Discourse community

Last updated

A discourse community is a group of people who share a set of discourses, understood as basic values and assumptions, and ways of communicating about those goals. Linguist John Swales defined discourse communities as "groups that have goals or purposes, and use communication to achieve these goals." [1]

Contents

Some examples of a discourse community might be those who read and/or contribute to a particular academic journal, or members of an email list for Madonna fans. Each discourse community has its own unwritten rules about what can be said and how it can be said: for instance, the journal will not accept an article with the claim that "Discourse is the coolest concept"; on the other hand, members of the email list may or may not appreciate a Freudian analysis of Madonna's latest single. Most people move within and between different discourse communities every day.

Since the discourse community itself is intangible, it is easier to imagine discourse communities in terms of the fora in which they operate. The hypothetical journal and email list can each be seen as an example of a forum, or a "concrete, local manifestation of the operation of the discourse community." [2]

History and definition

The term was first used by sociolinguist Martin Nystrand in 1982, [3] and further developed by American linguist John Swales. [4] Writing about the acquisition of academic writing styles of those who are learning English as an additional language, Swales presents six defining characteristics:

A discourse community:
  1. has a broadly agreed set of common public goals.
  2. has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members.
  3. uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback.
  4. utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims.
  5. in addition to owning genres, it has acquired some specific lexis.
  6. has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise.

James Porter defined the discourse community as: "a local and temporary constraining system, defined by a body of texts (or more generally, practices) that are unified by a common focus. A discourse community is a textual system with stated and unstated conventions, a vital history, mechanisms for wielding power, institutional hierarchies, vested interests, and so on." Porter held the belief that all new ideas added to a discourse community had an impact on the group, changing it forever. [2]

Argumentation theorists Chaïm Perelman and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyceta offer the following statement on the conditioned nature of all discourse, which has applicability to the concept of discourse community: "All language is the language of community, be this a community bound by biological ties, or by the practice of a common discipline or technique. The terms used, their meaning, their definition, can only be understood in the context of the habits, ways of thought, methods, external circumstances, and tradition known to the users of those terms. A deviation from usage requires justification ..." [5]

"Producing text within a discourse community," according to Patricia Bizzell, "cannot take place unless the writer can define her goals in terms of the community's interpretive conventions." [6] In other words, one cannot simply produce any text—it must fit the standards of the discourse community to which it is appealing. If one wants to become a member of a certain discourse community, it requires more than learning the lingo. It requires understanding concepts and expectations set up within that community.

The language used by discourse communities can be described as a register or diatype, and members generally join a discourse community through training or personal persuasion. This is in contrast to the speech community (or the ’native discourse community,’ to use Bizzell's term), who speak a language or dialect inherited by birth or adoption. Ideas from speech communities and interpretive communities were what led to the emergence of the notion of discourse communities. [1]

Designing a discourse community

A discourse community map created for fitness Discourse Community Map.png
A discourse community map created for fitness

One tool that is commonly used for designing a discourse community is a map. The map could provide the common goals, values, specialized vocabulary and specialized genre of the discourse community. This tool may be presented to all members as a mission statement. As a new generation of members enter into a discourse community, new interests may appear. What was originally mapped out may be recreated to accommodate any updated interests. [7] The way in which a discourse community is designed, ultimately controls the way in which the community functions. A discourse community differs from any other type of grouping because the design will either constrain or enable participants. [8]

Development of online discourse communities

A discourse community can be viewed as a social network, built from participants who share some set of communicative purposes. [9] In the digital age, social networks can be examined as their own branches of discourse communities. A genesis of online discourse is created through four phases: orientation, experimentation, productivity, and transformation. Just as the digital world is constantly evolving, "discourse communities continually define and redefine themselves through communications among members", according to Berkenkotter. [10]

Although John Swales felt that shared "goals" were definitive of discourse community, he also acknowledged that a "public discourse community" cannot have shared goals, and more significantly a generalized "academic discourse community" may not have shared goals and genres in any meaningful sense. According to Swales this may be why the term "discourse community" is now being replaced by "community of practice", which is a term from cognitive anthropology. A community of practice is defined clearly as having a "mutual engagement" and "joint enterprise" which separates it from the more widely accepted implications of a discourse community. [11] A community of practice requires a group of people negotiating work and working toward a common goal using shared or common resources. [9] These virtual discourse communities consist of a group of people brought together "by natural will and a set of shared ideas and ideals". [12] Virtual discourse communities become a separate entity from any other discourse community when "enough people carry on those public relationships long enough to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace". [13]

"The term discourse community has been criticized in being imprecise and inaccurate, by emphasizing the uniformity, symmetrical relations and cooperation within text circulation networks." [14] Social collectivities within a discourse community can be interpreted as controversial whether by design or mistake. Members of the discourse community take on either assigned or maintained roles which serve as discursive authority, rights, expectations and constraints. Within an online discourse community text oftentimes circulate in what can be considered to be heterogeneous groupings, as teachers write to audiences of administrators, scholars, colleagues, parents and students. The circulation of texts form groups of communities that might not otherwise existed prior to being untied by the circulation of documents. "These and other social complexities suggest a more subtle and varied sociological vocabulary is needed to describe the set of relations within text circulation networks as well as to describe the ways genres mediate the actions and relations within these social collectivities, such as that provided by sociocultural theories of genre and activity." [15]

Culture

Discourse communities are not limited to involvement of people from different linguistic and cultural backgrounds. These people begin to adapt to standards of that discourse community. However, involvement in one discourse community does not hinder participation in other groups based on a pursuit of a common goal. In some cases, under specific standards, traces of discourse interference may appear from other standards. [16]

Yerrick and Gilbert discuss how the impact of discourse perpetuates marginalization of underrepresented students. Their study discusses their frustration with the overwhelming number of school policies and practices which create obstacles for certain student voices to be heard, minimizing lower-track students' input shaping mainstream academic curriculum. These students were given few opportunities to contribute in the classroom and when they did, they would only be permitted to echo someone else's voice on particular views and opinions. With resentment, Yerrick and Gilbert state "There was no attempt to match the home-based discourse with the academic discourse promoted in the classroom, as has been proven problematic through other studies as well." [17]

Discourse communities are studied in the larger field of genre analysis. Related terms include Miller's "rhetorical community" [18] and, focusing on the communication rather than the community, Yates & Orlikowski's "genres of organizational communication" [19]

Regarding contemporary rhetorical communities, Zappen, et al., stated, "Thus a contemporary rhetorical community is less a collection of people joined by shared beliefs and values than a public space or forum that permits these people to engage each other and form limited or local communities of belief." [20] Incorporating this factor suggests an introduction to a democratic system in discourse communities and has also been educationally termed "Accountable Talk" by researchers, [21] indicating the diversity of communities. [22]

The term discourse community started to lose favor among scholars in the early 2000s, with community of practice being used in place of discourse community. Swales suggested that discourse communities have shared goals, yet academic communities do not have meaningful shared goals. [1] The term discourse community is not yet well defined, which raises questions that could be the cause of the term's fall from favor. [23]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rhetoric</span> Art of persuasion

Rhetoric is the art of persuasion. It is one of the three ancient arts of discourse (trivium) along with grammar and logic/dialectic. As an academic discipline within the humanities, rhetoric aims to study the techniques that speakers or writers use to inform, persuade, and motivate their audiences. Rhetoric also provides heuristics for understanding, discovering, and developing arguments for particular situations.

