From Swales article “The Concept of Discourse Community” in the very beginning the definition for discourse communities seems so broadened. According to Swales discourse community is a group of individuals with a social view and wanting to expand and share their knowledge on said topic. Throughout this article there was a need for clarity on what it means to be understood and defined by the discourse community. There’s a desire for a criteria to be able to differentiate and identify discourse community from speech community. That’s where the six defining characteristics come in, to help identify whether or not individuals fall under a discourse community.
The first one being they all have the aim for common set goals and it’s open to the public meaning anyone is welcome. There has to be some sense of communication. Whether it’s email, newsletters, meetings, conversations, or phone calls. A distinct line of communication among the community needs to be understood and precise. Within the community, participation also needs to be implemented as the article stated how you may attend and physically be present in a meeting but if you don’t participate and speak then are you really considered a member of this community?
Discourse community to me seems to consist of different communities based on our built around different topics or genres. For example how medical communities, speech communities, and technology discourse communities were mentioned. There are different types of discourse communities with members who are inexperienced or expertise individuals. I liked how in the example of a discourse community, the individuals described all came from somewhere different background wise, financially, and linguistically. Which goes to show that within these discourses not one set group of people are required or welcomed, these individuals don’t have to have commonalities but they share the interest of their discourse community which brings them together.
Leave a Reply