Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

Discourse Community Ethnography

Amber Najera

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

Using Swales, this RWS1301 class is a discourse community. Swales declared that there

are specialized communities or groups within society that exist. However, unlike speech

communities, discourse communities have never been defined. Without a working definition of

discourse communities, there is no known difference between the two communities previously

mentioned. Therefore, making the RWS 1301 class no different than a Friday night bridge club.

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

Literature Review

Linguist John Swales (1990) talks about the differences between a discourse community

and a speech community. There are many opinions on what exactly a discourse community is

however, Swales definition is a group of people that have similar goals that communicate with

one another to accomplish something (p. 218). As he goes on further, he compares speech

communities to discourse communities. The definition of a speech community is “composed of

those who share, functional rules that determine the appropriacy of utterances”. One major

difference is that discourse communities do not have to verbally communicate with one another.

In speech communities, you can be put into those groups by “birth, accident or adoption” and in

discourse communities, it is by “persuasion, training or relevant qualification”. Swales claims

there are six defining characteristics of a discourse community.

According to Porter (2017), a discourse community is a group of people tied together by

a common interest who communicate through forums (p. 542). Each of these so-called forums

have a history and rules regulating the content. For a text to be accepted into a forum, it must

follow certain formatting constraints. He claims genuine originality is difficult to accomplish

with so many regulations within a system. Porter argues that although the pieces may not seem
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 4

completely original, there is still originality that can break barriers and forever change the matrix

if successful. There must be people willing to push the envelope just a little farther.

Kain and Wardle define an activity system as “a group of people who share a common

object and motive over time, as well as the wide range of tools they use together to act on that

object and realize that motive” Activity systems are ongoing in that they are looking at how

systems function over time. They are object directed historically conditioned, dialectically

structured, and tool-mediated. Another one of the main focuses would be the Human Interaction.

This includes how people work together using tools towards outcomes. These systems are also

constrained by divisions of labor and rules.

Borg references Swales article on discourse communities and directly compares it to

other articles by other authors such as Porter, Olsen, and Wenger. The example Borg uses is a

reference to the exact example Swale uses with the society of stamp collectors. He claims that

although the members of the community may be spread around the world, they all have one

common interest: the stamps of Hong Kong (p. 398). This claim must be true because one, they

are spread out around the world. Second, these collectors do not gather together physically.

Instead, they have a specific genre, their newsletter. Finally, they have the common goal of

collecting all the stamps they can.

Methods

The research used to collect this information were interviews, surveys, and observations.

Observations are used when one observes and measures the world around you, including

observations of people and other events. Interviews are asking participants a number of questions

either one-on-one or in a small group setting. Surveys are asking participants about their
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 5

opinions and behaviors through a short questionnaire. In any of the three, information is received

and used for the research.

Discussion

This RWS1301 class exhibits common public goals. According to Swales, common

public goals can be formally written down or they might be a bit more implied (p. 220). In

RWS1301, one of the main goals is to receive an “A” letter grade in the class. Across the board,

we know this is true because students would not pay for the class if they did not plan on doing

well. The only reason a person would have to take the class to begin with is if they have the

intention to graduate. Therefore, making that another common public goal.

A discourse community has many ways of communicating. According to Swales, the

ways of communication will vary based on the community. Although the people of the

community may not interact, they may still use the same terminology in conversation. (p. 221)

In this specific discourse community, a system called BlackBoard is used in order to turn in

assignments. In these assignments, the professor is able to review and grade the student's

assignments. E-mail is also used in groups so that they can have a conversation with group

members and leaders. The last example would be casual face to face conversation in the

community.

A discourse community will always provide information and feedback. According to

Swales (2017), the people of the discourse community must be included in the chain of

communication (p. 222). Through this communication, there should be a way of feedback. In

RWS 1301, this is shown through face to face interactions such as asking the professor questions

in class. Another face to face interaction would be the groups of students communicating in order

to finish a group assignment. There are also examples of online feedback in the form of
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 6

reflections on BlackBoard. Each student is required to reply to two of their classmates'

reflections and give feedback.

Within a discourse community, they have multiple genres. According to Swales (2017),

genres is how things get one when English is used to do them (p. 221). In RWS 1301, there are

multiple genres used such as composition notebooks for note taking. There are also multiple

textbooks used for the class, one being Writing About Writing written by Elizabeth Wardle and

Doug Downs. After finishing a read, the students are required to write a reflection based on the

reading and turn it in to their professor on a website called BlackBoard.

In every discourse community, there is a specific vocabulary used whether it is realized

or not (p. 222). According to Swales, although the people involved in the community may not

interact face to face, they are using the same vocabulary within their conversations. For example,

in RWS 1301, constraints are limitations for assignments that every student must follow in order

for it to positively affect their grade. Rhetoric is use of persuasive writing, especially with the use

of figures of speech. Collaboration is another term often used in RWS. In order to write a great

essay, it is important to have peers review it.

In every discourse community, there must be a certain level of expertise. According to

Swales (p. 222), there must always be a novice level and an expert level. In RWS 1301, the

novice level would be the incoming freshmen students every year. After a few years, these

students graduate and would potentially become the professors themselves. After many more

years with more knowledge, these professors would become the dean at the university. However,

without the dean, there would be no professors. Without professors, there would be no one

teaching the students. The entire community is built on this set system of expertise.
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 7

While reading each piece of literature, there are common pieces of evidence as to what

the definition of a discourse community is. The main basis would be the Swales article and his

six characteristics previously listed. The inclusion of common public goals, communicating,

receiving information and feedback, different genres, a specific vocabulary, and levels of

expertise. These six characteristics are the strong base of a discourse community. Sometimes, the

people in a discourse community would never even realize it but regardless as to whether they

identify as one or not, they will always be.

Conclusion

The RWS 1301 class is indeed a discourse community, as defined by Swales’s

characteristics. It is much different from speech communities, especially because common public

goals are such a significant part of a discourse communities. This gives the possibility of

researching other groups and their contributions to society. Swale’s characteristics can be a

valuable tool for examining how communication works within groups.

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 8

References

Kain, D., & Wardle, E. (2017). Activity Theory:An Introduction For the Writing Classroom. pp.

395-406.

Porter, J.E., “Intertextuality and the discourse community.” Writing about writing, vol. 3, 2017,

pp. 542-558.

Swales, J., (2017). The concept of discourse community. pp. 215-228