"The Concept of Discourse Community" is an academic article written by John Swales--to contribute to "an ongoing academic argument over the social (constructed) nature of language use" (Writing About Writing, 466)--that analyzes the various definitions of discourse communities to figure out hoe much of an impact those communities truly have towards writing. Swales, a "professor of linguistics," (Writing About Writing, 466) has trouble figuring out what exactly constitutes a 'discourse community,' mentioning that the many interpretation of the concept needs "a set of criteria sufficiently narrow that it will eliminate many of the marginal, blurred and controversial." (Writing About Writing, 469) Responding to his own dilemma (and ignoring the possible connection some readers might make with both discourse and speech communities), Swales lays out six principles summed up in the first sentence of each explanation:
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 its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide
information and feedback."
4. "A discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one of more genres in the
communicative furtherance of its aims."
5. "In addition to owning genres, a discourse community has acquired some specific
lexis."
6. "A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of
relevant content and a disbursal expertise." (Writing About Writing, 471-473)
In his own words, if someone uses these principles towards an interest any party, and that interest eventually peaks (like he did as a member of the Hong Kong Study Circle), then all 6 ideas will not only be assimilated into nothing, or threaten newcomers with multiple power each community has, but will overall imply two consequences:
a. "individuals may belong to several discourse communities"
(Writing About Writing, 476)
b. "individuals will vary in the number of discourse communites they belong to and
hence in the number of genres they command." (Writing About Writing, 476)
However, as he mentions, his thinking is "somewhat removed from memory," and as such, if someone wants to read his dialogue, then they should not look at it as a final conclusion of an intertextuality concept, but simply as "a matter for future study." (Writing About Writing, 478)
This idea of forming 'discourse communities' into contexts beyond the various definitions made under academic usage goes back to Deborah Brandt's purpose of her text in "Sponsors of Literacy": as long as sponsors "deliver the ideological freight that must be borne for access to what they have," then sponsors can be anything, anyplace, or anybody at anytime, just as various 'discourse communities' could be separate itself into different groups without violating its' core. (Writing About Writing, 335) As such, it is attractive to see both articles support in favor of letting communities beyond an individual think about his writing for him, arriving at conclusions the author himself might not bother to arrive on in the first place. While appealing, Swales' article, however, presents a problem Brandt had no problems explaining. As she puts it, she wasn't planning to tie various definitions of sponsorship into a easily grasped list of principles, but thanks her research of 20th century life, she instead tries to "connect literacy as an development to literacy as an economic development." (Writing About Writing, 334) Swales, meanwhile, has to go away from "creating a false impression that such communities are only to be associated with intellectual paradigms or scholarly cliques," and as such, has to rely on his own experience and his own judgment of those scholarly articles to arrive at the principles he outlined. Of course, using such material is never a bad idea for arriving at specific conclusions, but for comparison sake, that is the big hurdle to take into consideration if one wants to make his or her own conclusion of comparing two articles of mechanical differences.
Meanwhile, as for the description of a time I've felt "out of place," I would pretty much point to some of my school years. From my view, I wasn't into a lot of things other students were passionate about, and whenever I did get into something they did, I usually didn't share their enthusiasm--always on an outside perspective--, so to prove my existence towards them, I either tried whatever I could to grab some kind of attention--rather than letting it gradually develop among a group of friends--or just forget it and leave it alone. Because of this inability to connect to those group of friends, that could protect me at any moment, I had to develop my own pathway during activities, and as such, it wouldn't be a surprise that others saw me walk around the elementary school, just by myself, not really playing with the students or saw me get really passionate on minor social activities, such as quoting cartoons that hold my interest at that time and lurking around the book fair whenever it came around. As such, when my social image was crafted beyond my control, it wasn't one out of whatever it is I did during school time , or not to easily identifiable extremes: I didn't had the energy to become a handsome athlete, I wasn't passionate about my hobbies to become a well-known nerd, and I had no interest in becoming a well-respected singer, so sitting around at home, doing nothing in particular was a regular part of my day. Instead, it was towards how I acted towards others, and as such, I felt like I was at odds with that image, so I had to either battle against that image, or forgot about it and hope it wouldn't interfere on how I saw others. Why did I feel this way? If I had to make a guess, it would probably be a decision I made long ago: if I can't interest others to what I was, what is the point of trying to see where I came from? Whenever or not I made the right decision, and whenever or not I should blame myself or my surrounding for the circumstances that lead me toward that decision, reminds to been seen.
So, to think a 'discourse community' I am in, to tie it to the last paragraph, I'm going to look at my own family and describe the six characteristics of a 'discourse community' by using them. How does it meet the characteristics? Summing it up, we look out for one another, no matter who or what we are. If I have to follow the rules the order...
1. As a family, each of us must stick together and work to the best of our abilities to
reach whatever it is we want to get done. If we can better ourselves as individuals by
doing so, and if it possible to get the job done quicker by working together, then don't
be surprised if each of us have to call each other to get by.
2. If each of us need help, then scream out someone's name and make sure they
understand what it is they want to get.
3. If one of us messes up on something, or when any of us does something stupid, then
they better know as soon as possible, or else risk embarrassment both for themselves
and the family at large.
4. No matter what it is we're into, we have to respect that it's part of who we are, and as
such, we have to go with it, accept that it happened, and let them be who they want to
be.
5. The simpler our language is towards one another, the more likely we can return to
whatever attracts us; try not to elongate your urgent pleas if it can be simplified.
Furthermore, if we get passionate about something, we are fully aware that we're
doing it, so don't remind us we're doing it. Same principal applies if we use language
that is socially unacceptable.
6. If any of us gets in trouble, the chances that one of us has already gone through with
it in the past has already happen. As such, we can offer support, no matter how out of
hand it becomes, so if we have to only communicate through new technology, do so.
If it's brand new, any of us are ready to work with it, together.
All in all, I have once again worked on an article that has allowed me to look at a literary concept and figure out on how that idea can apply to how I look at my own life. After looking into the defining characteristics of Swales' perspective of a discourse community, I realized I was using it all this time, just that I now can think about it conceivably than stumble through it clumsily with the language I previously knew. As such, I am now ready to apply it in the future if it's needed, but until then, I appreciate learning about it now, despite reading what is really part of a larger text analyzing a related subject. Either way, I am ready to return writing more of these, and if it involves learning clarification towards concepts I have really thought about in a certain way, once again, bring them on, I am ready.
No comments:
Post a Comment