One point Swales brought up was that communication is necessary to fall under the category of a discourse community and that each discourse community must have a unique way of communicating (221). That is a way of saying that each discourse community must have their own language. If a group of people are really part of the discourse community, then they will be able to communicate fluently (Swales 221). Communication and language is a very hot topic in Gee’s article and we see that when he says, “Someone can speak English, but not fluently. However, someone cannot engage in a discourse in a less than fluent matter.
In the article "The Concept of a Discourse Community" by John Swales (1990). He aimed to define the meaning of a discourse community; then he carefully deconstructs discourse community into six fundamental attributes that are important for recognizing a discourse community. Swales’ definition of a discourse community is a group that has objectives or purposes, and utilize communication to accomplish those objectives. He states that a discourse community is presented as a more practical and purposeful gathering than speech fraternity or speech group. The six essential characteristics that Swales (1990) belief to be the core of a discourse community are its goals, intercommunication, participation, genres, Lexis, and expertise.
In defining communication Katherine Miller (2004) stating that "conceptualizations of communication have been abundant and changed substantially over the years ". Its mean communication is erratic and changed pass through generation. There is many way to interpret and define our understanding in communication. Communication theory is a social process in which individuals employ symbol to establish and interpret meaning in their environment. In defining communication theory there is five key terms which is social, process, symbols, meaning, and environment which can make us more understand about it.
Language used in classroom discourse is different in form and function from language used in other situations because of particular social roles learners and teachers have in classrooms and the type of activities they do there. Discourse is the organization of language beyond the level of sentence and the individual speaking turn, whereby meaning is negotiated in the process of interaction (Carter & Nunan, 2001). There are many approaches to study classroom discourse and every researcher in this field has his or her arguments on what is the best way to analyze discourse in the classroom context. However, there does exist some consensus among the scholars; it all started with discourse analysis (DA) and the IRF pattern. Classroom discourse analysis is an aspect of classroom process
(Renkema ,1993, 40). Discourse is more than a random set of utterances; it shows connectedness. A central objective of linguistis working on the discourse level is to characterize this connectedness. Linguists have traditionally approached this problem by looking at over linguistic elements and structure. (Halliday and Hasan, 1976 ,13).
Principles of Metadiscourse According to Hyland (2005), metadiscourse rests upon three basic principles: 1. Metadiscourse differs from the propositional aspects of discourse: metadiscourse is not merely a kind of glue that links the ideas in the text or that it is only a comment on the text, but it is a key element in the text that helps connect the text to the broader context by taking into account the reader’s needs, existing knowledge, and intertextual experiences. 2. Metadiscourse points to the text aspects that involve the interactions between readers and writers: as Halliday (1996) mentioned that the major function of language is communication, metadiscourse at the textual and interpersonal levels serve the communication between the readers and the writers. Metadiscourse is not only the logical transition of ideas within the text, but the writer share the readers his propositions, his experiences, and his background knowledge.
Discourse analysis is essentially multidisciplinary. It involves linguistics, poetics, semiotics, psychology, sociology, anthropology, history, and communication research. Discourse analysts study language in use in relation to social, political and cultural aspects. The term ‘Discourse’ is wide spread. Discourse is language and therefore discourse analysis
The study of discourse is sometimes more narrowly construed as the study of connected sequences of sentences produced by a single speaker. In what follows we will construe the term, discourse narrowly and when more than one person is involved, we will speak of conversation or more generally a talk-exchange. There are many forms of discourse and many forms of talk-exchange. Letters, jokes, stories, lectures, sermons, speeches, and so on, are all categories of discourse; arguments, interview, business dealing, instruction, and conversation are categories of
The Language Culture and Society programme provides us with strong theoretical and interdisciplinary foundation for the study of a range of educational practices across the human lifespan and in a range of theoretical and methodological perspective is brought to bear on studies that explore the nature of literate practices, democracy and civic engagement and participation in social life. The programme focuses on relationships between education school and the dynamics and changing structures of language, culture, and society. It examines connection between broader, social, cultural, linguistic, historical, aesthetic and political factors in education and the local context in which these issues take place. It has long been recognized that language is an essential and important part of a given culture and that the impact of culture upon a given language is something intrinsic and indispensible. Language is a social phenomenon.
According to Qian, Tian &Wang (2009), classroom communication is a problematic means. Therefore, they claimed that understanding the dynamics of classroom discourse is obligatory for teachers to shape and keep good communicative practices. Recent studies of interaction in classes which choose a mainly CLT methodology distinguish features of discourse in classrooms. For example, Fowler & Sarapli (2010) argued that features such as the insufficient number of error correction, emphasizing the communication over accuracy, and learner 's exposure to the extensive variety of discourse types