Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

Discourse Community: Ethnography

Fernando Perez

The University of Texas at El Paso

RWS 1301

Dr. Vierra

March 15, 2019

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 2

Abstract

A community can be a discourse community. In this essay I describe the characteristics

that are fundamental for a community to become a discourse community.

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 3

Discourse Community Ethnography

Are any of the communities you belong to are consider discourse communities? There are

many communities out there with no purpose or organization, and that leads to the communities

not lasting long or progressing as a community. Is this class a discourse community as described

by Swales? A discourse community must exhibit six characteristics that are fundamental for a

community to be consider a discourse community.

Literature Review

People in discourse communities elevate their social and communication skills.

According to Swales (1990), speech community has been an evolving concept in sociolinguistics

and the consequent variety of definitional criteria has been discussed. At the outset, a speech

community was being composed of those who share similar linguistic rules and in those terms

we could legitimately refer to, say, the speech community of the English-speaking world (p.

219). This means that discourse communities share similar linguistics to be able to communicate

to achieve their purpose.

Porter (1986) claimed that intertextuality creates a perspective in rhetoric that is being

neglected. According to Porter, intertextuality provides rhetoric with an important perspective,

one currently neglected, believe. The prevailing composition pedagogies by and large cultivate

the romantic image of writer as free, uninhibited spirit, as independent, creative genius. By

identifying and stressing the intertextual nature of dis- course, however, we shift our attention

away from the writer as individual and focus more on the sources and social contexts from which

the writer's discourse arises. This means that intertextuality provides a different meaning to

rhetoric that creates more discourse within the community.

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 4

An activity system is very important when a group of people are trying to achieve a

common goal. According to Kain & Wardle (2005) in the university, for instance, the labor is

divided among the participants—students are responsible for completing assignments; instructors

are responsible for grading assignments; administrators are responsible for making sure grades

appear on students’ transcripts (p.276). This explains how multiple subgroups within the main

group of an activity system are all working for the common goal that the student learns and

eventually graduates from the university to go on and get involve in different activity systems.

Methods

For this research project interviews were used for secondary sources. The class also used

observations to collect artifacts. The research involved primary and secondary sources. The

primary research method was using Swales “The Concept of Discourse Community” which is a

scholarly secondary source.

Discussion

Common Goals

This class shares a common public goal. According to Swales (1990), A discourse

community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals. These public goals may be

formally inscribed in documents (as is often the case with associations and clubs), or they may

be more tacit (p. 220). The common public goal in this class is passing the class and graduating

college so this makes the class a discourse community. Because it shares a common public goal.

Mechanisms

This class has communication mechanisms. According to Swales (1990) the participatory

mechanisms will vary according to the community: meetings, telecommunications,

correspondence, newsletters, conversations and so forth (p.220). Accordingly, in this class when
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 5

we need help or have a question about something with our work we ask the professor through

our school email. If the email does not work or it is not available, the professor has office hours

were students can go and meet with him. That communication makes this class a discourse

community.

Intercommunication

Intercommunication is present in this class. According to Swales (1990), The secondary

purposes of the information exchange will vary according to the common goals: to improve

performance in a football squad or in an orchestra, to make money in a brokerage house, to grow

better roses in a gardening club, or to dent the research front in an academic department (p.221).

This means when the professor returns feedback on our work is just to build up on the common

goal because we need to pass this class to achieve the common public goal. The feedback we get

is inform of a rubric on every assignment we do. When we don’t get full credit, the rubric tells us

what is wrong so we can fix it. Because we have feedbacked the class is considered a discourse

community.

Genres

This class does exhibit genre. According to Swales (1990), A discourse community has

developed and continues to develop discoursal expectations. These may involve appropriacy of

topics, the form, function and positioning of discoursal elements, and the roles texts play in the

operation of the discourse community (p.221). Accordingly, the class is always formed to

learned of a specific topic that day. Every day the professor has a skeletal outline to guide the

students through the class and to know what topic the class is going to cover and based on. A

topic everyday makes this class a discourse community.

Specialized Language
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 6

This class exhibits specialized language. According to Swales (1990), This specialization

may involve using lexical items known to the wider speech communities in special and technical

ways, as in information technology discourse communities, or using highly technical

terminology as in medical communities (p.222). This suggest that the class communicates with

words not usually used outside a class or learning facility. The special language use in this class

is specific to rhetoric. Using vocabulary that is not common out of this class makes this class a

discourse community.

Hierarchy

This class does exhibit hierarchy. Hierarchy groups members into different types of

levels within the discourse community. According to Swales (1990), discourse community

develop those levels based on content and discoursal expertise. Discourse communities depend

on a reasonable ratio between novices and experts (p.222). This means that the discourse

community is not full of expert individuals because the community will fall apart. There is the

difference of levels between the professor and us the students which makes the presence of

hierarchy in this class. The hierarchy in this class is the students make the most of the members

of the discourse community and are located at the bottom of the hierarchy scale. The teacher

assistants could be place above the students and the professor is located at the top of the scale

because he is classified to be there. This class exhibits hierarchy everyday because the professor

always leads the discussion in the discourse community.

Conclusion

A discourse community exhibits six characteristic that are always in play when the

community is active. This class has shown that it exhibits all six of the characteristics, so its
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 7

consider a discourse community. Regular communities should become more discourses because

that way they can progress more or achieve that common goal faster.
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 8

References

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

Wardle, & D. Down (Eds) Writing about writing A college reader (3rd Edition ed, pp

273-283)

Porter, J. (1986). Intertextuality and the Discourse Community. Rhetoric Review, 5(1), 34-47.

Retrieved from http://0-www.jstor.org.lib.utep.edu/stable/466015

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

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

CBFA 3/9/19 +1