Defining discourse community

Many researchers and theorists, like Candlin (1997), Bizzel (1992) and Harris (1989), have described the concept of discourse community following different views and taking into account significant factors. Swales (1990) belongs to this group of experts since he was able to provide some basic criteria to define discourse communities. According to Swales, these groups should meet some requirements such as common goals, high level of expertise, specialized terminology, specific genres, information exchange and participation.
Every discourse community should share certain objectives and interests as well as a certain level of expertise (Swales, 1990, p. 24). In order to illustrate this point, Kelly-Kleese (2004) indicates that the members of community colleges “have, over time, developed a common discourse that involves shared knowledge, common purposes, common relationships, and similar attitudes and values” (The Community College as a Discourse Community, para.2). Indeed, Kelly-Kleese’s (2004) study of community colleges clearly demonstrates the social nature of discourse communities.
For Swales (1990), the members of a discourse community should be intercommunicated and give information and feedback through participatory mechanisms (p. 26). Examples of these mechanisms are the journals or virtual systems of communication which can be used to recall, share, and respond to one another’s experiences (Blanton, Simmons, & Warner, 2001; cited in Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles, & Lopez Torres, 2003). Wenzlaff and Wieseman (2004) also refer to the importance of interactions in a discourse community and cite Putman & Borko (2000) when stating that “the community… changes through the ideas and ways of thinking that its new members bring to the discourse” (Teacher Learning in a Collaborative Culture, para.2).
The use of specific genres and highly specialized terminology in a discourse community is also considered relevant by Swales (1990). Kelly-Kleese (2004) refers to these requirements when describing the large discourse community of higher education and pointing out that universities share their academe’s definitions, professional terminology and modes of discourse with community colleges and other institutions of higher education (para.2).
In conclusion, Swales’ (1990) basic criteria for discourse communities have been useful to recognize and test the academy literacy in the practices of some social groups. Furthermore, many researchers and theorists have supported Swales’ theory of discourse community by applying it to the research study of some communities such as those formed by school teachers and professionals of higher education.

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. (2004). UCLA community college review: community college scholarship and discourse. Community College Review. Retrieved October2007, 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 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_n9349405