Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

Discourse Community Ethnography

Daniela Quiroz

The University of Texas at El Paso

RWS 1301

Dr. Vierra

September 26, 2018

Abstract

There is no abstract for this paper.

Discourse Community Ethnography

Using Swales characteristics, this class is a discourse community. Swales acknowledged

the existence of discourse communities within us. Before, no one questioned of what it could be

and the RWS 1301 class could be the same as a concert. But because of Swales definition, we

can now define what a discourse community is, and apply his characteristics to our RWS 1301

class, proving that it is a discourse community.

Literature Review

While reading on discourse communities, Swales described to us that a discourse

community holds six characteristics. According to Swales (1990), there is an argument over the

social nature of language use and arguments about what a discourse community is and how it is

different from a speech community (p. 215). Swales states that a discourse community has a set

of common public goals, mechanisms of intercommunication among its members, uses its

participatory to provide information and feedback, possesses one or more genres, has acquired

some specific lexis, and has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant

content. They all help for identifying a group of individuals as a discourse community. For

example, members could be rich and others poor, some can be native speakers and others are not,

but they all meet the same criteria because they share common goals.

Adding more to a discourse community, Kain and Wardle teach us how to understand

an activity theory. According to Kain and Wardle (2014), activity theory gives us a lens for

looking at an object and understanding it in a new way (p. 395). Kain and Wardle claimed that it

is a useful lens because it acknowledges the importance of the histories and helps you take a

closer look at the actual texts of writing, reading, and asking key questions (p. 396). Activity
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 4

theory has helped others because they have learned how people participate in activities and how

change affects activities. Adding to the theory is the activity system that is defined as a group of

people who share a common object including ongoing, object-directed, historical conditioned,

tool mediated, and human interaction. All in all, the rules are mutual of how the activity will be

carried out when learning.

While trying to understand more of a discourse community, Porter helps us by that

stating that everyone uses traces of other works. According to Porter (2017), intertextuality states

the idea that they contain “traces” of other texts and that there can’t be one hat does not draw on

some ideas from some other texts. (p. 542) What Porter is saying is that even though people are

not using the technique of intertextuality, in a way they are being intertextual. Porter explains to

us that true original text is so hard to find, originality, and plagiarism do not account for how

writers actually write. Though we think we are being original, we look for traces of writers and

create a new discourse.

Lastly, Erik Borg also teaches us the same idea as Swales, that a discourse community

shares a common goal and forms of communication. According to Erik Borg (2003), the concept

of discourse communities developed from the concepts of speech community and interpretive

community and sits uneasily between them. Unlike a speech community, he explains to us that a

discourse community is a matter of choice. For example, unlike an interpretive community,

members of a discourse community share goals and communication, relating to what Swales has

mentioned. The concept of it all, as Borg explains, is that they have proved the study of writing

for specific purposes. The only problem is that several issues have not been well defined like

how large a discourse community might be or whether speech is needed to maintain a discourse

community.
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 5

Methods

Research methods used for this project includes of interviews, surveys, and observations.

This research surveyed artifacts by organizing them according to Swales characteristics. Some

examples of interviews, surveys, and observations would be an organization of a discourse

community and taking down surveys to observe and take opportunities.

Discussion

This class shares common public goals. According to Swales (1990), common public

goals are goals shared by a group of individuals known as a discourse community (p. 220).

Common public goals examples include a diploma because everyone goes to school not because

they want to, but because they want to graduate and become successful in life. A presidential is a

common public goal because both candidates have the same goal to win to become president. An

internship in a process of people in college looking for one in order to get a secured job in the

future, so we won’t have to worry about struggling to live and have a home and food. For

example, when I went to the business fair, many people that go do an internship have gotten

secured jobs, one in particular got a job at Helen of Troy. UTEP promotes internships a lot so it

is a common goal for everyone.

Intercommunication is a second characteristic present in our 1301 classroom. According

to Swales (1990), a discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among

members like meetings, telecommunications, newsletters, and conversations (p. 221). Some

examples in our classroom would include a student raising his hand in class to participate in their

class with teachers and peers. Body language shows a lot of intercommunication because you

could say your fine but the way you sit or show a facial expression says another. Blackboard is
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 6

another form because it lets us communicate with our teacher about our works, grades, and

discussions. Email is also a form because it lets us reach out and communicate with our teacher

to ask questions.

Info and feedback is a characteristic that also helps us interact in our classroom. Swales

mentions how a discourse community uses its participatory for info and feedback, meaning the

uptake of the informational opportunities (p. 221). For example, email is a form of info and

feedback in our classroom because we can ask the teacher questions and they can respond back.

It helps a lot because not many people can go to the teachers office hours so if you’re lucky

enough, a simple email can answer your question. Body language is also a form of info and

feedback because giving a nod means reassurance or raising our hand means we are asked to be

called out. Blackboard helps us communicate because we submit our work and we can respond

back to other of our classmate’s work.

Genre is a characteristic in our classroom because it involves topics, function and

positioning of discoursal elements (p. 221). For example, Writing about Writing is a form of

genre because it is only used in our RWS 1301 class for reading and doing reflections. A

composition notebook is another example because not many classes ask for one and it was

specialized thing to get for the class. PowerPoints is also a form because the teacher uses it

instead of handing out papers or writing on the board to give us lectures.

Specialized vocabulary is a special discourse communication. Swales mentions to us that

a discourse community has acquired some specific lexis, meaning that lexical items known to the

wider speech communities in a technical way (p. 222). Rhetoric is a specialized vocabulary

because it was a word I had barley learned in class and it means the use of language and symbols

to alter reality of the audience. Heuristic is added as well because it was another word I had
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 7

barley learned in class and it means the core of discovery. Lastly, AESL was a word that

Dr.Vierra had taught us at the beginning of the semester, and it stands for Academic English

Second Language.

Hierarchy is the last characteristic present in our 1301 classroom which, according to

Swales, is a system in which people or groups are ranked one above the other according to status

(p. 222). This is a discourse community characteristic in our class because, for example, a

teacher passes knowledge to students and the teacher is at the top of them. Students are a form

of hierarchy because they are at the bottom but are slowly gaining knowledge to get to the top

like the teacher. And lastly, pyramid of a bachelors to a Ph.D. degree is a form of hierarchy

because the bachelor’s degree is at the bottom and is studying to get its way to the top for a Ph.D.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a discourse community is a group of individuals who share the same

public goals, use intercommunication, info and feedback, genres, specialized vocabulary, and

hierarchy. Using these Swales characteristics made us distinguish that our class is a discourse

community.
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 8

References

Borg, E. (2003). Discourse Community. ELT Journal, 57(4), 398-400. Retrieved from

http://stabler3010.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/58120109/Borg%20Discourse%20Communi

ty.pdf

Kain, D. & Wardle, E (2004). Activity Theory: An introduction for the Writing Classroom.

Writing About Writing: A college Reader, 395-406 Boston, MA: Bedford Bks St Martin’s

Porter, J.E. “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community”. Rhetoric Review, vol. 5, no. 1,

Autumn 1986, p 34-47

Swales, J. (1990). Genre analysis: English in academic and research settings Cambridge

University Press. Retrieved from https://blackboardlearn.utep.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-

2292691-dt-content-rid

48633330_1/courses/15875.201910/Swales%201990%20Concept%20of%20a%20Disco

urse%20Community.pdf
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 9