Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

Discourse Community

Ariana J. Valles

University of Texas at El Paso

Dr. P.J. Vierra

Abstract

A discourse community is a group of individuals who share a common set of goals

(Swales, 1990). Most people are a part of a discourse community even without their knowledge.

Discourse communities could be a couple of people or even a large group of people. Swales and

Porter wrote about different and distinct characteristics for discourse communities. We have

analyzed classroom settings as a discourse community and how it will fit in with the

characteristics that were described.

Introduction

Discourse community is used in everyday life including classrooms and jobs. A discourse

community is a group of people who share a set of written or spoken communications,

understood as basic values to achieve a certain goal. In classrooms student all have a common

goal with one another. Having to use looped communication while discussing topics, dedicated

genres, intercommunication mechanisms with between peers and teachers, and self-sustaining

hierarchy when needed to be told what to do and how to do it. A discourse community in a

classroom can be very successful for students.

Literature Review

Analyzing the article “Intertexuality and the Discourse Community” by James E. Porters

and “The Concept of Discourse Communities” by John Swales. The difference between the two

articles is Swales compares discourse communities with speech communities while Porters

defines discourse community as, “a group of individuals bound by common interest to

communicate through approved channels whose discourse is regulated.” In the article by Swells,

the comparison of discourse communities and speech communities is crucial because he believes

you are born into speech communities and are recruited into a discourse community. In the

article by Porter, he discusses intertextuality, which is the relationship between texts. Porter’s

article provide a way for people to analyze ideas including discourse communities. The two ideas

relate in a way that comparing texts leads to new ideas and discourse communities also can lead

to new ideas.

Methods

According to Swales, discourse communities have very specific characteristics that make

it what it is, He explains it as a body of people working towards a common goal while sharing
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 4

ideas and rules, mechanism of intercommunication among its members, uses its participation

mechanism primarily to provide information and feedback, has a community that utilizes and

possess one or more genes, and has acquired some specific lexis, a threshold level of member

with a suitable degree of relevance. All of these defining characteristics can allow us to analyze a

community and determine their discoursal traits.

Common goals

The classmates will be able to see if classrooms are part of disclosure communities based

on Swales article. For the first characteristic it is in fact true to classrooms, all of the students

have a common goal which is to pass the class with a good grade. All teachers of a school also

have a goal of having their students earn the best possible grades. All classrooms also have basic

rules that are implemented like: no cell phones, no talking while others are talking, and no

cheating. These goals are placed in the classroom by the teacher or professor to assist the

students in achieving their common goal.

Intercommunication Mechanisms

The second characteristic is also something that occurs in the classrooms,

intercommunication. Intercommunication’s concept is basically something we do which includes

writing papers, replying to emails, and participating in group work. This also implies that

members of the classroom don’t always have to be in constant contact, this is an example of how

individual work is also characterized with intercommunication although there is not a lot of

communication happening.

Looped Intercommunication

Another characteristic is the participatory mechanisms to provide information and

feedback. Most of what we listed in the previous characteristics can fall into this aspect of a
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 5

discourse community. Members must also be active in some way in order to provide the

information and feedback needed. This is implemented primarily by teachers by them asking

questions to the entire class and usually picking on students that might not have their hand up

when a question is being asked.

Dedicated Genres

Criteria number four for a discourse community is a classroom is highly utilized. Genre is

a word that although may be confusing basically means a text – any text. It is a possible for a text

to be even drawings for an art classroom or a significant novel for an English classroom. All

classrooms also employ more traditional genres in their communication aims – websites,

magazines articles, journal articles, blogs and even vlogs. These may be used as sources for an

analysis paper or as research for a research paper. Almost all schools have libraries which are an

excellent source for all kinds of genres that can be used for students in the classrooms.

Specialized Vocabulary

A discourse community also has acquired specific lexis. A lexis is the vocabulary

of a language, as distinct from its grammar; idiomatic combinations of language. For example,

artist in art classroom have a specific lexis used to explain tools, techniques, and mediums;

science classrooms have a specific way to explain biology, chemistry and anatomy. The specific

lexis may also pertain to groups in classrooms, they would have their own jargon or vocabulary

as opposed to other groups in the classroom. It is not incomprehensible for outsiders but it is not

as easy to understand as for the people inside the classroom.

Self-sustaining Hierarchy

The final characteristic for a discourse community explained by Swales is the threshold

of members with relevance and discoursal expertise. In a discourse community, members often
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 6

come into the community as novices, a person new or inexperience in a situation, and leave

because they either change or evolve. In a classroom setting students enter as novices for a new

grade and leave because the school year is over and they are usually advancing to the next grade

level. Classrooms also take in new students; thus, there has to be a ration of beginners to experts

for the community to exist and continue successfully. Students in a new classroom for a new

grade they are not considered experts for the new grade, however, they are experts in terms of the

school, making the statement still true for classroom. When there are no longer enough experts to

inform novices or not enough new people to carry on, the community will no longer exist. This

may be true, but for classrooms they will never not exist; functionality would just greatly

decrease. The teacher would not be able to do the same thing with only two students rather than a

full classroom, even novices, of about fifteen students.

In conclusion, we have gone through all six requirements to become a discourse

community from Swales rules on how the classroom environment is a proper example of a

discourse community. Communication, and timed management was defiantly one of the main

essential in this community, and we have gone through all of the ways and types of how students

communicate within each other. Communication is one of many positive goals that the classroom

discourse holds, and even though it seems complicated yet too stressful at times individual

within the community make it work, and make excellent experience for the student that is in

need. Being able to have a working community is such a huge deal to workers, because you need

to get along with others, able to adapt to a new environment, and just having that

communication, Having a discourse community in a classrooms brings excellence to those

around.
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 7

References

Porter, J. E. (1986). Intertexuality and the Discourse Community. In E. Wardle, & D. Downs,

Writing about Writing (p. 400). Boston, New York: Bedford St. Martins.

Swales, J. (1990). The Concept of Discourse Community. In E. Wardle, & D. Downs, Writing

about Writing (pp. 215-223). Boston, New York: