Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

Discourse Community Ethnography

Chantoba Bright

The University of Texas at El Paso

RWS 1301

Dr. Vierra

March 10, 2019

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to determine whether Rhetoric and composition 1301-002 is

a discourse community defined by Swales. In this class, we use the guidelines outlined by swales

discourse community artifact, we are all working to achieve a common class goal, there is

hierarchy present. The Rhetoric and composition class 1301is a discourse community because it

follows the characteristics of a discourse community as described by Swales.

Discourse Community Ethnography

According to Swales (1990), a discourse community is a group of people or

communicators who share the same common goals or interests and use different forms of

communication to achieve these goals. (p. 220-221). Swales described a discourse community as

a group of people that come together to work towards achieving common goals and that must

possess six characteristics that is used to differentiate/identify them apart from other

communities. Each characteristic defines a separate part of the community but and

interdependent upon each other to identify what a discourse community should look like. One of

the most important aspect of a discourse community is communication for without it the

community crumbles, it is what’s used to identify the common goals that each member shares

and to circulate new knowledge, ideas and tools among members. RWS class 1301 is an example

of a discourse community because it displays these six major characteristics.

Literature Review

A discourse community consists of a group of people who link up to pursue objectives

that are prior to those of socialization and solidarity, even if these latter should consequently

occur. According to Swales (1990) these characteristics not only define a discourse community,

but it is what separates them from other communities such as a speech community. In a discourse

community, the communicative needs of the goals tend to predominate in the development and

maintenance of its discoursal characteristics. A discourse community recruits its members by

persuasion, training or relevant qualification. A discourse community is classified by six (6)

major characteristics. These such characteristics are; a broadly agreed set of common public

goals, mechanisms of intercommunication among its members, uses its participatory mechanisms

primarily to provide information and feedback, utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 4

in the communicative furtherance of its aims. In addition to owning genres, it has acquired some

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

discoursal expertise.

People meet social needs by working and learning together over time to achieve goals or

to act on motives. According to Kain and Wardles (2005), to facilitate their activities people also

need to develop and use tools (p.275). People use and develop different tools to help solve

problems more effectively and theses tools tend to change as the activities changes. The activity

theory that sees all aspects of activity as shaped overtime by people’s social interaction with each

other and the tools they use gives us a helpful lens for understanding how people in different

communities carry out their activities. Just as Swales outlined the six characteristics of a

discourse community so did Kain and Wardles. These include: Ongoing. The study of activity

systems is concerned with looking at how systems function over time. Object-directed. The types

of activities that activity theory is concerned with are directed toward specific goals. Historically

conditioned. Activity systems come into being because of practices that have a history.

Dialectically structured. The term “dialectic” describes a type of relationship in which aspects of

a process, transaction, or system are mutually dependent. When one aspect changes, other

aspects change in response. Some of these changes we can anticipate; others we can’t. People

use many types of tools to accomplish activities. These may be physical objects, such as

computers, or systems of symbols, such as mathematics. Human interaction. Studies of activity

systems are concerned with more than the separate actions of individuals. Activity theory is

concerned with how people work together, using tools, toward outcomes.

If there is one thing that most of [the discourse community definitions} have in

common, it is an idea of language as a basis for sharing and holding in common: shared
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 5

expectations, shared participation, commonly (or communicably) held ways of expressing. Like

audience, discourse community entails assumptions about conformity and convention. According

to John (1997), In the term discourse communities, the focus is on texts and language, the genres

and lexis that enable members throughout the world to maintain their goals, regulate their

membership, and communicate efficiently with one another (p.320). The term communities of

practice refer to genres and lexis, but especially 3 to many practices and values that hold

communities together or separate them from one another.

Academic communities are a form of discourse community and are used as a starting

point in the exploration of academic literacies and its accessibility to students at various levels of

instruction who need to become more aware of the interaction of roles, texts and context in

academic communities. They often share language, knowledge, and values, many believe that

there are basic, generalizable linguistic, textual, and rhetorical rules for the entire academic

community that can apply.

Methods

The primary research method was observation. In RWS class 1301 the researcher used

observation as the key method in doing her research. To be able to decide whether the class is

classified as a discourse community, the researcher used keen observation while in the classroom

to make comparisons between the opinions of several authors and class room activities that

might be linked to those opinions. Other methods were the use artifacts such as various articles

that give a broad view of what is a discourse community and examples of discourse community

using a variety of perspective from different authors as evidence.

Discussion

Common Goals

RWS class 1301 exhibits common public goals. As defined by Swales (1990), the first

characteristic of a discourse community is a broadly agreed set of common public goals (p. 220).

In RWS 1301 the students all share a common goal. This goal is to develop your critical thinking

skills. Critical thinking, in turn, enables effective communication in all educational, professional,

and social contexts. According to Kain and Wardle's (2005), to facilitate their activities people

also need to develop and use tools (p.275). The class is designed to promote student’s overall

success, whether it is passing the class and moving one step closer to achieving their degree or

being a productive member of society by using the tools learned in class. Another goal of the

class is to help students gain new knowledge to advance in their daily life present and future, for

instance like obtaining new knowledge that may be used to better oneself as a member of

society, graduating college and finding a stable job with their degree. These examples prove that

RWS 1301 has a common goal in which students are working towards, this covers Swales first

characteristic.

Intercommunication

RWS class 1301 revolves around the use of intercommunication. According to Swales

(1990), in a discourse community member interact (in speech, discussions and writing) with the

same clienteles; they originate, receive and respond to the same kind of messages for the same

purposes; they have an approximately similar range of genre skills (p.221). This involves

understanding subject matter, genre, rhetorical strategy, and writing process. This simply means

that even though members may not communicate directly with each other, they all have a kind of

communication method (email, text, writing, public speech), that transmit messages to each
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 7

member of the discourse community. RWS class 1301 this characteristic can be seen during in

class discussions amongst just students and or student and professor conversations. Also, the use

of Blackboard and one drive to submit homework to the professor and communicate during

Sunday online office hours. These forms of communication serve as evidence that RWS class

1301 makes use of the second characteristic of a discourse community as defined by Swales.

Participatory Mechanisms

This Mechanism is utilized in RWS 1301. According to the definition provided by

Swales (1990) a discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide

information and feedback (p.221). This is the third characteristic of a discourse community

outlined by swales. The purpose of this characteristic is to exchange information according to the

common goals. It uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and receive

feedback which is an important role in the communication process and the main purpose of this

class. RWS class 1301 share a common goal of learning new knowledge and participation is key,

the exchange of information among students and with the professor is required to achieve this

goal. An example of the use of this mechanism in RWS 1301 is asking questions about

homework, lectures and any information if you may not understand, visiting the professor at

office hours and working in groups to complete tasks.

Genres

Genre usage is present in RWS class 1301. A discourse community utilizes and processes

one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims (Swales, 1990, p.221). It

develops discoursal expectations that may involve appropriacy of topics, the form, the function

and positioning of discoursal element and the roles text play in the operation of the discourse
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 8

community. RWS class 1301 uses genres to communicate and complete tasks. Genres used in

writing is used to accomplish common goals set in class such as gaining new knowledge,

exchanging information and the communication process in general. Some of these forms of

communicative genres used in class may range from reading, writing, the use of technology such

as CBFA and emailing. Other forms of genres used in the community are: the textbooks,

PowerPoints and the university library database. This is an example of Swales fourth

characteristic of a discourse community.

Specialized Vocabulary

The RWS 1301 class uses specialized vocabulary. According to Swales (1990), A

discourse community has acquired some specific lexis, this specification may involve using

lexical items known to the wider speech communities in special and technical ways, as in

information technology discourse communities or using technical terminology as medical

communities (p. 222). This talk about precise words or discussions that the community has,

which not too many other communities utilizes. RWS class 1301 uses lexis in class discussion,

research paper and expository reflections. The type of genres, rhetoric and communicative

language used in writing and discussion is an example of Swales fifth characteristic proving that

the class is a discourse community.

Hierarchy

Hierarchy exists in RWS 1301 class. The final characteristic outlined by Swales (1990), a

discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content

and discoursal expertise (p.222). Along with this outline swales (1990) claimed that there must

be a “Ladder System”, where members enter at a certain level and work their way up the ladder

until they attain full mastery of the groups objective or goals that defines/identifies or brings that
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 9

community together. This can be seen in RWS class 1301discourse community, when one enters

the course without enough knowledge or experience on the topic(rhetoric), and as they start

advancing their research and studies, end up mastering or coming close enough to mastering the

class materials and acquire new knowledge that they may then attempt to explain what they learn

with someone who may not yet master the materials.

Conclusion

This class fills the requirements of a discourse community. Swales (1990) breaks down

the characteristics of a discourse community into six categories. The first characteristic is having

“broadly agreed sets of common public goals” (p. 220). Arguably most of the students attending

this rhetorical writing class are determined to at least do the bare minimum and pass the class,

and most have a long-term goal of graduating. Another point of his is that they have

“mechanisms of intercommunication among its members” (p. 221). In this class the professor

communicates with the whole group via email. Third characteristic presented is the usage of

“participatory mechanisms to provide info and feedback” (p. 221), which in this case would be

discussion groups in classes and the professor’s office hours. Swales’ fourth characteristic is how

they “utilize and possess genres in the communicative furtherance” (p. 221). In our class we use

slideshows, emails and skeletal outlines to improve our communication with the professor and

his thoughts. Swales also points out that discourse communities feature “specific lexis” (p. 222),

specialized language that the whole community understands. In the class we use acronyms such

as UTEP and ER and words like rubric and Blackboard that don’t mean much to those outside

the group. The sixth and final characteristic Swales presents is how a discourse community has

“members with a suitable degree of – – expertise” (p. 222). The RWS class has exactly one

expert, the professor, and twenty-something rookies with high hopes and next to zero knowledge.
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 10

References

Johns, Ann M. "Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice: Membership,

Conflict, and Diversity." Text, Role, and Context: Developing Academic Literacies,

Cambridge UP, 1997, pp. 51-70

Kain, D. & Wardles, E. (2005). Activity Theory: An introduction to the writing classroom. In E.

Wardles, & D. Downs. (Eds) writing about writing: A college reader (3rd Education, ed.,

pp.273-283).

Porter, J. E. (1986). Intertextuality and the discourse community. Rhetoric Review, (1), 34.

Retrieved from http://0-

search.ebscohost.com.lib.utep.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.466015

&site=eds-live&scope=site

Swales, J. (1990). “The Concept of Discourse Community.” Genre Analysis: English in

Academic and Research Settings (1st ed.). Boston, Massachusetts: Cambridge UP.

Vierra, P.J. (RWS 1301, Discourse Community Ethnography, March 4, 2019).