Você está na página 1de 2

Cody Eubanks

Summary Swales, John M. "The Concept of Discourse Community." Genre Analysis (n.d.): 21-32. Swales begins by introducing the term of a discourse community to be a specialized word used by instructors of the writing process. He then goes on to list a collection of books, articles, and authors which have contributed to the development of the term. Swales uses an excerpt from a work by Herzberg who discusses the community aspect of discourse.

Analysis 9/5/2012 The introduction of Swales paper indicates his accumulation of knowledge and expertise, concerning the topic of discourse communities. And therefore sets the stage for himself to write an essay which will be respected by those who once were unaware of his prestige over the topic at hand. This use of text displays Swales ability to compile information relevant to the archival of his goal. Not only does the text provide insight into another mans views of the subject but further displays Swales knowledge of the subject. Swales discusses the proposals of past researchers in attempt to accumulate his ideas concerning discourse communities. This allows for the readers to interact with Swales thoughts as he begins to sprinkle in his own opinions concerning the components of an active discourse community. This statement by Swales gives the article direction. This is to explore the necessary criteria of a discourse community and to develop a list of approximate requirements for the majority of discourse communities. This insight into the varied conditions for discourse communities displays Swales interaction with various people, culture, and dialects within one community. As Swales continues, he introduces the basis of a sociorhetorical to be the discussions and social interactions of a speech community. Overall this displays the superiority of a discourse community and introduces the foundation for its complexities and lack of similarity to speech communities. This layout of discourse communities allows Swales to organize the groups which he observes as well as determine the complexity of their communication methods.

In the analysis of Herzbergs statement, Swales discusses the lack of definition to the term discourse community. He explores the idea that a community is a center of a set of ideas, and conveys the term to be somewhat concrete in its definition. Swales introduces the idea of compiling a list of criterion for which to judge potential discourse communities. Stating that no single criteria can make or prevent a group from being considered a discourse community due to the loose definition. Swales goes on to connect the ideas concerning speech communities and discourse communities. He displays the differences between the interaction, as a literate person is more likely to communicate with various time periods and people from various communities. He also introduces the more complex nature of discourse communities inviting a less relatable tone.

Swales continues on in section 2.3 to list his requirements for a discourse community with a brief explanation of its purpose. 1. Public Goals 2. Mechanisms of communication 3. Participatory mechanisms for info. 4. Utilizes/possesses genres 5. Acquired lexis (Jargon) 6. Threshold level of members Following the layout of Swales list he introduces an This example is extremely useful to clarify the example of a discourse community. The example nature of discourse communities due to the lack of

Cody Eubanks

he uses is from the Hong Kong Study Circle. This is a group he is a member for and studies stamps from the Hong Kong area. He establishes the six characteristics of a discourse community with the HKSC and goes on to emphasize its lack of a proper speech community. Following the explanation of his example of a discourse community, Swales goes on to discuss the issues associated with the classification of these communities. Such issues are due to the lack of a concrete definition of a discourse community, however the list which Swales developed allows for a much more precise understanding of what it means to be a discourse community.

explicitly which the term possesses. Swales is very familiar with his example due to his interaction and membership with the group and therefore is overqualified to characterize the dynamics of the community. While Swales has developed his character to be that of a knowledgeable researcher on the complexities of discourse communities, and then expressed his personal involvement in such a group, following up his studies with a compilation of issues with the term and development of understanding of discourse communities displays his passion for the development of the term. This structure outlines a very organized and effective paper capable of spreading information on discourse communities and, most likely this paper was the topic of discourse communities centered on the topic of word development or the study of literature.

Você também pode gostar