Community Development Discourse - Speech or Presentation Example

Community development dis Community development dis The understanding of the cultural ways of writing and speaking is captured in the notion of discursive competence. It draws several notions together in the process that include textual, generic, and social competence. The evaluation and understanding of the various levels and factors that influence the ability to produce and interpret contextually appropriate texts. In a community development discourse, the textual competence can be obtained by drawing the linguistic, textual, contextual and pragmatic knowledge (Butny, 2009, p. 236). The interpretation process involves the understanding of the organization and interpretation of the text.

For example, the use of social media has influenced language use which includes use of abbreviations such as bb to mean Bye-bye. The use of non-standard criteria in communication is depicted in the communication process which includes starting sentences with small letter. The impact of the changes in the language usage is massive as revealed in the social media platform. Generic competence describes how the community responds to recurring and new communicative situations through the construction and interpretation by using conventions associated with certain types of texts or genres (Turbide, Vincent, & Laforest, 2010).

When communicating with a friend, the messaging platform may be different as compared to new people. The limitations existing in communication is as a result of the relational differences. The development of discursive community depends on the ability to set and distinguish a group of people from the rest in the community. For instance, the youths want to be identified by a set of communication pattern different for the adult and the elderly. The use of slang and other developed terms in communication is a standard practice for the group.

It forms the basis of the genre and it is very dynamic. Social competence refers to how the community can use language as part of the social and institutional interactions in a way that enables the community to express their social identity. The cultural identifications are a product of both the discourse and the tradition developed over a long period of time. An example of the impact of social competence is how individuals in the community present themselves at a meeting at work. It defines the image created whether of outgoing or an introvert person depends on the focus of the individual.

Language can be used to show that one is in charge of the meeting or to make some issues clear. The role and responsibility of a person can be captured in any meeting through the use of language. Discursive competence involves issues that are beyond language related and text-level knowledge (Lorenzo-Dus, & Bryan, 2010, p. 30). It includes complex and changing factors outside the text that must be accounted for, to ensure effective communication. In a community setting, language use is defined by both the meaning and gravity associated with the words.

Some words may be used to convey the certain information, but the level of understanding may vary within the communities. The problem of language and reality correlation can be solved by involving individual cognitive system into the discursive process. However, textual analysis tends to deviate from the structural semantic trend to approach corporal functioning in both artificial and natural text production methods. Therefore, community development and language use are intertwined. The key notion in discourse analysis is the concept of discourse community.

Snzycer (2010) gives a set of characteristics for identifying a group of people as members of a particular discourse community. The group must have a set of shared common goals, mechanism of communication and some way of providing the exchange of information among members. The community must have its own genres, specialized terminology and vocabulary. In addition, it must have a high-level of expertise in its particular area. For clubs and associations, these levels can be formally agreed upon, which include ways of communication such as the use of newsletters, meeting and casual conversations.

The threshold level of expertise in the genres will be considered. The development of a discourse community is dependent on the nature and the goals of the members of the group. The level of expertise is an integral issue in the selection of the community members. The development of discourse community is a product of set criteria and understanding. Individuals can fit into the community by gaining entry through the set criteria. In spite of the individual differences, the language use and communication effectiveness obtained brings harmony within the group and ensures participation of the various members in the communication process.

In the team, harmony is achieved through effective communication. However, effective language use and competence cannot be achieved easily as construed, but needs the support of social and textual competence. An example of a Discourse community may be a call center. Research by Cameron (2000) reveals the existence of similar characteristics of discourse community in the call centers. In conclusion, community development and language use is dependent on the development of social, textual and generic competencies.

Reference Butny, R. (2009). ‘Wal-Mart’s presentation to the community: discursive practices in mitigating risk, limiting public discussion, and developing a relationship’, Discourse & Communication, vol.3, no.3, pp.235-254 Lorenzo-Dus, N., & Bryan, A. (2011). ‘Recontextualizing participatory journalists’ mobile media in British television news: A case study of the live coverage and commemorations of the 2005 London bombings, Discourse & Communication, vol. 5, no.1, pp. 23-40. Sznycer, K. (2010). ‘Strategies of powerful self-presentations in the discourse of female tennis players’.

Discourse & Society, vol. 21, no. 4, pp. 458-479. Turbide, O, Vincent. D & Laforest., M. (2010). ‘The circulation of discourse: the case of deprecating remarks on trash radio’. Discourse Studies, vol.12, no.6, pp.785-801.