This article is copyright to the author and may not be reproduced without
permission. It may be cited as:
Sandbach, J (2003) What are the significant features of a ‘discourse community’?
Discuss the ways in which some typical discourse communities use English, available
online at http://www.papplewickcollege.com/Example2EnglishYR1.doc
[Accessed on: dd/mm/yy]
General Comments: You obviously know what a discourse community is – you define it
very clearly in your opening paragraphs. You also get to grips with some of the
significant features of discourse communities in the last two paragraphs of your
assignment; specialised vocabulary and syntax. You do not really discuss the ways in
which some typical discourse communities use English, but rather discuss some typical
types of discourse (e.g. male vs female, openings, closings, phatic communication etc.)
Although you mention doctors and the legal professional briefly, it would have been
better to choose a couple of the discourse communities mentioned in the course material
(e.g. builders, stock brokers), and then to describe some of the research which has shown
that they are functioning as a discourse community, giving examples of their terminology
e.t.c. This would have given your discussion more substance.
(2:2 Grade)
What are the significant features of a ‘discourse community’? Discuss the ways in
which some typical discourse communities use English.
The term discourse means a conversation or more extended and more formal discussion
of our ideas in either speech or writing. A discourse community is a group of people who
can speak the same language, share an interest in certain topics and goals, know and
understand a great deal about them, and possess a common or technical vocabulary for
discussing the same.  Good start
Particular individuals will not fall into a single discourse community. For example, a
lawyer usually specialises in a certain field of work, such as conveyancing, but he is also
a member of the larger legal service in which a common legal technical vocabulary,
common interests and goals are present. This is what makes discourse communities so
difficult to isolate into single communities.  Yes, you’re right. It’s both concentric
circles and overlapping ones.
Discourse communities do not only occur in the workplace, but also play a key role in
social life. For example, the language used when talking to ones mother will be different
from when talking to a close friend. It will again be different when writing to a
prospective employer. Indeed written discourse and spoken discourse are likely to be
highly different as written English is usually of a highly rigid standardised form and
spoken English to be highly un-standard with varieties of English arising from such
things as culture, location and age; both of which being different communities of
discourse.
Discourse communities used in any setting provide a social link between the persons
talking. In these discourses however there are rules that all parties must abide by. They
must begin, continue and then finish a conversation. At the beginning of a conversation
there can be something known as phatic communion [Ref 1 p7] where so called ‘small
talk’ brings the talkers together and set the parameters for the conversation, during the
conversation there will be factors such as social status and age to determine the topics
and as to what direction it follows. Obviously the final part of a conversation is the
closing and ending of the same. This is generally done through repetition of polite
closing comments made to one another and occasionally references to what has been said
in the conversation to bring together and close the social event that a conversation is.
Pleasantries are exchanged to show that the ending of the conversation and separating of
ways is not due to being affronted and in doing this people are constantly using ‘face
work’. – This is more about the features of informal conversation than it is about
discourse communities.
Throughout a conversation the socialist Erving Goffman suggests the process of ‘face
work’ is occurring. This is where all parties attempt to reduce or avoid any loss of face,
and if any loss of face does occur it is remedied via an apology or a change of wording
[Ref 2 p8]. These considerations are used to try and retain social standing and are an
attempt to be accepted within the social and personal environment.  Good to relate it
back to discourse communities.
Re referencing: if you are using numbers, just the number i.e. [3] will suffice here, with
the full references in a list at the end of the essay.
When people talk to one another they speak in dialog. Whereby from what speakers have
previously said or through shared or implied experience the talkers can anticipate what
the other is going to say [Ref 3 p6], in a discourse community this is essential as without
this shared experience the discourse community could not exist, it is also useful in that
the speakers can anticipate what one another is going to say, an imperative feature in a
technical environment where shared knowledge is highly important.
An interesting discourse community to study is that between men and women. Research
has shown that in mixed company women usually have a smaller role in the conversation
than their male counterparts. Lakoff observed that women tend to use more tag
questions, intensifiers and the more indirect polite form [Ref 4 p19]. This is unlike men
who take the lead in conversations with women and direct the flow of the talking.
Goodwin has suggested a reason for this in that male and female children play
differently. Boys tend to play within hierarchical systems whereas girls work in
cooperative groups this being a tendency that seems to follow into later life. Arguments
within the boys’ hierarchy were sorted out immediately with the child attempting to
change the hierarchy brought to account as soon as the event occurred; whereas the girls
tended to discuss the situation in the absence of the accused party and then formulate a
conclusion. These outcomes may well show why the attitudes of men and women in
conversation differ so greatly, in that as children the boys learn to be more direct and
confrontational and the girls discuss cooperatively and less directly [Ref 5 p19].