Genre is any form or type of communication in any mode with socially-agreed-upon conventions developed over time. In popular usage, it normally describes a category of literature, music, or other forms of art or entertainment, based on some set of stylistic criteria Often, works fit into multiple genres by way of borrowing and recombining these conventions. Stand-alone texts, works, or pieces of communication may have individual styles, but genres are amalgams of these texts based on agreed-upon or socially inferred conventions. Some genres may have rigid, strictly adhered-to guidelines, while others may show great flexibility.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Discourse</span> Field of theory which examines elements of conversation

Discourse is a generalization of the notion of a conversation to any form of communication. Discourse is a major topic in social theory, with work spanning fields such as sociology, anthropology, continental philosophy, and discourse analysis. Following pioneering work by Michel Foucault, these fields view discourse as a system of thought, knowledge, or communication that constructs our experience of the world. Since control of discourse amounts to control of how the world is perceived, social theory often studies discourse as a window into power. Within theoretical linguistics, discourse is understood more narrowly as linguistic information exchange and was one of the major motivations for the framework of dynamic semantics, in which expressions' denotations are equated with their ability to update a discourse context.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Ideograph (rhetoric)</span>

An ideograph or virtue word is a word frequently used in political discourse that uses an abstract concept to develop support for political positions. Such words are usually terms that do not have a clear definition but are used to give the impression of a clear meaning. An ideograph in rhetoric often exists as a building block or simply one term or short phrase that summarizes the orientation or attitude of an ideology. Such examples notably include <liberty>, <freedom>, <democracy> and <rights>. Rhetorical critics use chevrons or angle brackets (<>) to mark off ideographs.

<i>Kairos</i> Right or opportune moment

Kairos is an ancient Greek word meaning 'the right or critical moment'. In modern Greek, kairos also means 'weather' or 'time'.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rhetorical criticism</span>

Rhetorical criticism analyzes the symbolic artifacts of discourse—the words, phrases, images, gestures, performances, texts, films, etc. that people use to communicate. Rhetorical analysis shows how the artifacts work, how well they work, and how the artifacts, as discourse, inform and instruct, entertain and arouse, and convince and persuade the audience; as such, discourse includes the possibility of morally improving the reader, the viewer, and the listener. Rhetorical criticism studies and analyzes the purpose of the words, sights, and sounds that are the symbolic artifacts used for communications among people.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Visual rhetoric</span> Communication through visual elements

Visual rhetoric is the art of effective communication through visual elements such as images, typography, and texts. Visual rhetoric encompasses the skill of visual literacy and the ability to analyze images for their form and meaning. Drawing on techniques from semiotics and rhetorical analysis, visual rhetoric expands on visual literacy as it examines the structure of an image with the focus on its persuasive effects on an audience.

Intertextuality is the shaping of a text's meaning by another text, either through deliberate compositional strategies such as quotation, allusion, calque, plagiarism, translation, pastiche or parody, or by interconnections between similar or related works perceived by an audience or reader of the text. These references are sometimes made deliberately and depend on a reader's prior knowledge and understanding of the referent, but the effect of intertextuality is not always intentional and is sometimes inadvertent. Often associated with strategies employed by writers working in imaginative registers, intertextuality may now be understood as intrinsic to any text.

Pathos appeals to the emotions and ideals of the audience and elicits feelings that already reside in them. Pathos is a term used most often in rhetoric, as well as in literature, film and other narrative art.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Genre studies</span> Branch of general critical theory

Genre studies is an academic subject which studies genre theory as a branch of general critical theory in several different fields, including art, literature, linguistics, rhetoric and composition studies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Academic writing</span> Writing resulting from academic work

Academic writing or scholarly writing is nonfiction writing produced as part of academic work in accordance with the standards and disciplines of each academic subject, including:

<i>Inventio</i> Canon of rhetoric

Inventio, one of the five canons of rhetoric, is the method used for the discovery of arguments in Western rhetoric and comes from the Latin word, meaning "invention" or "discovery". Inventio is the central, indispensable canon of rhetoric, and traditionally means a systematic search for arguments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Composition (language)</span> Assembling words and sentences into a work

The term composition as it refers to writing, can describe authors' decisions about, processes for designing, and sometimes the final product of, a composed linguistic work. In original use, it tended to describe practices concerning the development of oratorical performances, and eventually essays, narratives, or genres of imaginative literature, but since the mid-20th century emergence of the field of composition studies, its use has broadened to apply to any composed work: print or digital, alphanumeric or multimodal. As such, the composition of linguistic works goes beyond the exclusivity of written and oral documents to visual and digital arenas.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Digital rhetoric</span> Forms of communication via digital mediums

Digital rhetoric can be generally defined as communication that exists in the digital sphere. As such, digital rhetoric can be expressed in many different forms, including text, images, videos, and software. Due to the increasingly mediated nature of our contemporary society, there are no longer clear distinctions between digital and non-digital environments. This has expanded the scope of digital rhetoric to account for the increased fluidity with which humans interact with technology.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rhetoric of science</span>

Rhetoric of science is a body of scholarly literature exploring the notion that the practice of science is a rhetorical activity. It emerged after a number of similarly oriented topics of research and discussion during the late 20th century, including the sociology of scientific knowledge, history of science, and philosophy of science, but it is practiced most typically by rhetoricians in academic departments of English, speech, and communication.

Patricia Bizzell is a professor of English, emerita, and former Chairperson of the English Department at the College of the Holy Cross, United States, where she taught from 1978 to 2019. She founded and directed the Writer's Workshop, a peer tutoring facility, and a writing-across-the-curriculum program. She directed the College Honors and English Honors programs and taught first-year composition, rhetoric and public speaking, nineteenth-century American literature, and women's literature. A scholar and writer, Bizzell has authored or co-authored half a dozen books, written dozens of articles and book chapters, composed more than a dozen book reviews and review essays, and presented a large number of papers at academic conferences. Bizzell is the 2008 winner of the CCCC Exemplar Award, and former president of Rhetoric Society of America.

Professional communication is a sub-genre found within the study of communications. This subset encompasses written, oral, visual, and digital communication within a workplace context. It is based upon the theory of professional communications, which is built on the foundation that for an organization to succeed, the communication network within must flow fluently. The concepts found within this sub-set aim to help professional settings build a foundational communication network to better steady the flow of operations and messages from upper-level management. The second part of professional communication can also aim and assist to help within the public relations department of a particular company or organization, as these messages might be delivered to those unfamiliar with the organization or the general public.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rhetorical situation</span> Context of a rhetorical event

The rhetorical situation is an event that consists of an issue, an audience, and a set of constraints. A rhetorical situation arises from a given context or exigence. An article by Lloyd Bitzer introduced the model of the rhetorical situation in 1968, which was later challenged and modified by Richard E. Vatz (1973) and Scott Consigny (1974). More recent scholarship has further redefined the model to include more expansive views of rhetorical operations and ecologies.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Theories of rhetoric and composition pedagogy</span>

Theories of rhetoric and composition pedagogy encompass a wide range of interdisciplinary fields centered on the instruction of writing. Noteworthy to the discipline is the influence of classical Ancient Greece and its treatment of rhetoric as a persuasive tool. Derived from the Greek work for public speaking, rhetoric's original concern dealt primarily with the spoken word. In the treatise Rhetoric, Aristotle identifies five Canons of the field of rhetoric: invention, arrangement, style, memory, and delivery. Since its inception in the spoken word, theories of rhetoric and composition have focused primarily on writing

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Feminist rhetoric</span> Practice of rhetoric

Feminist rhetoric emphasizes the narratives of all demographics, including women and other marginalized groups, into the consideration or practice of rhetoric. Feminist rhetoric does not focus exclusively on the rhetoric of women or feminists, but instead prioritizes the feminist principles of inclusivity, community, and equality over the classic, patriarchal model of persuasion that ultimately separates people from their own experience. Seen as the act of producing or the study of feminist discourses, feminist rhetoric emphasizes and supports the lived experiences and histories of all human beings in all manner of experiences. It also redefines traditional delivery sites to include non-traditional locations such as demonstrations, letter writing, and digital processes, and alternative practices such as rhetorical listening and productive silence. According to author and rhetorical feminist Cheryl Glenn in her book Rhetorical Feminism and This Thing Called Hope (2018), "rhetorical feminism is a set of tactics that multiplies rhetorical opportunities in terms of who counts as a rhetor, who can inhabit an audience, and what those audiences can do." Rhetorical feminism is a strategy that counters traditional forms of rhetoric, favoring dialogue over monologue and seeking to redefine the way audiences view rhetorical appeals.

References

  1. 1 2 3 Borg, Erik. Discourse communities (ELT Journal 57:4)
  2. 1 2 Porter, J. (1992). Audience and Rhetoric: An Archaeological Composition of the Discourse Community. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
  3. Nystrand, M. (1982) What Writers Know: The Language, Process, and Structure of Written Discourse. New York: Academic
  4. Swales, J. M. (1990) Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Perelman, Chaim and Lucie Olbrechts-Tyceta (1969) The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. Trans. John Wilkinson and Purcell Weaver.
  6. Bizzell, P. (1992) Academic Discourse and Critical Consciousness. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
  7. Little, M., C.F.C. Jordens, and E.-J. Sayers. "Discourse Communities And The Discourse Of Experience." Health 7.1 (2003): 73–86. Scopus®. Web. 6 Nov. 2015.
  8. Kehus, Marcella, Kelley Walters, and Melanie Shaw. "Definition And Genesis Of An Online Discourse Community." International Journal of Learning 17.4 (2010): 67–85. Education Source. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.
  9. 1 2 Kehus, Marcella1, Kelley2 Walters, and Melanie3 Shaw. "Definition And Genesis Of An Online Discourse Community." International Journal of Learning 17.4 (2010): 67–85. Education Source. Web. 30 Oct. 2015.
  10. Berkenkotter, C. (1993, October). A 'rhetoric for naturalistic inquiry' and the question of genre. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 293–304.
  11. Borg, E. (2003-10-01). "Discourse community". ELT Journal. 57 (4): 398–400. doi: 10.1093/elt/57.4.398 . ISSN   0951-0893.
  12. Kowch, E., & Schwier. (1997, February 21). Building learning communities with technology. Presented at the National Congress on Rural Education. Saskatchewan, Canada.
  13. Rheingold, H. (1993). The virtual community: Homesteading on the electronic frontier. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
  14. C, B., & P, P. (2005). Issue Brief: Discourse Communities. Retrieved November 15, 2015, from http://www.ncte.org/college/briefs/dc Archived 2015-11-17 at the Wayback Machine
  15. Bazerman, C. (2009, November 22). Issue Brief: Discourse Communities. Retrieved November 13, 2015, from http://www.ncte.org/college/briefs/dc Archived 2015-11-17 at the Wayback Machine
  16. Duszak, A. (1997). Culture and styles of academic discourse. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
  17. Yerrick, R. K., & Gilbert, A. (2011). Constraining the discourse community: How science discourse perpetuates marginalization of underrepresented students. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 6(1), 67–91. doi : 10.1080/17447143.2010.510909
  18. Miller, Carolyn R. "Rhetorical community: The cultural basis of genre." Genre and the new rhetoric (1994): 67–78.
  19. JoAnne Yates and Wanda J. Orlikowski. "Genres of organizational communication: A structurational approach to studying communication and media." Academy of Management Review 17.2 (1992): 299–326.
  20. Zappen, James P., Laura J. Gurak, and Stephen Doheny-Farina. "Rhetoric, Community, and Cyberspace." Rhetoric Review 1997: 400. JSTOR Journals. Web. 10 Oct. 2015.
  21. Ardasheva, Yuliya; Howell, Penny B.; Magaña Margarita, Vidrio (September 2016). "Accessing the Classroom Discourse Community Through Accountable Talk: English Learners' Voices". TESOL Journal. 7 (3): 667–99. doi:10.1002/tesj.237. ISSN   1949-3533 . Retrieved 18 January 2017.
  22. Vadacs, Bea (April 2011). "Banal Nationalism, Football, and Discourse Community in Africa" (Print/web). Studies in Ethnicity and Nationalism. 11 (1): 25–41. doi:10.1111/j.1754-9469.2011.01105.x . Retrieved 18 January 2017.
  23. Swales, John (2011). "The Concept of Discourse Community" (PDF). In Wardle, Elizabeth; Downs, Doug (eds.). Writing About Writing: A College Reader. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin's. pp. 215–227. ISBN   978-1-4576-3694-3.