is associated with academic discourse communities and hold a high status, whereas spoken language from two-year colleges is undervalued and considered non-academic. Members of two-year colleges discourse communities are regarded as mere readers and their access to higher education discourse communities is highly difficult, if not impossible.

Finally, Swales (1990) mentions expertise as one of the defining characteristics of a discourse community. The members of a community may have either a peripheral or central participation, depending on the degree of expertise they possess. “The sort of knowledge that is required in order to be accepted by the discourse community in scholarly writing is not usually acquired in the formal setting of a classroom” (Lave and Wenger, 1991; as cited in Pintos and Crimi , 2010).

Swales’ (1990) theory about discourse communities seems to be dealt with in all sources analysed. All authors recognise the necessity of common goals, specialised language, participatory mechanisms, specific genres, and expertise. Some theorists may focus more on one aspect than on others, but all of them are present in their work to some degree.

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_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

Wenzlaff, T.L., & Wiseman, 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_9349405