Defining a Discourse Community

In the context of academic literacy, it is imperative to understand that the practices involved in it are not the product of individual work but of social construction. Within this context emerges the concept of discourse community. Multiple definitions have been proposed to define this concept. This paper aims at analysing a series of six criteria established by Swales (1990) that characterise academic discourse communities.

According to Swales (1990), the first of the six requirements a discourse community should meet is common goals. This requirement refers to the need of achieving certain objectives and sharing interests. Kelly-Kleese (2004) describes the discourse community in reference with the community college and states that “its members have, over time, developed a common discourse that involves shared knowledge, common purposes, common relationships, and similar attitudes and values” (p. 2). Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez Torres (2003), on their part, analyse the role of teachers in academic contexts, and indicate that

teachers interact with colleagues in goal-directed activities that require communication and the exchange of ideas where reflection itself is not contained wholly in the mind of the individual but is ‘distributed’ through sign systems and artifacts that are embedded in the social activity of the school community. (p. 3)

In the previous excerpt, Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez Torres (2003) mention another characteristic of discourse communities: information exchange. For Swales (1990), not only is exchanging information an essential component of any discourse community but also the establishment of participatory mechanisms to provide information and feedback. According to Kelly-Kleese (2001), members of a discourse community are culturally expected to participate in the discourse of their specific fields and that of higher education.  

A fourth distinguishing feature of discourse communities mentioned by Swales (1990) is the presence of community-specific genres; i.e., the use of genres that characterise the group or association. In fact, the group shares conventionalised language, and the discourse community is “bound together primarily by its uses of language,” as Bizzell (1992) declares (cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2004, p. 2).

Swales (1990) considers that, besides displaying common goals, participatory mechanisms, information exchange and community-specific genres, a discourse community also presents highly specialised terminology: vocabulary and words difficult to understand for outsiders. As Giroux (1983) states, “language is a social event that is defined, shaped and constrained by the culture of the setting in which it is used” (as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2001, p. 2). 

The sixth characteristic of discourse communities established by Swales (1990) is their high general level of expertise. In order to use language appropriately in a discourse community, it is necessary to have communicative competence, which is in turn associated with the idea that “individuals and groups with greater skill in using (and manipulating) the language system will exercise power in naming and thus controlling how others will view social reality” (Bowers, 1987, p. 28, as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2001, p. 2).

In sum, as Swales (1990) explains, a discourse community is a group joined together by their acquisition and use of specific lexis, the establishment of goals common to all its members, and the exchange of information through communication channels provided by the group. It is also characterised by the use of a defining genre and the high level of competence attained by its members.

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

Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.