Discourse communities criteria from Swales´ perspective: analyzing college communities

In his article, Swales (1990) maintains that discourse communities should comply with some parameters to be considered as such. This paper will provide evidence on his assumptions, identifying the requirements in the works concerning college communities of various researchers. (Swales, 1990).

To begin with, common goals are elements that maintain the atmosphere of sharing and belonging. Not only do communities include common purposes, as Kutz (1997) states, but they also offer the possibility of negotiating aims that make up the community (Kutz, 1997; cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2004; Bowers, 1987, p. 2; cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2001, p. 4).

Obtaining and sharing information are efficient modes that allow interaction among members of the community. Kelly-Kleese (2004) argues that scholarship, as part of community colleges, is “a product that is shared with others” (p. 6). Scholarship, as a means of creating knowledge and sharing it, is evidence of socially constructed learning. For transmission of information and feedback to succeed, discourse communities rely on different sources, for instance research projects, journals, meetings.

As a community, communication among members of the group and the outside world is fundamental. Being a member of a knowledge community demands knowledge about the practices as well as collaboration, “communication and the exchange of ideas” between those who take part in the community (Hoffman-Kip, Artiles and Lopez-Torres, 2003, p. 3).

A discourse community outstands for the use of a specific genre. By way of illustration, journals, researches, essays, discussions, assignments belong to the domain of college discourse communities. In addition to a distinctive type of discourse, the community should acquire a specific and specialized lexis. Hoffman-Kip, Artiles and Lopez-Torres (2003) make reference to the concept Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) which integrates the field of college community. The use of abbreviations, as the one provided, better reflects the uniqueness prevalent in discourse communities. Furthermore, terminology embodies particular meanings created by experts, scholars and members who are noteworthy for achieving a high level of skill and knowledge.

As a whole, it is my belief that being member of a discourse community requires, first of all, awareness on what the concept implies. The criterion described tackles major issues that may guide the discovery of the use of language in communities.

Reference

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

Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J. & Lopez Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection: teacher learning as praxis. Theory into Practice. Retrieved in September 2011, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_mONQM/is_3_42/ai108442653

Kelly-Kleese, C. (2001). Editor´s choice: An open memo to Community College Faculty and Administrators. Community College Review. Retrieved in September 2011, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_mOHCZ/is_1_29/ai_77481463

Kelly-Kleese, C. (2004). UCLA community college review: community college scholarship and discourse. Community College Review. Retrieved in September 2011, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_mOHCZ/is_1_32/ai_n6361541

Wenzlaff, T. L. & Wieseman, K. C. (2004). Teachers need teachers to grow. Teacher Education Quarterly. Retrieved in September 2011, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_n9349405