Discourse community: A feeling of membership

Discourse community: A feeling of membership

A discourse community is said to be a group of people who utilise the same language, share an interest in certain topics and possess specific jargon for discussion.
According to Swales (1990, cited in Pintos, 2008), a discourse community should meet some basic requirements. In Swales’ (1997) book “English in academic and research settings”, he asserts that “a discourse community is seen as being composed of people who share similar linguistic rules” (p. 23). Thus, some basic criteria are to be present:

1. Participatory mechanisms and information exchange:
“The program aimed to: provide teachers with the confidence to connect what they do in their classrooms to research-informed practices; immerse teachers in a collaborative culture that allowed them to learn from one another as colleagues;…” (Wenzlaff, Terri L., Wieseman, Katherine C., 2004).

“Group work can be a viable means of promoting positive change and accomplishing tasks” (Hulse- Killacky, Kraus, & Shumaker, 1999, as cited in Wenzlaff, Terri L., Wieseman, Katherine C., 2004, para. 6).
“Initiated and facilitated by professionals other than school administrators, group work may be a key to meaningful, effective, sustained professional development and a necessary component of adult learning. A feeling of ownership and commitment through self-improvement allows ongoing teacher development to flourish” (Mycue, 2001, as cited Wenzlaff, Terri L., Wieseman, Katherine C., 2004, para. 6).

“Working in cohorts improves students' abilities to develop multiple perspectives, do scholarly work, and improve academic performance and personal expectations” (Hill, 1992, para. 7).


“Teachers should have "tons of time for collaboration [because they] have so much to learn from others" (high school English teacher). They should conference and share with peers as well as have opportunities to be self-directed.” (Wenzlaff, Terri L., Wieseman, Katherine C., 2004, para. 26).

2. Community-specific genres:

“This cohort, master's degree program was the result of a partnership between a large, urban institution that grants graduate degrees and an institution in a small, rural area that grants baccalaureate degrees and prepares teachers for initial licensure, …” (Wenzlaff, Terri L., Wieseman, Katherine C., 2004, para. 11).


3. Participatory mechanisms and common goals:

“Additionally, teachers engaged in professional discourse and group work through face-to-face study groups, electronic bulletin board discussions and electronic chat sessions” (Wenzlaff, Terri L., Wieseman, Katherine C., 2004, para. 15).

“The professors created the cohort-based program knowing that for a cohort to grow and prosper members must feel like a community of learners” (Wenzlaff, Terri L., Wieseman, Katherine C., 2004, para. 18).

4. Highly specialized terminology:

“Teachers responded to survey statements that focused on specific aspects of learning processes, . . . For these statements the teachers rated themselves using a Likert scale, ranging from absolutely true [AT] to mostly true [MT] to somewhat true [ST] to no clear opinion [NCO] (Wenzlaff, Terri L., Wieseman, Katherine C., 2004, para. 20).

“The graduate program totally supports teacher learning as AT or MT” (Wenzlaff, Terri L., Wieseman, Katherine C., 2004, para. 28).

While there is some debate regarding the definition of the term discourse community, Bizzell's (1992) definition seems comprehensive in scope. A discourse community, she says, "is a group of people who share certain language-using practices ... [that] can be seen as conventionalized" (p. 222) by social interactions within the group and by its dealings with outsiders.

5. Common goals:

Clark notes that the rhetoric of discourse communities "assumes that [its members] are more or less equal politically, that they have equal access to and equal influence upon the discourse that determines the beliefs and purposes they will share" (para. 8).

6. High level of expertise:

Zito (1984) argues that "an author is granted a certain binding authority to his intended meaning; this is legitimated by academic credentials, professional associations, and the division of knowledge within the academy" (Kelly-Kleese, 2004, para.9).
“Furthermore, says Zito (1984), within a discourse community, only those qualified by some socially institutionalized agency may engage in such discourse and be taken seriously.... The academic 'turf' [is] a battleground for the right to speak with authority" (Kelly-Kleese, 2004, para. 10).
So, why is it important for writers and orators to consider discourse community?
Discourse conveys a formal discussion in either speech or writing within a community. Understanding and participating in a discourse community implies being aware of specific terminology, jargon, acronyms, etc. As well as this, a member of a discourse community must be well acquainted with the interests and motivation of the audience addressed. Once the concept is understood, it can be applied to writing work or oral expositions and a rise in effectiveness will be noticeably perceived.


References

Kelly-Kleese, C. (2004). UCLA community college review: Community college scholarship and discourse. Community College Review.

Pintos, V. (2008). Unit 1: Building up a community of teachers and prospective teachers. Universidad CAECE: Buenos Aires, Argentina.

Swales, J. (1997). English in academic and research settings (4th ed.). United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press.

Wenslaff, T., & Wieseman, K. (2004). Teachers need to grow. Teacher Education