Discourse Community by Swales: Some Reflexions
Providing a single definition for discourse community might be an arduous task since this would derive in as many definitions as there are theorists to make them due to the fact that both concepts, Discourse and Community, are intricate in themselves. However, one can find in Swales’ (1990) theory basic but still far-reaching criteria to analyse discourse community- common goals, participatory mechanisms, information exchange, community-specific genres, highly specialized terminology and high general level of expertise. (as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p. 13).
The six standards mentioned above allow members of a discourse community to build their own identity and to establish the parameters to decide whether a person belongs to that community or not. It is frequently the case that these standards are not formally fixed categories but they are implicit in the existence of the community itself.
Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez Torres (2003) allow us to peruse an exhaustive description of reflective teachers who would classify as a discourse community:
Critiquing technical reflection (van Manen, 1977) has helped to widen the definition, content, and purposes of teacher reflection beyond more efficient implementation of professional practice. Several discourse communities in teacher reflection have arisen around this critique--phenomenological, critical, and situated learning (Ovens, 2002). They highlight how teacher reflection itself is "mobilised in particular contexts for particular political, pedagogical, and phenomenological purposes
(as cited in Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles and Lopez Torres, 2003, p.2 ).
There may be subdivisions in what could be considered a single discourse community. In the former quotation, the idea of common purpose or goal is mentioned. Furthermore, if a reflexive teacher is due to record her or his experiences, knowledge and thoughts, certain genres, such as journals, are expected to be mastered.
The authors refer to the ideas of participatory mechanisms, information exchange and high general level of expertise: ¨ Further, we argue that a new vision of critical, situated reflection must include both technical and political content and be based on a dialogic approach¨ (Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles, & Lopez Torres, 2003, p.1)
It is worth noticing that apart from describing a discourse community, the article has been written for a Discourse Community itself- education professionals who read about education professionals. To mention other Swales’ (1990) standards, highly specialized terminology, Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles, & Lopez Torres use the acronym for Cultural Historical Activity Theory (CHAT) what can be interpreted only if the Discourse member manages the jargon (Hoffman-Kipp, Artiles, & Lopez Torres, 2003)
Students, professionals, artists, religious people, politicians, ghettos, ethnic groups, tribes, we all share the same basic needs, and among them communication and sense of belonging have deep relevance. Being essential to bare in mind the complexity these two concepts – discourse and community- imply, it is possible to state that discourse is inherent to a community as a community provides discourse its existence. A theorist such as Swale (1990) leads our analysis and reflexion upon basic elements which underlie all discourse communities to later question ourselves: Are these six basic aspects causes or consequences of the discourse communities?
Reference
Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection: teacher learning as praxis. Theory into practice. Retrieved October 2007, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NQM/is_3_42/ai_108442653
Pintos, V. , & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 1: Building up a community of teachers and prospective researchers. Retrieved October 2010, from http://caece.campusuniversidad.com.ar/mod/resource/view.php?id=6856
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario