Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

Discourse Community Ethnography

Paola Correa Alfonzo

The University of Texas at El Paso

RWS 1301

Dr. Vierra

September 27, 2018

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 2

Abstract

This paper has no abstract.

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 3

Discourse Community Ethnography

Swales recognized the existence of specialized communities or groups within society.

However, without the proper knowledge or definition of those criteria is difficult to differentiate

groups or identify them as discourse communities. Thus, the RWS 1301 could not be

differentiated from another college courses, or even other groups. To differentiate the RWS 1301

from other communities is imperative for certain characteristics to be defined. Applying

Swales’s characteristics to the RWS 1301 proves that it is a discourse community.

Literature Review

Discourse community is a multidivergent term used in “social perspective” to identify a

written and linguistic pattern characteristic of a certain entity, system or community. John

Swales (1990) defined discourse communities as a set of rules or norms followed by a

community, group or social construct as to how to communicate and write their shared interests;

claiming that discourse communities can lose and gain consensus and change over time (p. 23).

To defend his claim, Swales identifies discourse community by six characteristics such as a set

of common public goals, a universal communication system between members, active gain and

release of information, use of more than one medium, acquisition of a unique lexis and display of

hierarchy (p. 29).

While Swales (1900) argues that discourse communities have a set of characteristics

(p.23), Kain and Wardle (2004) introduce active communities which allow us to study people’s

objectives and how they obtain them (p. 3). Therefore, they can be used to identify and study

discourse communities and their agendas. According to Russel (1997), active theory could be

thought of as any ongoing, object-directed, historically conditioned, dialectically structured, tool-

mediated human interaction (p. 504). An example of an active system is the university. It is
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 4

composed of students, faculty and staff, which use tools such as boards, computers, books; etc. in

social interactions directed towards a goal. Professors teach students as the university functions

to provide higher learning and academic achievement. Thus, activity theory allows us to study

text, writings and social interactions to understand the goals, tools and organization of social

groups as part of a discourse community.

In the debate over discourse community characteristics, Porter (1986) argues that writing

compositions are compilations of previous ideas re-organized and re-imagine (p. 35). He

understands the importance of intertextuality in the development and definition of discourse

communities. He believes intertextuality in writing gives it meaning and value. Porter

emphasizes the need for discourse communities to understand that all their writings use previous

works as starting points, and that intertextuality is imperative for all writing compositions.

Writing is not an isolated process. Thus, Porter believes that all texts contain traces of other

writings (p. 44).

Even though Kain, Wardle and Porter agree with Swales claims many specialists of

language and social studies have continue to debate the paradigms of discourse communities.

Erik Borg (2003), is one to suggest that discourse communities may not be defined as easily or

casually as Swales though (p. 399). Borg was not convinced that discourse communities were

always chasing a common goal. Moreover, he identifies possible dilemmas with the current

paradigms in this field of study. He gives the example of a family, were the members may be

part of a discourse community but whose members had different objectives (p. 398). A family

can be considered a discourse community by Swales criteria; since the interactions of the

members of a family have a genre, lexis, intercommunications, hierarchy and feedback.

Nevertheless, Borg is challenging the idea of discourse communities; not saying that a family
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 5

unit cannot be consider a discourse community, but all the contrary, that since a family is a

discourse community; which has been proven to not necessarily have a common goal between all

the members; then the criteria for defying discourse communities must be re-evaluated.

Methods

For this research paper interviews, surveys and observations were used. For the interview

portion, the paper reviewed and analyze Swales, Kain, Wardle, Porter and Borg works on

discourse communities. Using their theories, surveys and observations were conducted about the

RWS 1301 classroom to prove its viability as a discourse community. Artifacts were collected

from the rhetoric writing composition class to understand the mechanisms of discourse

communities and the paradigms of the field. Findings were recorded, stored and analyze in this

research paper.

Discussion

The RWS 1301 class exhibits common public goals. According to Swales (1990), public

goals are established by discourse communities to encase, publicly, the intentions of the group

(p. 23). The RWS 1301 members possess artifacts that represent their public goals. Students

desire to graduate and obtain a diploma, as well as, a job or future career. By attending RWS

1301, they can complete the prerequisites to obtain those artifacts. Moreover, exhibition of goals

described by Swales tights up with Kain and Wardle (2004) argument that active systems, are

used to described groups that originated by chasing a common goal; and how certain social

interactions are motivated by same interests (p. 3).

The RWS 1301 displays intercommunication among its members. Swales (1990) suggest

that discourse communities have systems that allow members to communicate with each other in

a participatory manner (p. 24). RWS 1301 has mechanisms to establish communication between
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 6

students, when students talk with each other to discuss class activities and analyze class content.

Students also communicate actively with their professor by attending office hours or after class

discussions. They interact in speech and writing.

The RWS 1301 demonstrates participatory mechanisms to provide information and

feedback. Swales (1990) argues that discourse communities need to establish systems that permit

members to obtain information (p. 24). In the RWS 1301 classroom students ask questions by

raising their hand. They can also address questions to the professor throw online medias or in

class discussions. Professor will also allow students to present and submits work that represent

the learn material in an attempt to review and revise the student's improvement and analysis of

the material. The RWS 1301 possess one or more genres. Swales (1990) believes discourse

communities must possess genres to communicate the groups interest and materials (p. 25). RWS

1301 has different medias by which the members can communicate with each other. Students can

obtain knowledge through books or online resources. Students document their learning

experience, as well as, class content in notebooks. Students and professor may communicate with

each other using emails. The RWS 1301 uses different mediums to establish precedents in

learning and improve interactions in the classroom.

The RWS 1301 has acquired some specific lexis. Swales (1990) claims that discourse

communities develop a terminology which members aby by to communicate with each other (p.

25). RWS 1301 students learn the ideas and terms use in composition writing. Most students use

dictionaries and resources to learn common words to properly talk about rhetoric writing. The

professor teaches students how to properly address issues.

The RWS 1301 presents a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant

content and discoursal expertise. Swales (1990) argues that discourse communities create
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 7

systems to develop members from novices to experts (p. 26). RWS 1301 possesses a hierarchy.

Students learn from a professor in an attempt to become future professionals. Thus, RWS 1301

has a system to allow members to move from novices to experts.

According to the prevalent theories of discourse communities, the RWS 1301 can be

consider a discourse community. It possesses the six characteristics from Swales, as well as,

display activity system paradigms from Kain and Wardle. However, is important to note that the

idea of discourse communities may still be up for debate. Borg understood that discourse

communities, as part of a social human construct, depends on human interactions that are not

always as easily or simply define.

Conclusion

The RWS 1301 class is a discourse community according to Swale’s characteristics. It

possesses as a set of common public goals, a universal communication system between

members, active gain and release of information, uses more than one genre, possess a unique

lexis and consist of novices and experts. This study allows us to form precedents for the study of

other discourse communities in the university environment, as well as, other discourse

communities from different niches and times. This analysis can be used to examine other groups

using Swale’s characteristics and expand the knowledge of discourse communities. These studies

allow us to gain insight on how human interactions and social cues are constructed and use in

society.

Moreover, the definition of RWS 1301 as a discourse community permitted other

questions to be raised. Would other classes be considered discourse communities? Are there

restrictions to the kinds of groups we can analyze? Could discourse communities, already proved

by Swales, be questioned later? By using Swales characteristics and the expansion of the term
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 8

discourse communities is possible to understand the paradigms of human interactions when

groups are form. Nevertheless, discourse communities are always evolving with current times

and their study is always relevant. Therefore, the Swales discourse community argument

highlights the importance of setting precedents in social interactions and helps us organize the

discourse community ideals.

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 9

Reference

Kain, D; Wardle, E. (2004). Activity Theory: An Introduction for the Writing Classroom. p.1-9.

East Carolina University.

Russell, D. (1997). “Rethinking Genre in School and Society: An activity theory analysis.”

Written Communication, 14(4), p. 504–554.

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

Academic and Research Settings, p. 21–32, Boston: Cambridge UP

Porter, J. E. (1986) Intertextuality and the Discourse Community. Rhetoric Review 5.1 34–47.

Print.

Borg, E. (2003). Discourse Community, ELT Journal, Volume 57, Issue 4, p. 398–400,

https://doi.org/10.1093/elt/57.4.398