Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Final Discoursecommunity Coghill
Final Discoursecommunity Coghill
Garrett Coghill
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
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
Literature Review
Discourse communities are an integral part of rhetoric that require certain criteria.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
According to Swales (1990), participatory mechanisms are primary in providing information and
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
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
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
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