1

UTEP RUGBY CLUB

Discourse Community Ethnography: UTEP RUGBY CLUB

Michael Armendariz
The University of Texas at El Paso

UTEP RUGBY CLUB

ABSTRACT
There has been long discussion of what the term discourse community means and
whether or not it has importance to both English and the classifying of groups. In The Concept
of Discourse Communities, John Swales provides six characteristics that all discourse
communities contain. Individuals fall within and partake in several various discourse

communities during their lives and it is important to recognize the characteristics that make those
communities what they are. In this ethnography paper, I will attempt to clarify the definition of
the term discourse community by using the articles The Concept of Discourse Communities by
John Swales and Intertextuality and the Discourse Community by James Porter. Also, I will
give an analysis on one of the particular discourse communities of which I am currently a
member of: the UTEP Rugby Club and prove that it is in fact a discourse community by using
research conducted over the past few weeks.

INTRODUCTION

UTEP RUGBY CLUB

There has been long discussion of what the term discourse community means and
whether or not it has importance to both English and the classifying of groups. In The Concept
of Discourse Communities, John Swales provides six characteristics that all discourse
communities contain. Individuals fall within and partake in several various discourse

communities during their lives and it is important to recognize the characteristics that make those
communities what they are. In this ethnography paper, I will attempt to clarify the definition of
the term discourse community by using the articles The Concept of Discourse Communities by
John Swales and Intertextuality and the Discourse Community by James Porter. Also, I will
give an analysis on one of the particular discourse communities of which I am currently a
member of: the UTEP Rugby Club and prove that it is in fact a discourse community by using
research conducted over the past few weeks.
LITERATURE REVIEW
As mentioned before, John Swales wrote an article on discourse communities titled: The
Concept of Discourse Communities. Within it, he indicates that it is important to clarify the
definition of discourse community. He also states that there is a distinct difference between the
terms discourse community and speech community (Swales, 2011). Another important point he
makes is the fact that there are six major traits that all discourse communities share. Those six are
as follows: all discourse communities have a set goal that is trying to be reached, communication
amongst members of the group themselves or with an individual with more influence on the
decision making of the group, an exchange of positive and negative criticism and information,
the use of at least one form of communication in an effort to achieve the goal of the community
or maintain the standard set forth by those in charge, the use of a special language or terms

UTEP RUGBY CLUB

when discussing the community, and lastly all discourse communities must be composed of
members with both expertise and lack of experience.
The second article, Intertextuality and the Discourse Community by James Porter

doesnt necessarily focus on discourse communities themselves, but rather the genres of text and
communication found within an individual community. Porter claims that there are two types of
intertextuality: iterability and presupposition. Iterability is the idea that all texts contain traces of
previous texts. An example is the use of older expressions in literature. Presupposition refers to
the assumption a text makes about its audience. An example is when works of art assume that the
reader has read or seen another text. In a way, James Porter believes that texts are now just
alterations of texts from the past. The connection between this article and that of Swales is that
three of the six major characteristics discourse communities must possess deal with text.
METHODS
For this paper, Ive chosen to do a study on the UTEP Rugby Club. Although it doesn't
fall under my intended field of study, nursing, it still provides me with an opportunity to
represent the school. As a result, my affiliation with the club has effected my college experience
as a whole. The team has presented me with the chance to be a small cog in a larger wheel. It has
opened the door to many valuable connections, namely those with my fellow student athletes.
Many of them have given me useful advice that I have applied to my college life and I owe the
UTEP rugby team for that. In addition, it has provided an excellent opportunity to further my
leadership skills and improve my ability to work with different types of people, two traits
expected from prospective employees in the medical field. Allowing people to feel comfortable
and performing well under pressure are two significant parts of a nursing career. In order to
complete this ethnography, I interviewed my coaches and several of my teammates, studying the

UTEP RUGBY CLUB

interactions between the players and the coaches as well. Over the few weeks of research, Ive
come to the notion that the UTEP Rugby team can be considered a discourse community. Using
the six defining characteristics that will be necessary and sufficient for identifying a group of
individuals as a discourse community established by Swales as a basis, it meets all the criteria
required by a discourse community.
DISCUSSION
The first quality of a discourse community is the idea that there is an intended reason or
goal behind the creation of the community. In the case of UTEP Rugby, the goal is to instill

valuable traits in the student members, win championships, and represent the school in a positive
light at the same time. These reasons sounded appealing to me and were an integral part in my
joining the team. I wanted to be apart of an organization that was treated with both respect and
class. The second attribute required of discourse communities, according to John Swales, is
necessary communication between all types of members of the organization whether it be orally,
written, or other genres. In my discourse community, we heavily rely on intercommunication and
depend on several different genres to communicate. The communication is not limited to just
players either. The coaches allow for the players to have input as well. That flows straight into
the third characteristic which states that discourse communities must allow for positive and
negative feedback on the structure and handling of decisions of the association to be exchanged.
As stated before, the UTEP Rugby team coaches allow us the freedom to provide positive and
negative criticism. I feel this characteristic is especially important in my community because we
need to be able to determine how to improve as a team. Another required characteristic is the use
of various genres of text in attempt to achieve the desires intended by the community. The UTEP
Rugby Club uses a multitude including speech, video, and text. We communicate through

UTEP RUGBY CLUB

speech mainly during practices and competitions. We are also expected to use video as we are
told to study the film of the game to determine what strategies are working and which ones are
not. The last form of conversing used in our community is through written text. Our team has a
phone application that we use to discuss strategy as well as set up future meetings. Characteristic
number five is the use of terminology specific to the collective. In rugby we have special lingo
such as TNT, soup, banger, and whiskey. Terms like these are normal words in everyday life, but
to us they describe plays, formations, and yield direction. The last of the six characteristics of
discourse communities relates to the need for people who have experience and knowledge and
the need for people who have neither. The experts are needed to lead the group and the novices
are needed to so that the group can continue. The coaches are the focal experts in my situation,
with certain players also having experience and knowledge about the game. The team is not with
its newbies as well. This is the category I, myself would fall into along with some other peers.
While conducting my research for this paper and developing a sense of what it means to
partake in an organization, Ive come to the realization that discourse communities are all around
us. It would be fair to assume that the mass majority of the worlds population are in some sort of
discourse community, they just dont know the term for it. The studies conducted over the past
few weeks, in combination with the aforementioned articles by John Swales and James Porter,
have led to a greater appreciation for discourse communities as a whole and their importance in
society. There is a wide array of discourse communities that create relationships among
individuals from all types of backgrounds and experiences. After analyzing the UTEP Rugby
Club, it is without a doubt a discourse community as it fits all the six major specifications. It has
an intended objective, contains intercommunication, allows for feedback to be shared within the

UTEP RUGBY CLUB

community, includes the use of varying genres of text, uses its own vocabulary, and lastly has
veterans and novices alike within the community.

REFERENCES

Swales, J. (2011). The concept of discourse community. In Writing about Writing (1 ed., pp. 466-479).
Boston: Bedford/St. Martins & Downs and Wardle.
Porter, J. (1986). Intertextuality and the discourse community. Rhetoric Review, 5(1), 34-47.

UTEP RUGBY CLUB