The nature of discourse communities

Countless definitions of discourse communities have been known throughout the years ( Kelly Kleese, 2001; Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles & Torres, 2003; Kelly Kleese 2004; Wenzlaff & Wieseman, 2004). However, Swales (1990) was one of the most cited when discussing about this particular topic. This author argues that a discourse community is composed of a few expert members and a larger number of apprentices who develop and use systems of speech and writing that are specific to a certain community’s needs and goals. In this line of thought, he establishes some basic criteria in order to identify the characteristics of discourse communities: common goals, participatory mechanisms, information exchange, community-specific genres, highly specialized terminology and high general level of expertise ( Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p13).
Regarding the aims of these communities, Kutz (1997) states: “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 (...)” (Kelly Kleese, 2001, p.1). Thus, people belonging to discourse communities should state their objectives clearly and have certain interests in common so as to strengthen the idea of membership awareness introduced by Swales (1990).
Participatory mechanisms shared by communities are of great significance as well. Not only are people going to pool information within the group but also they will reflect on specific topics considered as tools for learning. “As teachers participate in the practices of the community and use strategies and artifacts according to the institutional requierements of their school communities, reflection itself becomes constrained or supported in particular ways.” (Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles & Lopez-Torres, 2007, p 2).
Another requirement for discourse communities is the information exchange, which makes reference to the communication of all the members within the group and also with other communities. As Porter (1992) has stated, they “may operate like little ecosystems [that] inevitably interact with systems abutting them”(p. 86). Without communication and interaction among people, it would be impossible to forge bonds so as to achieve the desirable goals.
Concerning genres, it is required to choose one at least to be representative of that particular group. In view of this, Bizzell (1992) assumes that primarily, a discourse community is bound together by its use of language (...) ( Kelly-Kleese, 2004, p.2). These type of communities, she adds, “ are a group of people who share certain language-using practices [that] can be seen as conventionalized (...)”. Precisely, it is essential to define a certain genre as the target model to follow in order to employ the correct variety of language.
It is worth mentioning the fact that highly specialized terminology and high general level of expertise are needed at the time of characterizing these communities. Ideas such as the previous ones can be related to what is named communicative competence, which is defined as what a person must know to use the language appropriately in different contexts (Kutz, 1997) (Kelly-Kleese, 2001, p 2). In other words, it implies that “individuals and groups with greater skill in using (and manipulating) language the language system will exercise power in naming and thus controlling how others will view social reality”(Bowers, 1987) (Kelly-Kleese, 2001, p 2).
On account of all the previous premises, Swales’ (1990) theory seems to provide the guidelines to analize the features of discourse communities. Despite the fact that each of them is ennumerated as an isolated category, they are flexible and permeable enough to mix and coexist within the same community.


















Reference

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.

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