Swales’ (1990) Delineation of Discourse Communities in
Practice
For many years scholars have directed their efforts to
identify the key features that define a discourse community as such. It should come as no surprise that it was not
until 1990 that those features became clearly delimited, thanks to Swales’
(1990) research in this field. According
to Swales (1990), there are six key characteristics that are necessary to
identify a group of individuals as a discourse community. The purpose of this paper is to examine four
prescribed articles under the light of Swales’ theory as regards discourse
community requirements.
As a first requirement, Swales (1990) postulates that,
whether tacitly or explicitly, a discourse community pursues a set of common
goals which are public. In accord with
this concept, Kelly-Kleese (2004) contends that the community college should be
considered a discourse community in its own right because ¨Its members have,
over time, developed a common discourse that involves shared knowledge, common purposes,
common relationships, and similar attitudes and values¨ (p. 2).
Another important feature of discourse communities
specified by Swales (1990) is that the group should have clear mechanisms of
participation among its members with the aim of providing information and
feedback. In their study of cohort-based
teacher graduate programs, Wenzlaff and Wieseman (2004) highlight the
importance of group work to attain professional teacher development. Furthermore, these authors support Soltis’ notion that learning and scholarship are the
result of the interactions among the members of a group. ¨It is important to note that this learning
is not a unidirectional phenomenon. The
community, too, changes through the ideas and ways of thinking that its new
members bring to the discourse.¨ (Putnam & Borko, 2000; as cited in Wenzlaff
and Wieseman, 2004, p. 1). This is why
Wenzlaff and Wieseman (2004) stress the importance of a collaborative culture
as a vital element of a discourse community.
The fourth prerequisite points out the use of a
specific genre among the members of
a
given community. It is to be noted that
such members display a common communicative competence by developing their own
genre and style. Kelly-Kleese’s (2004)
work intersects with Swales’ (1990) around this idea when she observes that ¨In
order to have their work deemed worthy, community college faculty and
administrators must understand the convention of writing and the standards by which
their work will be judged¨ (p. 9).
The development and use of highly
specialized terminology constitutes the fifth
condition. This concept is acknowledged by Kelly-Kleese
(2001) when she describes the extent to which the community college adopts the
specialized terminology (including abbreviations and acronyms) developed by the
university discourse community.
Swales (1990) discerns a high level
of expertise as the sixth characteristic of a discourse community. Its members redefine language and negotiate
meanings and purposes.
As
noted by Kelly-Kleese (2001), ¨The power to name ¨what is¨ comes also from
one’s
level of prestige within the community¨
(p. 3). Such prestige within the
discourse
community
results from the legitimation process that occurs by which ¨only those
qualified
by some socially institutionalized agency may engage in such discourse and
be
taken seriously¨ (Zito, 1984; as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2001, p. 3).
In conclusion, the authors of the four articles were
able to establish that the different groups they studied were actual discourse
communities and it was Swales’ (1990) basic criteria which served as grounds
for identifying them.
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
Collage 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 collage review: community
collage scholarship and discourse. Community
College Review. Retrieved October
2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_32/ai_n6361541
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre análisis: English in academia 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 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_n9349405

Swales’ (1990) Delineation of Discourse Communities in Practice
por Paula Gabriela Ferrari se encuentra bajo una
Licencia Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional.
por Paula Gabriela Ferrari se encuentra bajo una
Licencia Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 Internacional.
Comments
Post a Comment