Discourse community; its significance and implications.

The notion of discourse community has been discussed and analyzed by several authors(Kroll,1990; Flowerder, 2000; Swales, 1998). In order to understand and define a discourse community, its significance should be understood within the social constructivist theory. This theory maintains that “knowledge, language and the nature of discourse are determined for the writer by the ‘discourse community’ from whom the writer is producing a text” (Kroll, 1990, p.28).   Swales (1998) defined a discourse as a group of people who share the same goals and purposes. Apart from sharing purposes and goals, a discourse community has mechanisms for intercommunication between members, information exchange and feedback, discourse expectations, specialized terminology and a high level of expertise (Swales,1998; Flowerdew, 2000).

            In order to be a member of a discourse community, an individual has to understand and develop Swales criteria. Such is the case of community colleges described by Kelly-Kleese (2001;2004). The author argues that a community college has developed  “ a common discourse that involves shared knowledge, common purposes, common relationship, and similar values and attitudes (…) share understandings about how to communicate knowledge and achieve shared purposes, and [members] exhibit a flow of discourse that has a particular structure and style” ( Kelly-Kleese, 2004, p.2). The author emphasizes that community colleges seem to develop a particular language terminology, different from high education community.

            Not only might a two-year college be considered a discourse community, but also the praxis of reflection within teacher education. Hoffman-Kipp (2003) and Wenzlaff and Wieseman (2004) express in different papers, the importance of teacher reflection as professional learning and knowledge creation in search of attending common goals. Their attendance is reached through the use of communication artifacts, which promote information exchange and feedback, by sharing a common discourse and topics discussion. In conclusion, it can be stated that a discourse community’s main purpose is the creation of knowledge through the use of a common discourse, terminology, participatory mechanisms and share practices.

 

References

Flowerdew, J. (2000). “Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-English-speaking scholar”. TESOL Quarterly, Vol 34,1. pp. 127-150.

Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection: teacher learning as praxis. Theory into Practice. Retrieved August 2011 from www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NQM/is_3_42/ai_108442653

Kelly –Klesse, C. (2001). Editor’s choice: An Open Memo to Community College Faculty and Administrators. Community College Review. Retrieved August 2011 from www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_0HCZ/is_1_29/ai_77481463

Kelly-Klesse, C. (2004) UCLA community college review: community college scholarship and discourse. Community College Review. Retrieved August 2011 from www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi-m0HCZ/is_1_32/ai_n6361541

Kroll, B. (Ed). (2001). Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Swales, J. (1998). “Discourse community, genres and English as an international language”. World Englishes. Vol.7. No 2, pp.211-220. Retrieved January 2011 from http://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/71887/1/j.1467-971X.1988.tb00232.x.pdf