An insight into academic terminology
A discourse community, understood as an assembly of participants joined by the pursuit of a common purpose and sharing a proficient command of language conventions, constitutes the best setting for the development of academic writing. In this sense, Swales (1990) states that
A discourse community is composed of a minimum number of expert members and a frequently larger number of apprentice members who operate on the basis of implicit and explicit public goals. (…) Their members develop and use systems of speech and writing that are sometimes quite specific to a particular community’s needs and goals. We often find participatory mechanisms used by community members to transmit information and feedback.
(as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p.12)
Bizzell (1992) defines a discourse community as being “bound together primarily by its uses of language” (as cited in Kelly-Kleese, 2004, p.1). This notion is further illustrated by Kelly-Kleese’s (2004) assertion that members of a discourse community share an ability to transmit information and accomplish common goals by displaying “a flow of discourse that has a particular structure and style” (p.1). As it can be seen, expert command of linguistic academic conventions – especially in writing – underpins the prosperity of any discourse community.
In this respect, Pintos and Crimi (2010) put forward a series of competence requirements that define academic writers - namely “proficiency in language use, style, register, and genre(s)” (p.9). They label these requirements as “awkward” since writing academically and critically certainly involves complex cognitive processes. They further state that the manipulation of appealing reading materials, together with the creation of appropriate contexts of interaction aimed at fostering thought construction rather than thought translation, are of utmost importance in seeking to enter a “discourse community of (. . .) teachers and (. . .) researchers” (p.10).
Far from delving into the concepts mentioned above, both formal instruction in academic writing and knowledge of how a discourse community operates are altogether absent from Teaching English as a Foreign Language (TEFL) College syllabi. Turning to personal experience, I can claim that clear insight into these fields would have resulted in the awakening of curiosity as regards involvement in a study group and would have promoted my critical thinking abilities. Through the former, I would have been able to experience the collaboration and views exchange lying at the core of discourse community practices. Through the latter, I would have had the opportunity to indulge in “composing for knowledge transforming” (Grabe & Kaplan; as cited in Pintos & Crimi, 2010, p.10).
References
Bizell, P. (1992). Academic discourse and critical consciousness. Pittsburg, PA: University of Pittsburg Press.
Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R. (1996). Theory and practice of writing. Essex, UK: Addison Wesley/Longman.
Kelly-Kleese, C. (2001). Editor’s choice: An open memo to Community College Faculty and Administrators. Community College Review. Retrieved September 2010, from
Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 1: Building up a community of teachers and prospective researchers. Retrieved September 2010, from
Pintos, V., & Crimi, Y. (2010). Unit 3: Academic writing. Retrieved October 2010 from
Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario