Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

Discourse Community Ethnography

Garrett Coghill

The University of Texas at El Paso

RWS 1301

Dr. Vierra

March 2, 2019
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 2

Abstract

Is this class a discourse community as defined by Swales? The following paper covers

topics and elements that are essential in identifying what a true discourse community is. Various

authors were used in defining or backing up claims that were made in this paper. Examples of

some authors used are Swales (1990), Porter (1986), and Kain and Wardle (2005). Within the

paper, the main purpose is to find out whether RWS 1301 is a true discourse community or if it is

a fallacy.
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 3

Discourse Community Ethnography

It is unknown whether the RWS 1301 community is a true discourse community or if it is

being falsified. The issue at hand is to figure out if the RWS 1301 community can truly be a real

discourse community as defined by Swales. Without knowing the validity of the community, we

are unable to verify whether the RWS 1301 community is credible. The RWS 1301 community

is a discourse community as defined by Swales.

Literature Review

Discourse communities are an integral part of rhetoric that require certain criteria.

According to Swales (1990), in a rhetorical discourse community, the primary determinants of

linguistic behavior are functional, since a discourse community consists of a group of people

who link up in order to pursue objectives that are prior to those of socialization and solidarity,

even if these latter should consequently occur (p. 220). The author proposes six characteristics

that better define the discourse community. Some shared characteristics amongst a discourse

community are common public goals, intercommunication, information and feedback, genres,

specialized vocab, and a hierarchy of experts. These characteristics that Swales proposed are

most commonly agreed upon by various rhetors and writers alike. Swales (1990) further provides

that nor is centrality to the main affairs of life, family, work, money, education, and so on,

criterial (p. 226). This adds to the notion that discourse communities are always developing as

time goes on. Without the proposed characteristics mentioned before, discourse communities

would not have a set of criteria to stick to.

Discourse communities are widely used, but they’re not always deemed as necessary.

Porter (1986) states that a poststructuralist rhetoric shows how audience (in the form of

community expectations and standards) influences textual production and it continuously

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 4

develops the writer (p. 40). This is different from the standard model of a discourse community

in which the writer addresses a certain audience. This new idea that Porter explains is more

revolved around the freedom of the writer. Porter (1986) also states that we are constrained to

borrow the traces, codes, and signs which we inherit and which our discourse community

imposes (p. 41). This builds on the idea that within a discourse community, the writer doesn’t

have as much freedom as within the poststructuralist rhetoric. Porter (1986) further concludes

that freshman rhetorics announce as the writer's proper goals personal insight, originality, and

personal voice, or tell students that motivations for writing come from “within” (p. 41).

Essentially, this shows and identifies that there is a writer and there is a creative will being

applied to the composition. Poststructuralist rhetoric is essential in regard to identifying the

originality and creativeness of a writer of any texts.

Activity theory is an element that is required for its positive contributions within

discourse communities. According to Kain and Wardle (2005), activity theory was originally a

psychological theory that sees all aspects of activity as shaped over time by people’s social

interactions with each other and the tools they use (p. 275). Essentially, we adapt over time

through our social interactions and we develop new tools to use within the context of the social

interactions. Kain and Wardle have made great contributions to discourse communities. Kain and

Wardle (2005) noted that a discourse community is ongoing, object-directed, historically

conditioned, tool-mediated, and has human interaction (p. 276). This all applies to what is

described as an activity system. Kain and Wardle (2005) state that activity systems consist of the

interactions among all of the factors that come to bear on an activity at a given point in time (p.

278). This means that the discourse community is constantly evolving and constantly being

renewed. Activity theory provides essential information that can have a positive impact within
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 5

discourse communities. The major advice is that these traits are ideas that should always be

noted throughout the discourse process.

Methods

For this interview project, research was used from secondary sources. Surveys were not

utilized in this research. The class also used various artifacts through observations. The research

involved both primary and secondary sources in the process. The research was primarily done in

the confines of the university library, which was a major source of the research contained

hereupon in this paper. The research was performed throughout the day at various times.

Discussion

Discourse communities are an integral part of rhetoric that require certain criteria.

According to Swales (1990), discourse communities consist of groups of people who have

common objectives based upon socialization (p. 220). The author proposes six characteristics

that better define the discourse community. Some shared characteristics amongst a discourse

community are common public goals, intercommunication, information and feedback, genres,

specialized vocab, and a hierarchy of experts. These characteristics that Swales proposed are

most commonly agreed upon by various rhetors and writers alike. Swales (1990) further provides

that main affairs such as work, family, or culture are as important within pursuing the common

goal (p. 226). This adds to the notion that discourse communities are always developing as time

goes on. Without the proposed characteristics mentioned before, discourse communities would

not have a set of criteria to stick to.

Intercommunication

Intercommunication is used extensively in RWS 1301. Swales (1990) states that the

communication within a discourse community will ultimately vary depending on the nature of
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 6

the tasks at hand (p. 221). The RWS 1301 community converses over topics related to rhetoric

and compositional writing techniques. The RWS 1301 community also utilizes Blackboard to

communicate by emails and to converse with others in the community on the task at hand. This

utilization of communication that the RWS 1301 community implements makes it a discourse

friendly community. This confirms that without the extensive use of communication, the RWS

1301 community would be unable to fulfill the necessary intercommunication needed amongst

its members.

Common Goals

Common public goals are identified amongst the RWS 1301 community. According to

Swales (1990), the common goals are what is important within the discourse community (p.

220). The shared view of common goals is what is pertinent in a like-minded discourse

community. RWS 1301 has similar goals in aspects of passing the class, mastering the APA

format, and also mastering elements of rhetoric. This confirms that without the elements listed,

there would be no consensus of public goals identified amongst the RWS 1301 community.

Participatory Mechanisms

RWS 1301 is a form of a discourse community that utilizes participatory mechanisms.

Without participatory mechanisms, there is no way of receiving information or feedback.

According to Swales (1990), participatory mechanisms are primary in providing information and

feedback within a discourse community (p.221). Discourse communities rely on “feedback” in

order to receive criticism on the subject at hand to refrain from biasness. Swales (1990) stated

that the participatory mechanisms will vary amongst the communities (p. 221). Therefore, there

will be a necessary need to include information each being particularly from the source, whether

it be news, meetings, etc.

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 7

Blackboard is a participatory mechanism tool that we use within our discourse

community. With Blackboard, we are able to receive feedback and criticism on our content that

is being shared in the community. Without this feature, feedback and relaying of information

would be a bit more difficult.

Dr. Vierra is an example of participatory mechanism that the class uses within our

discourse community. With Dr. Vierra, we are able to receive feedback and criticism on our

content that is being shared in the community. Without Dr. Vierra, our meetings would not give

us the proper information as to be guided through the course with information and feedback.

Genres

The usage of genres is ever-present in RWS 1301. According to Swales (1990), genres

are involved with things such as appropriate topics and the importance of roles that texts play in

the operation of a discourse community (p. 221). Genres are important in that they give the

discourse community, in a sense, a purpose. It gives the community the framework for what will

be discussed and how it will be worked upon. Swales (1990) also states that if a community

borrows genres from other discourse communities, the community cannot be considered a

discourse community (p.221). The RWS 1301 community utilizes its own set of genres which

creates a new path in developing as a discourse community. Therefore, the RWS 1301

community’s usage of genuine genres makes it worthy of being a true discourse community.

Specialized Language

The use of specialized vocabulary is used within the RWS 1301 community. Swales

(1990) states that communities have their own “inner” language that only members in the

community can recognize (p. 222). The specialized vocabulary is vital in the community in that

it promotes every member to be on the same page and in that it makes communication easier
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 8

amongst the members. Swales (1990) further states that if an outsider can decode the language,

then the community is no longer considered a discourse community (p. 222). The RWS 1301

community uses its own terms that many outsiders would not be able to recognize. This implies

that in so doing, the RWS 1301 community is an actual discourse community based upon its

language usage.

Hierarchy

RWS 1301 has a hierarchy, or ranking system, present in the community. According to

Swales (1990), there are always new members who will replace the more experienced members

by death or in involuntary ways (p. 222). There is a continuous cycle of novice to expert in any

discourse community. In RWS 1301, the professor is an example of an expert and the students

are the novices or beginners. It is the duty of the students to reach higher levels as they learn and

progress. The experts must advise the novices in order to carry on the content of the discourse

community. If the hierarchy was not present, many people would be left confused and would

have no path to follow. Accordingly, the presence of this said hierarchy is involved in the RWS

1301 discourse community which makes it a reputable community with a system of hierarchy in

place.

Conclusion

The RWS 1301 community is a discourse community as defined by Swales. It is

important to know that the community is a real discourse community as opposed to not being a

structured community whatsoever. It was unknown whether the RWS 1301 community is

defined as a discourse community by Swales. With the elements listed in the paper, it is now

known that the RWS 1301 community is a true discourse community by Swale’s standards.
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 9

References

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

Wardle & D. Downs (Eds.), Writing about writing: A college reader (3rd Edition, pp. 273-

283)

Porter, J. (1986). Intertextuality and the Discourse Community. Rhetoric Review, Vol. 5, No. 1,

pp. 34-47

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

Academic and Research Settings. Boston: Cambridge UP