Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

Discourse Community Ethnography

Roosa Yloenen

The University of Texas at El Paso

RWS 1301

Dr. Vierra

February 25, 2019

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 2

Abstract

The purpose of the paper is to determine if the class RWS 1301 is a discourse community.

Swales (1990) defines a discourse community through six fundamental criteria: the community

exhibits common public goals, it has mechanisms of intercommunication, it takes advantage of

participatory mechanisms, it possesses genres, features specialized language and has a threshold of

experts in its hierarchy. The purpose behind all these functions is to help the newcomers of the

discourse community to reach the common goal – which in this case is graduation. The class meets

all of the criteria mentioned above, and for this reason, it can be concluded that the class does

represent a discourse community as defined by Swales.

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 3

Discourse Community Ethnography

What purpose does an academic discourse community serve? Are they only to bother

students with demanding tasks, difficult lexis and restricting genres? While focusing on the

academic discourse community of the class RWS 1301, in this paper we’re looking at the different

characteristics that make a discourse community, as well as the support it gives out to its members.

A discourse community can be defined with six characteristics, according to Swales (1990).

He argues that a discourse community must feature ways of communication, different genres,

specific lexis, participatory mechanisms and a threshold of members with expertise (p. 220–222).

They all work towards the sixth characteristic, common goal, which is graduating from the

university. Emails, office hours, acronyms and the presence of an expert – Dr. Vierra – are all

examples of the ways that pave the students’ way to graduation. They demand active participation

from all partakers, but the outcome is much more rewarding than the effort required. Those who

master the demands graduate from the university and eventually become contributable members of

the society. Because the class fits perfectly into all of the characteristics, it can be concluded that

the class is a discourse community as defined by Swales.

Literature Review

Swales (1990) breaks down the characteristics of a discourse community into six categories.

The first characteristic is having sets of commonly agreed, public goals (p. 220). Arguably the

majority of the students attending this rhetorical writing class are determined to at least do the bare

minimum and pass the class, and most have a long-term goal of graduating. Another point of his is

that they have ways of intercommunication (p. 221). In this class the professor Dr. Vierra

communicates with the whole group via email. Third characteristic presented is the usage of

“participatory mechanisms to provide info and feedback” (p. 221), which in this case would be

discussion groups in classes and the professor’s office hours. Swales’ fourth characteristic is the

utilization of genres to further communication (p. 221). The class uses slideshows, emails and
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 4

skeletal outlines to improve intercommunication with the professor and his thoughts. The author

also points out that discourse communities feature “specific lexis” (p. 222), specialized language

that the whole community understands. In the class also uses acronyms such as UTEP and ER and

words like rubric and Blackboard that don’t mean much to those outside the group. The sixth and

final characteristic Swales presents is how a discourse community has “members with a suitable

degree of – – expertise” (p. 222). The RWS class has exactly one expert, the professor, and twenty-

something rookies with high hopes and next to zero knowledge. The class fills out each of the six

characteristics, thus making it a discourse community.

Along with the characteristics mentioned above, intertextuality has a highly important role

in a discourse community. According to Porter (1986), the presence of intertextuality makes the

writer “a participant in a community of discourse that creates its own collective meaning” (p. 35).

As mentioned before, Swales (1990) states that a discourse community must have “specific lexis”

(p. 222). This can mean for instance the use of acronyms or specialized vocabulary. Therefore,

intertextuality also falls under that same category, making it a central piece of a discourse

community.

Some discourse communities are easy to breach, some demand more from their newcomers,

especially the academic discourse community. According to Johns (2017), those interested in

joining it must “modify their language – – [and] drop their affiliations to their home cultures” (p.

333) in order to fit the demands of the new community. This can lead to students having to make

uncomfortable and even selfish decisions between their aspirations and personal factors. This can

also be found in the RWS 1301 class: students must for instance learn to use the APA format, use

appropriate academic language and to follow the guidelines given for the assignments. Students are

required to bend under the academic community’s will if they want to stay, otherwise they’ll only

break – or in this case – drop out of school and never graduate.

Methods
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 5

To find out if the class RWS 1301 fills the requirements of a discourse community the

research included interviewing sources. The research also used observations to collect artifacts.

These artifacts serve as evidence to support claims. The research involved the usage of both

primary and secondary sources. The observations were taken from the RWS 1301 class on February

27, 2019 when the professor and the majority of the students were present.

Discussion

Common Goals

The class RWS1301 exhibits common public goals. The goals for the class are to graduate,

to gain new knowledge and to learn to take advantage of the newly-adopted techniques. They are all

public goals which anyone outside the community can learn without much effort. They are not

written down in any rules or guides, nor has anyone signed an agreement to reach the goals, but

they are what all members in the class desire and work for. Having sets of common goals is one

characteristic Swales points out (1990, p. 220). Porter (1986) backs this up by defining a discourse

community as ”a group of individuals bound by a common interest” (p. 39), which in this case is

the desire to graduate. The remaining five characteristics Porter defines all work towards the

common goal.

Mechanisms

The class uses a broad variety of mechanisms. Swales’ third characteristic of a discourse

community states that they feature multiple ways for the members to communicate with one another

(1990, p. 221). Mechanisms used in the class are for instance email, Blackboard and office hours.

They make all communication instant and practically effortless. The students can use this for

instance to discuss about their assignment with their assigned team members or to ask the professor

to clarify any uncertainties or answer any questions they might have. Flowerdew (2012) notes how

students’ participation is vital, because “learners are acquiring the knowledge through their

involvement with it. – – [knowledge] is only valid when activated within the discourse community”
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 6

(p. 131). Mechanisms therefore not only play a great role in making the intercommunication easier,

but also enhancing the rookies’ learning process, which helps them reach their common goal.

Purpose of the Mechanisms

As stated in the previous paragraph, the purpose of using these mechanisms used is to

enhance intercommunication. Swales (1990) states that the purposes differ according to the

common goals (p. 221). Borg (2003) points out how mechanisms are significant to discourse

communities, because they touch on “how novice members are initiated to the expectations of the

community” (p. 399). In this class, the mechanisms help students improve their performance,

enhance learning and eventually help them reach the common goals of graduating and passing the

class. In order for them to work, both the professor and the student must have active participation.

Genres

The class uses academic and scholarly genres to present new knowledge to the academic audience.

According to Swales (1990), discourse communities improve their intercommunication by utilizing

and possessing genres (p. 221). In the class the professor uses slideshows, emails and skeletal

outlines to enhance intercommunication. The students are required to use APA format at all times.

Porter (1986) points out that ”a text is ’acceptable’ within a forum only insofar as it reflects the

community episteme” (p. 39). By using the unified APA format, the students are proving

themselves to be a part of the academic discourse community. Being able to master the genres

required is essential, if the student is willing to graduate.

Specialized language

The class uses highly specialized language that the members of the community understand. The

class uses acronyms such as UTEP and ER and words like rubric and Blackboard that are

completely meaningless to those outside the group. Swales (1990) implies that using these lexical

items is vital when it comes to communicating “on topics relevant to the goals of the community”

(p. 222). Flowerdew (2012) points out how “acceptance by the disciplinary community are thus
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 7

dependent upon the learning of the beliefs, values, and conventions that characterise that

community” (p. 130). Students must adapt to the formal style and specialized language the

academic discourse community requires, so that they could maintain their position inside the

community.

Hierarchy

The RWS class is a very hierarchical one. Swales (1990) states how a discourse community

has a threshold of members with expertise (p. 222). The professor, Dr. P.J. Vierra, is the solitary

expert on top of the hierarchy. The rest of the class consists of twenty-something newcomers. Dr.

Vierra’s duty is to educate the newcomers and help them adjust to the new discourse community’s

goals and demands. In a particular discourse community like this there is usually only one expert,

while the rest of the community consists of novices, twenty of them in this case. The novices’

amount can vary from only one to hundreds or even thousands. Their responsibility is to absorb all

knowledge the professor gives. Porter (1986) notes how discourse communities feature sets of rules

that members are obliged to obey (p. 39). The students are paying for their membership in the class,

so they must come to meet the high demands of it.

Conclusion

The class Rhetoric and Composition 1 is a discourse community as described by Swales,

because it fits all the six requirements. It requires its members to fit the demands of the academic

discourse community. By adjusting to the requirements, the members – students in this case –

eventually become contributable members of the society, who pay taxes and keep the country up,

hence making an enormous benefit to the society as well. Although the demands: adapting to

different academic styles, having to communicate with the professor, having to write of topics never

heard before can be exhaustive, the effort put in will be rewarded in the end.
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 8

References

Borg, E. (2003). Discourse community. ELT Journal, Volume 57, Issue 4. 398-400. Oxford,

England, UK: Oxford University Press

Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the nonnative-

english-speaking scholar. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 127-150. doi:10.2307/3588099

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

and Diversity. Text, role and context: Developing academic literacies. Boston MA:

Cambridge UP

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

Research Settings. Boston, MA: Cambridge UP.

CBFA 3/9/19 +2