James Porter describes a discourse
community as, “A group of individuals bound by a common interest who
communicate through approved channels and whose discourse is regulated.”(91) A
discourse community shares the same assumptions about what is appropriate and
what is not within the community.
Discourse communities are often
studied by professionals and have many different views. James Paul Gee views
discourse communities as an “identity kit”. He thinks that with a discourse
community comes along an appropriate costume, instructions on how to act, talk,
and write. He believes in the concept of having a primary discourse, the one
you were born into, and every discourse after that is considered to be
secondary. “Our primary Discourse constitutes our original and home-based sense
of identity, and” Gee believes, “it can be seen whenever we are interacting
with “inmates” in totally casual (unmonitored) social interaction.” He refers
to the discourses to the social institutions that have a demand and command a
secondary Discourse.
John Swales, however, has a very
different view of what a discourse community is or the characteristics of one.
Swales’ gives us six defining characteristics of what a community must acquire
to be considered a discourse community. These characteristics are as followed:
“1. A discourse community has a broadly
agreed set of common public goals. 2. A discourse community has mechanisms of
intercommunication among its members. 3. A discourse community uses it
participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback. 4. A
discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the
communicative furtherance of its aims. 5. In addition to owning genres, a
discourse community has required a specific lexis. 6. A discourse community has
a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and
discoursal expertise.”(471-473)
Swales’ also introduces the concept of genre. “Genres are
types of texts that are recognizable to readers and writers, and that meet the
needs of the rhetorical situations in which they function.”(467) Swales’
believes that genre, in a discourse community, is very evident.
Amy J.
Devitt states, “Contemporary genre analysis focuses on the actual use of texts,
in all their messiness and with all their potential consequences”, when
introducing genre analysis. (99) Genre analysis is used to tie together actual
language to bits of language that have underlying idea. This analysis makes the
conflict between discourse communities evident. Although people of other
discourses try to make the information understandable to everyone, genre
analysis reveals the fact that the users have different beliefs, purposes and
interests. “The communal agendas of those who create genres may conflict with
the interests of those who use them – users who would ideally reproduce the
ideologies and agendas of the legal community, but who do not.”(103)
Elizabeth
Wardle takes a different approach to deciphering the many possibilities a
discourse community has. Although many authors can agree on one thing, the
definition of a discourse community, they all add their own unique niche within
the conversation. Wardle’s niche is identity and the concept of someone being a
“tool” to the discourse community, rather than a member. Wardle does a study on
Alan, a new employee, fresh out of college. In her study she discovers that,
unlike Gee, Alan was never really apart of the discourse community, but just a
“tool”. Because he saw himself as such a high position in his work place, he
decided that he would not change his writing habits, or email habits, just
because of the specific discourse community he was in. This resulted in a
change in his identity. He was not looked at as a higher position, more like a
tool to the company. Wardle wraps her argument by stating:
“Allan’s example illustrates that learning
to write in new communities entails more than learning discrete sets of skills
or improving cognitive abilities. It is a process of involvement in
communities, of identifying with certain groups, of choosing certain practices
over others; a process strongly influenced by power relationships – a process,
in effect, bound up tightly with identity, authority, and experience.”(533)
Despite all of the ongoing
conversation about discourse communities I believe that, to further the concept
of a discourse community, we need to discuss the negative impact stereo types
can have on such discourses. Many people like to think that cheerleading isn’t classified
as a sport or to be a cheerleader you need to be ditzy. Sean Branick states, “The
world of…” in my case, cheerleading, “…is more complicated than it may seem to
the public eye”.(571)
No comments:
Post a Comment