Discourse community
A discourse community is a group of individuals who share common interests and characteristics, engaging in ongoing communication that fosters specific language practices aligned with their collective goals. This concept, primarily utilized in sociolinguistics and composition studies, highlights the importance of shared communication styles within groups, which can range from technical language in professional fields to informal interactions in fan communities. Discourse communities differ from speech communities, where members are typically linked by geographic or ethnic ties. Introduced by sociolinguist Martin Nystrand and further developed by John Swales, the term emphasizes that members of a discourse community may possess varying levels of expertise and do not necessarily share immediate objectives.
Key characteristics of a discourse community include a set of common goals, the use of specific genres to facilitate understanding, members with relevant knowledge, a unique vocabulary, and effective communication for sharing information and feedback. These communities can be formal, such as academic journals or technical fields like information technology, or informal, like fan groups devoted to a celebrity. Overall, discourse communities illustrate how language and communication function as tools for collaboration and identity among diverse groups.
On this Page
Subject Terms
Discourse community
Discourse refers to an exchange of ideas through written or spoken communication. A discourse community is a group of people who share certain characteristics and interests and, as a result of ongoing communications within that group, share language practices for communicating the group’s goals. The term is used primarily in sociolinguistics and composition studies, which link linguistics (the study of human speech) and anthropology (the study of human beings through time). A discourse community may describe a group of people with common interests or a group of people who use highly technical language; any group that uses a common language to communicate the group’s goals may be defined as a discourse community.
Overview
The term “discourse community” is related to the term “speech community,” which refers to a regional group that shares linguistic norms. The latter concept was first explored in depth in the 1960s and 1970s. Sociolinguist Martin Nystrand is credited with introducing the term “discourse community” in 1982, but linguist John Swales was the first to expand its definition in his 1990 book Genre Analysis. The book describes a discourse community as distinct from a speech community. Discourse communities, while sharing common goals, do not need to be of the same ethnic or geographic group. Speech communities do, with members in close proximity to each other. According to Swales, objectives of a discourse community are often established prior to any socialization or group solidarity, and the discourses are often focused on special interests. The interests of speech communities are much more general.
As defined by Swales, a discourse community has several characteristics: a set of common and public goals; the usage and ownership of genres as a way to understand and further its goals; members with relevant expertise in the common area of interest; a specific lexis (vocabulary) for communication; and the ability to communicate among its members to provide information and feedback. What constitutes a discourse community has evolved over time. At first, sociolinguists tended to assume that all members of a discourse community are experts who share a specific goal. By the late 1990s, the term expanded to include individuals with varying levels of expertise and who do not necessarily have immediate goals to communicate.
Discourse communities may be formal or informal. For example, academic journals are formal discourse communities whose contributors and readers communicate via specific terminology, abbreviations, and other language conventions unique to the particular discipline being discussed. Those who work in information technology (IT) or other highly technical fields may be seen as formal discourse communities, as their communication is comprised of specific lexicons or jargon. A less formal discourse community might be the fandom of a particular celebrity, which consists of people interested in and familiar with specific details about that celebrity’s life.
Bibliography
Abdi, Reza, Manoochehr T. Rizi, and Mansoor Tavakoli. “The Cooperative Principle in Discourse Communities and Genres: A Framework for the Use of Metadiscourse.” Journal of Pragmatics 42.6 (2010): 1669–79. Print.
Agbaria, Ayman K. “To Nail a Pudding: Metaphorical Analysis of the Social Studies Education Discourse Community on Globalization.” International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education (QSE) 24.2 (2011): 209–25. Print.
Borg, Eric. “Discourse Community.” ELT Journal: English Language Teachers Journal 57.4 (2003): 398–400. Print.
Cumming, Alister. “Multiple Dimensions of Academic Language and Literacy Development.” Supp. to Language Learning 63 (2013): 130–52. Print.
Hunter, Jodie. “Developing a Productive Discourse Community in the Mathematics Classroom.” New Zealand Mathematics Magazine 46.2 (2009): 1–12. Print.
Little, Miles, Christopher F. C. Jordens, and Emma-Jane Sayers. “Discourse Communities and the Discourse of Experience.” Health: An Interdisciplinary Journal for the Social Study of Health, Illness, and Medicine 7.1 (2003): 73–86. Print.
McVittie, Janet. “Discourse Communities, Student Selves, and Learning.” Language and Education: An International Journal 18.6 (2004): 488–503. Print.
Nystrand, Martin. What Writers Know: The Language, Process, and Structure of Written Discourse. New York: Academic, 1982. Print.
Swales, John M. “The Concept of Discourse Community.” Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge UP, 1990. 21–32. Print.
Teubert, Wolfgang. Meaning, Discourse, and Society. New York: Cambridge UP, 2010. Print.
Yerrick, Randy K., and Andrew Gilbert. “Constraining the Discourse Community: How Science Discourse Perpetuates Marginalization of Underrepresented Students.” Journal of Multicultural Discourses 6.1 (2011): 67–91. Print.