With each new phase of my life, there has always been a new hobby or interest I found myself exploring and becoming a part of. Yet in my mind I recognized these groups as just that, hobbies and interests, never discourse communities. It wasn’t until I read the works of Gina Cervetti and more recently John Swales, that the definition of discourse became something I was familiar with and can use when referring to these groups. However, not every interest of mine would be considered a discourse and as Swales breaks down in his article “The Concept of Discourse Community,” there are six characteristics that define discourse communities and their functions. These characteristics focus on: goals, intercommunication, feedback, genres, lexis, and expertise.
Two out of the six characteristics of discourse are ones I was already familiar with and recognized: goals and expertise. It was obvious to me that a group would have a shared public goal that all members acknowledged and abided by. In fact, as an outsider, I would already be aware of the objectives of a discourse community before I ever entered because that is what ultimately influences my decision to join those groups. Their goal is in line with my interests, which makes it the vital component in drawing in new members. Regarding expertise, there will always be a subset of people who are more knowledgeable than the majority and who have a clear sense of what is appropriate in their particular field of interest. These two characteristics, in my opinion, were evident and well-known. The other traits, on the other hand, were either terms I was unfamiliar with or things I had never before stopped to consider.
I participated in two activities in my discourse communities: intercommunication and feedback, but I was never aware of their importance in each group. Actually, in my opinion, these qualities were more of a formality and less significant, rather than a necessary mode of communication that let the discourse flow easily. However, after reading Swales’ explanation of the two traits, I started to see how crucial they were. Intercommunication tools, such as newsletters and emails, allow participants in these discourse communities to receive feedback and stay informed about community occurrences. As a result of this communication, members are able to advance and better both themselves and their discourse community. I can now observe how these traits interact with one another and with other groups of people since I am more conscious of them. As a result, I can now understand that a discourse’s intercommunication and feedback are just as evident as its goals and expertise. Nevertheless, it can be challenging to identify a community’s genres and lexis, and if I were an outsider, I would not regard them as common knowledge.
Like most people, my first thought upon hearing the term “genre” in relation to discourse communities was of categories. Whether it comes to genres of books or movies, my interpretation of the term differed greatly from Swale’s. He uses the word to refer to a piece of text that discourse communities use to set expectations and accomplish their aims. Something else I didn’t know was that discourses are able to create specific lexis—words that have a varied meaning for members—through genres. In spite of my lack of familiarity, I had frequently utilized a variety of genres and lexis in the communities I belonged to. Even though I was unaware of the names of these practices, I was aware of their critical role in shaping the way these discourses operated. These six traits collectively provide a framework for recognizing and comprehending discourse community dynamics. I am able to distinguish between my interests and hobbies that are discourse communities and those that are not now that I have a better grasp of them. Because of this, I can now use the objectives of a discourse and the support of its participants to learn, communicate, and develop my own identity.
Leave a Reply