However, the hoped-for outcome is that it will form a discourse community
I hadn't thought about this yet, but it makes total sense. Students who go off and take what they learned and use that with others who have the same interest are creating and/or becoming part of a discourse community.
Memberships of hobby groups may be quite peripheral, while mem-berships of professional associations may be closely connected to the business of a career (shockingly so as when a member is debarred), but both may equally constitute discourse communities.
Discourse communities do not always have to be serious in any sort of business-like way. It can be more leisure as well.
First, it is possible to deny the premise that participation entails assimilation.
An interesting concept constructed by the author, this is. It is worded a tad weird, but looking into the deeper meaning shows the reader that just because you participate in a discourse community does not mean that you are fully a part of it.
dealings with outsiders:
This particular wording suggests that you really belong to a discourse community or you don't. You actually have to be invested in it to an extent to be included with the group.
I mention these brief facts to show that the members of the discourse community have, superficially at least, nothing in common except their shared hobby interest
This is an important tip about discourse communities. You don't have to be just like the others in the group. You just have to have a common interest and knowledge in whatever is at hand.
Most commonly, however, the inbuilt dynamic towards an increasing] y shared and specialized terminology is realized through the development of community-specific abbreviations and acronyms.
This is particularly important. Not only should a discourse community be able to communicate, but there are certain words, phrases, concepts, etc. that most outsiders may not understand. For example, If I was speaking to a fellow Grey's Anatomy fan, they would know the meaning of the words McDreamy and McSteamy, while an outsider would not know those lexical terms.
However, even if this sharing of discursive practice occurs, it does not resolve the logical problem of assigning membership of a community to individuals who neither admit nor recognize that such a community exists.
You cannot belong to a discourse community if you have zero means of communication or connection to other members. You also have to acknowledge that you are a member of said community.
in terms of the fabric of society, speech communities are centripetal (they tend to absorb people into that general fabric), whereas discourse communities are centrifugal (they tend to separate people into occupational or speciality-interest groups). A speech community typi-cally inherits its membership by birth, accident or adoption; a discourse community recruits its members by persuasion, training or relevant qualification.
This text points out that you can easily be a part of a speech community, while being part of a discourse community requires more knowledge that the majority of the population does not acquire.
a speech community was seen as being composed of those who share similar linguistic rules (Bloomfield, 1933 ), and in those terms we could legitimately refer to, say, the speech community of the English-speaking world.
This seems to define a discourse community, a speech community, and language in general. Therefore, it is a terrible definition to use by itself as it is to vague/general.
but like many imperfectly defined terms, it is suggestive, the center of a set of ideas rather than the sign of a settled notion'
This is a good point because the meaning of discourse community has changed over time. It does not have a set definition. It is more of an idea/concept. There aren't specific rules that must be followed.
'discourse communities' to signify a cluster of ideas: that language use in a group is a form of social behavior, that discourse is a means of maintaining and extending the group's knowledge and of initiating new members into the group, and that discourse is epistemic or constitutive of the group's knowledge.
Here, Swales points out the current definition of a discourse community in a detailed way.
The more you see examples of thoughtful commentary and the more you try to do it yourself, the more you'll get a feel for how it's done.
Each writer and reader interprets things a little differently. Different things stand out to different people. As a reader/peer editor, trying to keep in mind what the author is trying to get across is important. Ask questions to help the writer clearly state their thoughts.
A set of comments to end all commentary on Todd's paper. He might have done well, for instance, to rec-ognize how much this paper works because of the way Todd arranges the story. He could have done more to point to what's not working in the writing or what could be made to work better. He might have asked Todd for more details
A note at the end of the paper can be helpful. It's almost like a summary of the corrections/suggestions the reader has already made. It is a nice way to wrap up any final comments, add emphasis on things, and make the writer still feel secure instead of attacked.
Although there are over two dozen wordmg or sentence-level errors in the paper, he decides, wisely, to stick with the larger matters of writing.
Personally, I like correcting grammar if I see errors. It is hard to fight the urge. Especially for a first draft, this is not what the writer needs help critiquing.
When you praise, praise well. Think about it. Sincerity and specifrcity are everything when it comes to a compliment.
I agree with this. It is important to be encouraging of the writer as well as offer suggestions and critiques. Although, don't simply say, "that was great". Explain what you like and actually mean it. Don't say it if you don't mean it. That won't be helpful for anyone.
suggl'.ll
Suggest, do not tell or demand the writer to do or change something. This may make the writer feel defensive and that isn't productive for anyone.
It's an alright paper, but it could be outstanding if the writer said what was really bothering her.
Sometimes being straight forward in your writing is more beneficial than tap dancing around your point and hoping the reader understands what you mean.
Sound like you normally sound when you're speaking with a friend or acquaintance. Talk to the writer. You're not just marking up a text; you're responding to the writer. '{ou're a reader, a helper. a colleague. Try to sound like someone who's a reader, \vho's helpful. and who's collegial. Supportive. And remember: Even when you're tough and demanding you can still be suppm1ive.
I think lots of people don't realize this. You don't need to be aggressive with comments or suggestions. After all, it is not your writing. you're simply commenting on, say, your best friends writing. Be kind, but definitely be constructive. There is no need to downgrade anyone, but don't be overly nice because that accomplishes nothing in terms of helping the writer improve.
Is she trying to show a pleasant experience on the surface, yet suggest underneath that everything was not as pleasant as it seems?
Reading between the lines is crucial as a reader and writer. That is often where substance is found.
The assignment: What kind of writing does the assignment call (or allow) for? Is the paper supposed to be a personal essay? A report? An analysis? An argument? Consider how well the paper before you meets the demands of the kind of writing the writer is taking up
In high school I often saw my classmates struggling to stay in the certain head space that assignments called for. I also struggled with this at times. Keeping in mind what type of paper or essay is being writing is extremely important during the peer review process. You can point out to the reader places where they went off topic or began writing in a different voice. The writer doesn't always see that when reading their own work.
ask questions, offer advice, and wonder out loud with the writer about her ideas
I like these kinds of comments on my own papers. It is useful information because it tells me what the reader sees versus what I meant to say. Just because it makes sense to me does not mean the point is clear to the reader.
Ideas you can say you like. Mark any t) pos and spelhng errors. Make your comments brief. Abbreviate where pos-Sible. a~;·k, good mtro, gn·e ex,frag. Try to imitate the teacher. Mark what he'd mark and sound like he'd sound. But be cool about it. Don't praise anything really, but no need to get harsh or cut throat either. Get in and get out. You're okay. I'm Pkay. Everybody's happy. What's the problem? Th1s 1s. no doubt, a way of getting through the assignment. Satisfy the teacher and no surpnses for the writer.
This is, unfortunately, how I was taught to peer review. I didn't necessarily see anything wrong with this until this week when I was properly taught how to help someone edit their writing in a beneficial way instead of a superficial way.
The dictionary had a picture of it, a long-tailed, long-eared, burrowing African mammal, which lives off termites caught
I like the detailed description of what the dictionary depicted an aardvark as. The reference to the tongue of an anteater provides another distinct visual for the reader, allowing the story to be felt.
illustrations of black slave women tied up and flogged with whips; of black mothers watching their babies being dragged off, never to be seen by their mothers again; of dogs after slaves, and of the fugitive slave catchers, evil white men with whips and clubs and chains and guns...
Here, Malcolm used visual descriptive language to show the reader actions taken against innocent African-American peoples' lives. As a racially ambiguous person, I take these vivid descriptions to heart. I can see these horrible events occurring based on his blunt, yet accurate, representation of the horrors.
on
Malcolm states a specific feeling here. I, myself, am a lover of books. Being trapped into a story, then being interrupted, is an aggravating feeling. I genuinely felt what he described. He used adjectives and emotion effectively.