The work environment is one in which discourse communities most readily arise. In the
business world there are two situations for a discourse community, between co-workers
and between the professionals and the clients. The professional has to relay to the client
the information that the client requires, in some cases this may require the professional to
explain technical terms to the client, or in some cases the professional may try to awe the
client with his use of technical language or jargon. Telesales are an example of
professional – client interaction in that a specific pattern is adhered to from the beginning
of the process so that the professional can maintain as much control of the conversation
as possible. The client answers the telephone call, the caller then addresses the client by
his assumed title. Once the identity of the client is confirmed the professional will begin
their ‘sales pitch’ where they inform the prospective client of what they are selling in a
rehearsed and well planned manner, it is then up to the client to decide whether he wants
to hear more, accept or decline the offer. In this situation the balance of power swings
from the seller to the client in that the seller weans information from the client but
ultimately the client has the right to cancel the entire process at any time the client see fit
[Ref 6 p103]. This discourse is one of client and professional where the power is vested
in the client but in some other scenarios the weight of the power is more heavily vested in
one or other of the parties.
Can you say more about this in terms of communities? Two communities coming into
contact perhaps?
This is the case in areas such as medicine where the roles of the client and professional
are different. It has been observed by researchers such as Maynard that unlike the
process of patient asking for a prognosis and the doctor supplying it that a three turn
system is more likely to appear, this is a query from the doctor followed by the patient’s
reply and assessment followed by the doctors report and diagnosis [Ref 7 p105]. This
system shows how the balance of power in a conversation cab be affected in a work to
client relationship depending upon the situation presented and the profession which is
being employed.
Work colleagues may speak to each other in a completely different way to that which
they speak to their clients, it may be that co-workers of a certain level in a work hierarchy
speak differently to their bosses and their own subordinates. Gender in the workplace has
been studied in depth to ascertain what influence it has over the speech patterns of
employees, the findings of Woods shows that gender is still the most influential factor on
the apportionment of floor apportionment ?? (floor apportionment being substantial
speaking time). Even when a higher-ranking female was speaking lower ranking male
counterparts would interrupt more frequently and break the line of conversation in order
to increase their own floor apportionment [Ref 8 p95]. This influence of gender even in
the workplace shows how important it is in the formation of male-female interaction
within discourse communities. ?? I think you are talking more about types of discourse
here, than about communities.
Co-workers in set workplaces will begin over a period of time to evolve their own
phrases and terminology for the work and processes that they perform, often these terms
will mean little to the lay man but within these set groups they will have specialised and
certain meanings. In male orientated environments it has been noted that there is an
increase of swearing and this fact has been linked to a show of manhood and/or
masculinity, this overt use of swearing is another sign of a discourse community, one in
which the members show off their social position by using phrases and words which they
know will promote their masculinity [Ref 9 p88].  Good, more of the same would have
helped.
Discourse communities are a way in which people relate to one another in a social
environment. In that they all share a similarity. The way in which these communities
operate will vary not only with the contributors but also in the environment in which it is
set. The use of continual foul language would not be permitted in some social settings
yet in some workplaces it is a common occurrence. All discourse communities will have
some specialised or unique form of vocabulary and syntax marking it out from any other,
and in that the individuals will have to learn to use and adapt their language skills as they
move from one discourse community to another as they encounter different people and
settings every day of their lives.  Yes. At the end of the essay you start to really hit the
nail on the head.
Word Count: 1498
References:
Ref1 Janet Maybin and Neil Mercer (2002 5th Edition) Using English from conversation
to canon, London. Routledge p7
Ref2 Janet Maybin and Neil Mercer (2002 5th Edition) Using English from conversation
to canon, London. Routledge p8 – you can just write ‘ibid’, p.8. Ibid means ‘from the
same place’
Ref3 Janet Maybin and Neil Mercer (2002 5th Edition) Using English from conversation
to canon, London. Routledge p6
Ref4 Janet Maybin and Neil Mercer (2002 5th Edition) Using English from conversation
to canon, London. Routledge p19
Ref5 Janet Maybin and Neil Mercer (2002 5th Edition) Using English from conversation
to canon, London. Routledge p19
Ref6 Janet Maybin and Neil Mercer (2002 5th Edition) Using English from conversation
to canon, London. Routledge p103
Ref7 Janet Maybin and Neil Mercer (2002 5th Edition) Using English from conversation
to canon, London. Routledge p105
Ref8 Janet Maybin and Neil Mercer (2002 5th Edition) Using English from conversation
to canon, London. Routledge p 85
Ref9 Janet Maybin and Neil Mercer (2002 5th Edition) Using English from conversation
to canon, London. Routledge p 88