Blog » Swales, Wardle, and Discourse Communities
Posted on 12 Mar 2013 14:49
So with all the time that we’ve spent talking and researching discourse communities, you would think we would be able to come to some sort of definitive understanding of discourse communities; a nirvana in comprehension if you will. After reading through John Swales “The Concept of Discourse Communities” and Elizabeth Wardle’s “Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces”, I think I’ve definitely gotten a better grasp as to what one is, but I suppose I am still at the point where I want to know more.
I’ll be honest, at a glance; Swales’ piece can be difficult to read at a glance, especially if the reader has no prior knowledge on discourse communities. His argument is basically defining what he believes is a discourse community through six points and then giving an extended example (The Hong Kong Study Circle). Swales uses this example not only because he feels that it is a good example of what a discourse community is, but also because he himself is an insider in this group. As an insider, Swales is able to analyze the inner-workings in ways that an outsider would be unable to. I feel that Swales’ piece is an extremely good jumping off point in a discussion of discourse communities. It sets up a clear-cut model of what a discourse community should be and then gives a reasonable amount of evidence to back it up.
Wardle’s piece was quite interesting; it emphasized on the written part of a discourse community. Wardle’s argument is crafted similarly to Swales; she “outlines the theories of identity and authority” and then proceeds to share an example. Wardle’s piece has a heavy focus on how one becomes a part of a discourse community through the use of writing. She argues that one must go beyond comprehension of text and cognitive ability in order to fully become integrated in a discourse community. Her example vividly portrays the consequences if one does not come to understand the written side of a discourse community.
I feel like Wardle’s argument is a lot stronger mainly because I felt that Wardle’s example of a discourse community is simply better. Instead of showing an example of what a discourse community is, she shows how an individual fails to become part of a discourse community. Although Swales argument is relatively strong, one can argue he simply chose a random group he was a part of and built his definition around that group. Wardle’s discussion seems to focus more on the hierarchal nature of a discourse community while Swales discussion makes a discourse community sound more like an interconnected blob. Of course, they both agreed that discourse communities must have communication and specific lexis.
I really like how both authors developed their discussions on discourse communities. To me, both are highly useful and informative. Swales model can be used as the skeleton for any argument regarding discourse communities. One can simply make a case for each of the six criteria in Swales model. Wardle’s effective use of what does NOT make a successful integration into a discourse community is especially effective in arguing the case for any particular group.
Leave a comment
Hello Medwin. I really thought that your analysis of Swales' and Wardle's approach to explaining the topic of discourse communities was both accurate as well as interesting based on the fact that it evaluates each author's own style or method when it came to conveying the topic of discourse communties, rather than simply outright saying what its purpose was. This mirrors my own blog post, where I also focused on the structure of my author's arguments as well as the way they used them to further expand the concept of a discourse community. I believe that by focusing on the way the author explains his or her own views on the topic rather than just stating them, you can begin to develop a sense of their reasoning behind their outcomes and start to realize their overall intention and purpose for the piece, a vital step that can mean the difference between understanding what they say versus what they believe.
Also, what methods of approaching the topic does Wardle use to elaborate on her ideas? You seem to mention that Swales' piece "can be difficult to read at a glance, especially if the reader has no prior knowledge on discourse communities." Is that initial lack of comprehension the reason why Wardle's argument is stronger? And if so, what makes Wardle's piece easier to digest when compared to Swales? Are her examples a bit more well-defined and varied, or does she simply used a more common vocabulary?
All in all, I really enjoyed this blog post as I saw that many of the same points I thought were vital when it came to discussing the topic of a discourse community, such as the method of approach and the process of developing a clear understanding of a discourse community, were clearly presented and discussed in the blog post. Good work!