Several attempts have been made to describe a discourse community (Bizzel,1986,1992; Candlin, 1997; Gunnarson, 1997; Herzberg, 1986; Ivanic, 1998; Reid, 1993; Swales, 1989). The aim of this paper is to report on the evidence found in different articles about the six common requirements established by Swales (1990).
Evidence of what Swales (1990, as cited in Zhu, 2005) refers to as “common goals” and “highly specialized terminology” can be found when Kelly-Kleese (2004), citing Bizzel (1992), states that a discourse commmunity “is a group of people who share certain language-using practices ...[that] can be seen as conventionalized” (p.1) by social interactions within the group and in its dealing with the outsiders. What is more, the author affirms that “a community college can be seen as adopting language that has been given a particular meaning within the larger higher education community, meaning that is less aplicable to its own but is nonetheless consistently used” (p. 2).
Taking into account “high general level of expertise”, Kelly- Kleese (2001) maintains that “communicative competence is defined as what one must know in order to use language appropriately in a particular discourse community” (p. 2).
Evidence of the other two characteristics, participatory mechanism and information exchange, can be found in the article written by Hoffman- Kipp , Artiles and Lopez-Torres (2003) in which they state that “reflection is considered an important means for developing subject matter, pedagogical and pedagogical-content knowledge about how to teach” (p.1). Reflection is an important process teachers go through when they belong to a discourse community. As these authors also claim “reflection without participation is as impossible as thought without language” (p. 4). What is more, Wenzlaff and Wieseman (2004) state that “interactions with the people in one´s environment are major determinats of both what is learned and how learning takes place” (p.1).
As regards community – specific genres, Ovens (2002 as cited in Hoffman- Kipp , Artiles
and Lopez-Torres. 2003) “discourse communities mobilised in particular contexts for particular, pedagogical, and phenomenological purposes” (p. 2).
What Swales (1990) states as his basic criteria to define a discourse community shows its manifestations in all the papers analized leading to the conclusion that his criteria is well accomplished.
References
Hoffman-Kipp, P., Artiles, A. J., & Lopez Torres, L. (2003). Beyond reflection: teacher learning as praxis. Theory into Practice. Retrieved September 2011, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0NQM/is_3_42/ai_108442653
Kelly-Kleese, C. (2001). Editor’s Choice: An Open Memo to Community College Faculty and Administrators. Community College Review. Retrieved September 2011, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_29/ai_77481463
Kelly-Kleese, C. (2004). UCLA community college review: community college scholarship and discourse. Community College Review. Retrieved September 2011, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0HCZ/is_1_32/ai_n6361541
Wenzlaff, T. L., & Wieseman, K. C. (2004). Teachers Need Teachers To Grow. Teacher Education Quarterly. Retrieved September 2011, from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3960/is_200404/ai_n9349405
Zhu, X. (2005). Written Communication across Cultures: a sociocognitive perspective on business genres. (pp 35). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins publishing company. Retrieved September 2011 from http://books.google.com.ar/books?id=m9-B8xKJo6IC?&pg=PA35&dq=swales++1990+discourse+community+goals&hl=es&ei=nwh7TqOXJsWatwey0cT2Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCoQ6AEwAA?#v=onepage&q=swales%20%201990%20discourse%20community%20goals&f=false
