Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

Discourse Community Ethnography

Saul Retana

The University of Texas at El Paso

RWS 1301

Dr. Vierra

March 5, 2019
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 2

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to determine whether this 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 together as one to achieve common goals. The class of Rhetoric and Composition I is a

discourse community because it follows the characteristics described by Swales.

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 3

Discourse Community Ethnography

According to Swales (1990) A discourse community has a widely agreed lay down

structured rules that are often common public goals. Swales definition of a discourse community

is a community that is first clarified by goals then, thoughtfully as a team or genre of people

sharing knowledge and wisdom of rules for conduct and explanation of speech. The knowledge

of one or more forms of speech, and knowledge also of how it’s used. These characteristics of

discourse community come together in the RWS 1301 classroom where the public goal is to

graduate and have passing grades.

Literature Review

Discourse communities and speech communities have a vast amount of differences

between them. According to Swales (1990) A discourse community has a widely agreed lay

down structured rules that are often common public goals. These public goals are often described

in forms such as documents are very different and should not be categorized equally.

There is a hierarchy and competence in intertext and discourse. According to Porter

(1986) “the text is not an autonomous or unified object, but a set of relations with other texts. Its

system of language, its grammar, its lexicon, drag along numerous bits and pieces-traces-of

history” (p. 39). A singular person is not entitled to one singular job, public or personal

community of discourse and may and should belong to many. According to Swales 1990 “

Examples would include the community of engineers whose research area is fluid mechanics” (0.

41) Accordingly, there is power in the people.

People without knowing are taken into communities of discourse throughout their lifetime.
1
According to Johns (2017), “As students begin to engage with discipline, as they move from

exposure to experience, they begin to understand that the different communities on campus are
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 4

quite distinct, that apparently common terms have different meanings, apparently shared tools

have different uses, apparently related objects have different interpretations” (p. 321). When

children are born, they are often forced and taken into. “These first culture communities may be

religious, tribal, social, or economic” (p. 322). Accordingly, children are often forced and taken

into a different variety of discourse communities.

Methods

To be able to conclude if the class was a discourse community or not, we used certain

methods. We observed we used artifact observations as a primary research method, we looked

towards researching artifacts and how we could use them in our paper. We observed the use of

methods such as website sources such as google images to find images of discourse

communities. We also looked at papers such as swales in order to share the methods of common

public goals such as discourse community and defining it as well as how it relates to us.

Discussion

Common goals

This RWS class is a common example of a community of discourse since it uses a set of

common public goals. Such as higher education by the common people. 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 tactic” (p. 216). In the RWS 1301 classroom, there is a goal shared by

everyone. This goal is to graduate, and to learn how to write properly at a scholarly level.

Although students defer on their means, they all have the same game plan. This includes working

together on groups, essays and more writing such as expository reflections to become better

writers. According to Porter (1986) “An individual may belong to several professional, public, or
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 5

personal discourse communities” (p. 41). Which further affirms the characteristics presented by

Swales.

Inter Communication

We used inner communication in this class as we came together to discuss discourse.

According to Swales (1990) “A speech community is defined, then, tautologically but radically,

as a community sharing knowledge of rules for the conduct and interpretation of speech. Such

sharing compromises knowledge of at least one form of speech, and knowledge also of its pattern

of use” (p. 218). This characteristic is also true in our classroom, we all come together to interact

and exchange ideas when we come together for projects such as papers, we communicate usually

via classroom or email to exchange information in order for our common public goal which is to

graduate and become scholarly writers. These forms of communication serve as examples of

characteristics of discourse communities.

Genres

Genres are vital in this class and discourse because of their use of separation. According

to Swales (1990). “A speech community is defined, then, tautologically but radically, as a

community sharing knowledge of rules for the conduct and interpretation of speech” (p. 218).

Examples of genres in this community are such sources like the UTEP library, the FYC

Handbook and our notes in the class. This is important because genres enable us to be able to

identify different things from each other as well as find similar information in discourse.

Vocabulary

Our classroom uses a specific specialized vocabulary. According to Swales (1990),

“specialized vocabulary, or “specific lexis”, are precise words or discussions that the community
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 6

has, which not many other communities utilize” (p. 222). In our class vocabulary is implemented

in the writings that are assigned to us as well as how to adjust so it becomes scholarly.

Hierarchy

There is hierarchy. In this class as the older are perceived to be the wisest. According to

Swales (1990) “every discourse community must have a ladder system. This is where an

individual enters the group as an apprentice, and they start climbing up until they acquire full

mastery of the objective” (p. 222). Some hierarchy examples in our class are that information is

passed from professor to student, the wisest man is the professor in the certain subject and

knowledge is passed on to us and we then learn and create accordingly. One enters the class not

knowing anything about scholarly writing and day by day we keep improving and keep getting

better and better.

Mechanisms

This class uses a set of principles that are primal in human behavior such as higher

learning.Participatory mechanisms are ways to get feedback from others and build on your

knowledge. According to Swales (1990) “It used its participatory mechanisms primarily to

provide information and feedback” (p. 222). Clearly, participatory mechanisms have an

important role in discourse communities because it allows people to criticize their ideas to

improve their thoughts. Clearly, this is a very effective method for gaining knowledge. This can

be shown in many ways, for example group discussion is a very good example of participatory

mechanisms. Group discussions allow the group to build on your ideas and better your work.

These 2 images below are Artifacts of Group discussions and a one on one evaluation.

Conclusion
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 7

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 tactic” (p. 216). In class we all come

together as one when we have group projects and essays, we need to work on together. We all

have the common purpose in the classroom which is to graduate and to learn how to write

scholarly, the common public goal that we all share is important to have because we could after

benefit society and others with what we have learned. According to Swales (1990) A speech

community is defined, then, tautologically but radically. It is important to keep good grades

because the scholarly community associates itself with having good members of society. As

shown by the evidence discourse communities would not succeed in the same way if these

characteristics seized to exist.

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 8

References

Johns, A. (2017) Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice: Membership, Conflict,

and Diversity." Text, Role, and Context: Developing Academic Literacies, Cambridge

UP, 1997, pp. 51-70. Retrieved from https://blackboardlearn.utep.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-

2526342-dt-content-rid-

77754736_1/courses/25463.201920/Johns%202017%20Discourse%20Communities.pdf

Porter, J (1986). Intertextuality and the Discourse Community. Rhetoric Review Rhetoric

Review. Vol. 5, No. 1 (Autumn, 1986), pp. 34-47. Retrieved from https://0-www-jstor-

org.lib.utep.edu/stable/466015?seq=6#page_thumbnails_tab_contents

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

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

https://blackboardlearn.utep.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-2464725-dt-content-rid-

76697488_1/courses/25463.201920/24108.201920_ImportedContent_20190120070421/S

wales%201990%20Concept%20of%20a%20Discourse%20Community.pdf
Comment Summary
Page 3
1. Paraphrase quotes