The Concept of Discourse Communities by John Swales

Summary: Inside his article The Concept of Discourse Communities John Swales explains the concept of a discourse community. In explaining or producing his definition of a discourse community he offers six characteristics specific to knowing and accepting a discourse community. Swale describes them as follows: A discourse community has a set or wide range of agreed rules whether they are formal or informal. That discourse communities set goals to acknowledge and achieve certain values, morals, expectations, beliefs. Also that within a discourse community there are mechanisms and in a sense a language or vocabulary specific to them. That discourse communities have means of communication with each other and the means are things such as the internet or group meetings. Another notion is that these communities almost entirely use these communications to give each other feedback and information/knowledge. Along with this as I said before this is often through means of communication or even mediums like newspapers, magazines, books etc. Also that these communities have a set genre or field of knowledge and study they all are considered wise or professional in. Although this is all true Swales says that discourse communities are constantly changing as well as the ideas, principles and goals of them are. That also the individuals themselves are changing and adapting. Swale says in addition to having these genres, a discourse community has their own specific lexis. Discourse communities have their own vocabulary (grammar, word choice, phrases etc.). Finally Swales argues that discourse communities are constantly experiencing shifts of members as people die, leave, or grow older and grow wiser. That there is never going to be a set of rules or notions for being in or directly being a discourse community as it is always changing with in regression or progression.

Synthesis: This article by Swales is just like that of McCloud when discussing the concepts of analysis and observation. These articles both agree that in these notions the more advanced and obscure the more we remove ourselves and see it for just that or an image of relevance. Although relevant they say it is directing attention away from yourself and more on the idea or concept which in Swales case is a discourse community. Swales talks about how they have distinct words and phrases or mechanisms to their community alone which is similar to Cathy Glenn’s article about farmer factories and their use of commodities and virtual reality. In this article part of her discussion is about the use of different words and tones to deliver a message in a double speak matter. This is just like how Swales talks about certain words, terms and common knowledge are specific to a discourse communities understanding but have no such purpose to others.

Opinion on Article: I think that this was a very dry reading and the terms and ways he talked about his information was kind of confusing. I also don’t like how he wrote it only for those with certain word or phrase knowledge it made the reading harder and elongated also it was so hypocritical. Swales spent valuable pages arguing against these communities or the things involved with them but then goes and writes in a sense only understandable for some. I think that this article could have gotten the message across a lot better and more efficient but it is what it is. I learned the information relatively well and think I learned a few things about the develop and pieces of a discourse community.