Supporting Swales’ theory of discourse community
Discourse community tends to be defined as a group of members who interact and interchange shared-knowledge information according to their cultural and historical backgrounds. One of the most significant current discussions in discourse issues is the existence of basic criteria (Swales, 1990) that describe six characteristics in discourse community which have been criticized in the discourse field due to its wide assumptions. Swales’ features have been subjected to some requirements which involve specific interests to provide information and feedback, intercommunication, genre, specialized terminology, and expertise.
The concept has been observed by Bizzel (1992, as cited in Crimi & Pintos, 2010, p. 13) whose studies demonstrate that “discourse community helps in describing how a group makes use of discourse to organize different activities” rather than sharing common knowledge information. Swales (Ibíd.), however, outlines that a group should achieve common goals to share specific interests within discourse community. In other words, it entails both “knowing about the specific language practices (…)” as well as taking part in those practices (Hoffman-Kipp et al., 2003) which means that a group may not endure if their members are not intercommunicated. Debate continues about the notion of Discourse Community with Senge (1994 as cited in Howley & Howley, 2005) who conditions the procedures in which learning may depend on the tendency to reflect on data about organizational performance.
Highly specialized terminology (Swales, Ibid.) in varied study fields are also involved in community discourse since it implies transaction of shared knowledge among members of a group. Thus, a community college (Kutz, 1997) can be conceived as a discourse community because its members develop a common discourse, for example, it involves shared knowledge and shared understandings about how to communicate. Community – specific genres and high general level of expertise (Swales, Ibid.) lead to phenomenological discourse (Hoffman-Kipp et al., 2003) which its main feature is focusing on the individual and her or his experiences. Groups that belong to a certain discourse community are identified as such according to their genre, which defines its unity and level of understanding required by the community in many aspects of life.
While a variety of definitions of the term Discourse Community have been implied, this paper attempted to support the definition suggested by Swales (1990) who saw it as an interchange of cultural and historical knowledge. Researchers contributed to the construction of a definitive concept following a number of constraints on communality of interests; they agreed that members, at some extent, share public goals.
References
Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. & Lopez – Torres, L. (2003) Beyond Reflection: Teacher learning as praxis. Theory into Practice. Retrieved 08 August, 2010 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NQM/is_3_42/ai_108442653
Howley, A. & Howley, C. (2005). High quality teaching: Providing for rural teachers’ professional development. Retrieved August, 2010 from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4126/is_200501/ai_n13591361
Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 1:Building up a community of teachers and prospective researchers. Retrieved August 2010, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=6856
Highly specialized terminology (Swales, Ibid.) in varied study fields are also involved in community discourse since it implies transaction of shared knowledge among members of a group. Thus, a community college (Kutz, 1997) can be conceived as a discourse community because its members develop a common discourse, for example, it involves shared knowledge and shared understandings about how to communicate. Community – specific genres and high general level of expertise (Swales, Ibid.) lead to phenomenological discourse (Hoffman-Kipp et al., 2003) which its main feature is focusing on the individual and her or his experiences. Groups that belong to a certain discourse community are identified as such according to their genre, which defines its unity and level of understanding required by the community in many aspects of life.
While a variety of definitions of the term Discourse Community have been implied, this paper attempted to support the definition suggested by Swales (1990) who saw it as an interchange of cultural and historical knowledge. Researchers contributed to the construction of a definitive concept following a number of constraints on communality of interests; they agreed that members, at some extent, share public goals.
References
Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. & Lopez – Torres, L. (2003) Beyond Reflection: Teacher learning as praxis. Theory into Practice. Retrieved 08 August, 2010 from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NQM/is_3_42/ai_108442653
Howley, A. & Howley, C. (2005). High quality teaching: Providing for rural teachers’ professional development. Retrieved August, 2010 from
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa4126/is_200501/ai_n13591361
Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 1:Building up a community of teachers and prospective researchers. Retrieved August 2010, from
http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=6856
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario