CLASSROOM DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

Classroom Discourse Community

Paola Tovar
The University of Texas at El Paso
RWS 1301
Professor Paul Vierra
CLASSROOM DISCOURSE COMMUNITY

Abstract
The purpose of this paper is to determine whether the class of Rhetoric and Composition

I is a discourse community. In this class, we meet the criteria described by Swales and we are all

working to achieve common goals. The class of Rhetoric and Composition I is a discourse

community because it follows the characteristics described by Swales.

CLASSROOM DISCOURSE COMMUNITY

Classroom Discourse Community

Introduction
According to Swales (1990), a discourse community is a group of people who share

common goals and use different communication skills to achieve them. Swales (p. 471) defines

discourse community as a group of individuals that communicate to develop the same set of

goals and proposes six defining characteristics that will help identify what a discourse

community looks like. Each of the six characteristics are different than one another but they all

provide ways of what a discourse community is. Communication in a discourse community is

crucial since it leads you to a goal that everyone in the community shares. Each member of a

discourse community puts in knowledge and shares it through communication. As a student of

RWS 1301, this class is a discourse community because it fits into the six characteristics defined

by Swales and we are all working to achieve common goals.

Literature Review

Several research shows the different definitions of a discourse community giving

examples of all types. Social media takes a big part on adolescents now a days. It can be seen “as

a social network of participants who share some set of communicative purposes” (Treadwell and

Walters, 2012). Most of the times the learning communities are a discourse community because

it is an environment where you exchange ideas and learn to work with members to achieve

something in specific (Schwab, 1975). This means that all learning communities can be seen as

discourse communities because it follows all the characteristics of Swales, but not all discourse
CLASSROOM DISCOURSE COMMUNITY

communities are learning communities (Treadwell and Walters, 2012). There are more examples

of discourse communities found everywhere you go. In fact, they must all share a common goal.

Literature Review

In the article, “The Concept of Discourse Community” by John Swales, the concept of a

discourse community is described with certain criteria. A discourse community, according to

Swales (1990), must meet six specific characteristics which are to have intercommunication

mechanisms, share common goals, a hierarchy where you can distinguish the positions of each, a

vocabulary that is congruent to the community, different genres, and looped communication

(Swales, 1990). All of this is to work to a common purpose. It is learning to communicate with

the discourse community and understand that there are different types of people but can all work

together.

For a discourse community to work well, it must include the six characteristics, with no

absence of any. In fact, Swales compares a discourse community to a speech community. A

speech community is “shared linguistic forms, shared regulative rules and shared cultural

concepts” (Swales, 1990, p. 471). Although a speech community and a discourse community

have a common definition, they are not entirely the same. A speech community lacks the sharing

of common goals, and focuses more on being a social group with solidarity and a discourse

community focuses more on being a functional group (Swales, 1990). According to Rheingold, a

virtual community is where “enough people carry on those public discussions long enough, with
CLASSROOM DISCOURSE COMMUNITY

sufficient human feeling, to form webs of personal relationships in cyberspace” (Rheingold,

1993, p. 5). These two different authors have similar views, but with different examples of a

discourse community. They also realize that a discourse community is not specifically just a

virtual community or a speech community, rather branches of a discourse community since they

don’t have the total of six characteristics described by Swales.

Method

To be able to determine if this class is a discourse community or not we had to use certain

methods. The methods we used were interview which was to find different articles that gave

more examples of discourse communities through different authors. The other method we used

was observation which was when we compared the several opinion of authors. Through these

methods, we were able to proceed to our paper.

Discussion

Common Goals

According to Swales, one of the characteristics of a discourse community is sharing a set

of common goals (Swales, 1990, p.471). In my classroom of Rhetoric and Composition I, we all

share a common goal. Our common goal is to learn how to write properly and in a college level

that will enhance our education. Even though we might all have different ways to accomplish it,

we are working towards the same objective. We are starting to work on essays, group projects,
CLASSROOM DISCOURSE COMMUNITY

and more writing assignments to become better at writing as time goes on. This example clearly

shows that the classroom of Rhetoric and Composition I is working towards the same goal,

which affirms the first characteristic of Swales.

Intercommunication

The second characteristic described by Swales is “intercommunication among its

members” (Swales, 1990, p. 471). This characteristic is also true for my classroom. We have

communication amongst the group members. We all learn on how to communicate and work in

groups. Another example is the communication we have with our Professor, because it is also

essential to our learning. After examining these two examples, we can see that this meets the

criteria for being a discourse community.

Information and Feedback

Being able to provide information and feedback is crucial in a discourse community

(Swales, 1990, p. 472). To become better at writing, which is our main purpose of this class, it is

important that all members engage in the course. This means to not only complete the tasks that

are asked for your grade but also to work beyond what you are required. An example is to go to

the professor or to organizations that can help you receive criticisms or comments about your

work before actually submitting it. After the example provided, this characteristic also meets the

criteria the classroom of Rhetoric and Composition I to be considered a discourse community.

CLASSROOM DISCOURSE COMMUNITY

Genres

There is another feature that must be met for the classroom of Rhetoric and Composition

I to be a discourse community. The several genres that are in a community is also part of the

characteristics (Swales, 1990). A discourse community is recognized by learning that there has

to be different groups within the community and we have to learn how to communicate with

everyone even if we each have different beliefs. This is also true in my classroom because even

though we are working towards one goal, we all have different background that shape us and

make us think differently. At the end, this is important because we are able to collaborate and

share opinions to get to a specific claim.

Vocabulary

Developing a specific vocabulary makes it part of a discourse community (Swales, 1990).

In every discourse community, there has to be a different vocabulary for different discourse

communities. For instance, you won’t use the same vocabulary you use in a math course than in

a science course. This applies also for the Rhetoric and Composition course. This is very

important because it is the ways of communication, so in order to communicate effectively with

the group you have to understand the vocabulary that is being used in the community. An easy

example would be when we are asked to cite our sources in APA format. APA stands for

American Psychological Association, and is a term that is used often in the course. It is a

vocabulary needed to fit into the discourse community of the classroom.

CLASSROOM DISCOURSE COMMUNITY

Hierarchy

The last characteristic described by Swales is the level of hierarchy that needs to exist in

a discourse community (Swales, 1990). There has to be different levels of authority so that there

can be control of the group. To make the class of Rhetoric and Composition I be a discourse

community it has to meet this last characteristic, and it does. The levels are students, the

teacher’s assistant, and the professor in charge of the course. This makes it clear that it does

follow the last criteria.

Conclusion

After careful examination, it is clear that the class of Rhetoric and Composition I is a

discourse community. It follows all of the criteria described by John Swales with many examples

provided. An important part of this is communication, and it is more than evident that this course

teaches to communicate with everyone to achieve the goal of this course. With the help of many

resources, I learned that a community will not succeed in the same way if these characteristics

don’t exist in them.

CLASSROOM DISCOURSE COMMUNITY

References

Christie, F. (2008). Genres and institutions: Functional perspectives on educational discourse.

Encyclopedia of language and education (Volume 2, p. 40). New York: Springer.

Swales, John. "The Concept of Discourse Community." Genre Analysis: English in Academic

and Research Settings. Boston: Cambridge UP, 1990. 21-32. Print.

Treadwell, J., & Walters, K. “The Impact of Discovery Learning In Writing Instruction on Fifth-

Grade Student Achievement.” The Journal of Elementary and Secondary Education.

Minnesota, 2012. 1-31. Print.