Discourse Communities
– Swales (1990)
– common goals (Sw1)
– common language
characteristic genres (Sw2)
specific lexis (Sw3)
– communication practices
mechanisms for
intercommunication (Sw4)
information & feedback (Sw5)
threshold level of members
(Sw6)
• Gee: Discourses
to identify oneself as a
member of a socially
meaningful group or "social
network". Think of a
discourse as an "identity kit"
which comes complete with
the appropriate costume and
instructions on how to act and
talk so as to take on a
particular role that others will
recognize.
thinking, feeling, believing,
valuing, and of acting that can
be used to identify oneself as
a member of a socially
meaningful group or 'social
network', or to signal (that one
is playing a socially
meaningful role.
literacy = control over
secondary Discourse
• Community Definition
– 1. Common ways of talking and acting-”identity kit”
a. representational devices
(vocabulary--Sw2)
b. ways of acting (genres,
forms--St4, Sw3)
c. physical objects (St1)
d. interpretive strategies
(personal appearance--Gee)
– 2. Characteristic participation
structures
a. Communication channels
(two-way)
b. Activity structures
c. Dialogue function
d. Locus of expertise
e. Power relations
– Implications
roles
communication patterns (IRE)
silences
– 3. Common ideology
a. Beliefs (Gee)
b. Knowledge status
c. Diversity of beliefs
d. Values (standards) (Gee)
e. Purpose (Sw1)
• Boundary objects (Star, 1989)
– repositories (St1)
– ideal types, e.g., species (St2=Sw3)
– coincident boundaries (St3)
– standardized forms (St4=Sw2)
• Exclusion/inclusion (Gee, 1989)
– => resistant to internal criticism-centripetal (G2)
• Theory of splitting (Star, "onions",
1991)
multiple membership-simultaneously in and out
(Hubbard & Randall, Shape of
red)
maintaining the high tension
zone
cost of membership in multiple
areas
multivocality and translation
• Other Discourse Issues
– Analysis of new technology
– Evolution of discourse communities
– How individuals enter into
• Linguistic Utopias
Mary Louise Pratt, “The
linguistics of writing”
– Verbal practices associated with women
(connected to powerlessness or
domestic sphere)
Planting suggestions in the
minds of other people so that
they think they thought of it
themselves
Speaking to one person in
such a way that another might
hear and be affected in the
desired fashion
In academic writing, gradually
building up evidence toward
the main point rather than
stating it at the beginning and
then backing it up
Storytelling as a way of
communicating values (to
children, for example)
Gossip as a means of
supporting and surveilling
each other, and as a form of
power over men, who fear this
secret network
Talking often repetitively with
one another for the purpose of
maintaining a shared world
(small talk)
Talking to subjects who don’t
know language at all (babies,
animals, plants, TV sets, the
– marginalization
of speech forms
walls)]
associated with women and women’s
spheres
– imagined ocmmunity
• Discourse Theory Challenges
Inner
Outer
Knowledge
Epistemology Rhetoric
Social Relations
Community
Ideology
• Scollons: Learning as Cultural Crisis
• Pedagogical Responses
Inner
Outer
Knowledge
Meaningful goals Context of
Criticism
Social Relations
Legitimate Peripheral
Participation
Recognition of contention
• Responses to Challenges
– Meaningful goals
– Empowerment through critique
Gee: resistant, meta-level,
Mushfake
Wineburg study
Engstrom: context of criticism
Boomer: radical v progressive
teaching
Rethinking Columbus
– Learning communities
Lave & Wenger: LPP
Gabelnick et al: college
models
Graff: canon debate into
curriculum
– Recognition of contention
culturally-appropriate
practices: Tharp & Gallimore;
Mason & Au; Moll
Delpit criticism
not reducing difference to
mismatch
• Questions about Learning
Communities
How can we understand
individual learning in a social
context?
What role does/could/should
community play in learning?
How can we make educational
discourse communities into
more effective learning
• Learningcommunities?
Community Charts
Participation Structures
Model
Activity structure
Dialogue
function
Locus of expertise
Power
relations
Ideology
Model
Knowledge
status
Diversity
of beliefs
Values
(standards)
Purpose
Standard Teaching
temporal;
standard sequence
to transmit knowledge
value asymmetry
monotonic asymmetry;
seek complete
Standard Teaching
pre-established
heterodoxy -> orthodoxy
pre-set; global
learning as explicit goal-thematized; cognitive
emphasis
Learning Community
spatial;
heterarchical
process of learning
recognize difference;
seek balance
value complementarity;
expect limits
Learning Community
socially constructed
heterodoxy + orthodoxy
emergent; local
learning incidental;
affective; holistic
• Standard teaching model
(2/3 rule)
– Participation Structure
Organization: time
segmented; sequenced
Dialogue: to transmit
knowldege
Expertise: assume monotonic
asymmetry; seek complete
Power: value asymmetry
– Ideology
Knowledge status: preestablished
Diversity of beliefs:
heterodoxy -> orthodoxy
Values (standards): pre-set;
global
Purpose: learning as explicit
goal; thematized; cognitive
emphasis
• Learning community model
– Participation Structure
Activity structure: spatial;
heterarchical
Dialogue function: process of
learning
Locus of expertise: value
complementarity; expect limits
Power relations: recognize
difference; seek balance
– Ideology
Knowledge status: socially
constructed
Diversity of beliefs:
heterodoxy + orthodoxy
Values (standards):
emergent; local
Purpose: learning incidental;
affective; holistic