Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

Discourse Community Ethnography

Leslye Rodriguez-Munoz

The University of Texas at El Paso

RWS 1301

Dr. Vierra

February 26, 2019

Abstract

Discourse Community is a group of people that are able to communicate with each other

efficiently and share common objectives. To be considered a discourse community, it must apply

the six characteristics according to John Swales (1990). The six characteristics to be consider a

discourse community will be evaluated and explained as to prove that the Rhetoric and

Composition I course is considered a discourse community.

Discourse Community Ethnography

Understanding discourse communities is a labyrinth. People gets lost in the process of

finding the right path, but at the end you will find the exist; you may get lost in the process to

understand a discourse community, but at the end you will successfully understand what a

discourse community is. Some students do not clearly understand what a discourse community is

or what is the purpose discourse community is tough in this class. Swales’s knowledge,

determined this class is a discourse community and it may be used in other classrooms as well.

Literature Review

A discourse community shows how people use text and language to accomplish work

together. According to Swales (1990), a group of people interact with each other developing

common goals using communication skills to demonstrate a discourse community (p. 215). Six

characteristics, which play an important role in texts and language, are analyzed and exhibited to

demonstrate how a group of individuals build a discourse community (p. 216). These six

characteristics are used by the people in their texts and language which will successfully provide

help to accomplish work together (p. 215). The characteristics of discourse community includes

common public goals (p. 220), mechanisms of intercommunication (p. 221), participatory

mechanisms (p. 221), genres (p. 221), specialized vocabulary (lexis) (p. 222), and hierarchy (p.

222). Based on the evidence, characteristics of discourse community play an important role in

texts and languages that will lead to a discourse community

Different researchers provided different sights of definitions with a variety of examples

explaining and identifying the six different characteristics that develop a community discourse.

Johns (2017) acknowledged that a student goal in a University writing class will be to clarify and

improve the use of writing in a variety of texts, goal in which among the other classmates will be
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 4

commonly settled (p. 330). Shared tools provide different use involving language and

communication between one another (p. 322). Participatory mechanism in each group is essential

to provide and receive feedback between each other (p. 321). Genres and lexis enable individuals

in the groups to maintain their goals and therefore communicate efficiently (p. 321). A level

between members will share a degree of “relevant” content (p. 321). Johns evaluated the six

characteristics in a way that will demonstrated how a discourse community is developed

focusing in text and language accomplishing work between individuals.

Activity theory will shape interactions between individuals developing a community

discourse. Kain and Wardle (2005), believe an activity theory is an activity system that will help

individuals in a group share common motives over time and a wide range of tools that together

will help act on those motives (p. 275). According to Kain and Wardle, the use of tools and

language may be options that will help individuals learn, work, and communicate with one

another in such a way will aid people to achieve particular goals (p. 275). An activity theory

demonstrates interaction with each other in a successful way that will develop a community

discourse. However, instead of calling them characteristics in a community discourse, both

authors, Kain and Wardle define them in a specific way such as “activity system” in an “Activity

theory”.

In the knowledge of another author, a discourse community must meet the six

characteristics. Swales (1990), defines discourse community as the nature of language in a group

of people containing the use of the six characteristics in order to be considered a “discourse

community”. A discourse community consist of setting common goals between the individuals in

the group (p. 220). In addition to sharing common goals, a discourse community has a

mechanism of communication between the individuals in the group (p. 221). Members
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 5

participate providing information and feedback between each other in the group (p. 221), using

genres since is a recognizable textual tool used by individuals that may be helpful to achieve

desired goals (p. 216). The use of specialized vocabulary establishes professionalism and a

“well-established English-speaking” words communicated among individuals in groups (p. 222).

Using specialized vocabulary may show how expert you are in the theme and that will set levels

among the individuals classifying members as “experts” or “novices” (p. 222). Therefore, Swales

acknowledge based on a discourse community definition, that it must contain all six

characteristics in the group in order to be consider a discourse community.

Methods

This class is a discourse community. To be able to determine if this class was a discourse

community or not, the class navigated through methods. The methods consisted on interviewing

and observations. Being part from our assignments outside of class, we were required to read

articles in order to complete them. We used a variety of articles from different authors that

provided examples and definitions into the discourse community concept. The other method used

in this class was observation which consisted in searching for primary resources in the classroom

among the instructors and members. The methods realized in this classroom successfully

demonstrated this classroom is considered a discourse community.

Discussion

Common Goals

Between the members in our classroom we shared common goals. According to Swales,

one of the characteristics of a discourse community is the share of common goals among

members (p. 220). In this particular classroom, which is RWS 1301, students definitely share

common goals. Each student in this classroom has a purpose or a reason why they are enrolled in
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 6

this classroom. The most common goal between the students is being able to pass the class. In

fact, students form part of this class since it may be a required course to receive credits in order

to complete and earn a college degree, which graduating from college may be an important

shared goal among the students. Students may have a variety of different ways they might wish

to accomplish, however, the objective will be the same. Based on the evidence stating all

students in the RWS 1301 classroom wanted to pass the class to later graduate, sets a common

goal among members. Therefore, the first characteristics of a discourse community has been

applied and meet in this classroom.

Intercommunication

Among students and instructors, intercommunication was applied in this classroom.

Swales (1990), defined intercommunication as a participatory mechanism dealing with

communication (p. 221). This characteristic also applied successfully in this classroom. For

instance, the fact that several tools or electronic tool exists, makes the students to be able to

communicate between each other. This includes the use of email, phone messages, social media

messages and so forth. In addition, Blackboard has a tab specifically to communicate to the

supervisor in a more efficient way. Based on the evidence, it is able to determine that the class

meet the second characteristic of a discourse community.

Participatory Mechanism

This classroom utilized a participatory mechanism. According to Swales (1990), a

participatory mechanism is defined as the opportunity to provide information and feedback

between members (p. 221). Giving the information based on this subject, it can be specified that

getting involved in this class counts as participatory mechanism. Participating in this classroom

in such a way members participate by discussing, sharing, providing, debate, etcetera, will
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 7

improve the way we interact, the way we organize, it will even improve the way we write.

Characteristic number three now has been meet and therefore, it is to prove that this classroom is

a discourse community.

Genres

Genres are constantly present in this classroom. Swales (1990), acknowledged that genres

may be classified as textual tools and may be used in the path of accomplishing developing

“discoursal expectations” (p. 216). According to Martin (1985), genres is defined as “the way

things get done, when language is used to accomplish them” (p. 221). Genres are encountered in

any type of text and will be helpful to improve communication among others. Genres may be

found in a variety of texts such as articles similar to the ones that are provided by the instructor

as a required reading after class is over. In addition to the articles provided by the instructor,

there exist miner quest in the UTEP library and the two books that were required for the course.

With this resources students are able to communicate successfully by accomplishing work. One

more time, this class has achieved the fourth characteristic of a community discourse;

Specialized Vocabulary

In this classroom specialized vocabulary is used. According to Swales (1990), specialized

vocabulary is a “lexis” to expand the speech within the communities (p. 222). Some examples of

lexis may consist of abbreviations and acronyms. In this classroom the use of special vocabulary

is used to communicate between each other in an understandable form. For instance, classroom

writing assignments have been consisted in rhetorical and academic discourse such as logos,

pathos and ethos. The use of rhetorical appeals is an understandable way of speech among

members. The fifth characteristics has been achieved in this classroom and up to date, this class

is being in process of proving successfully that is a discourse community.

Hierarchy

Hierarchy is definite in the RWS 1301 class. According to Swales (1990), the last

characteristic of a discourse community is a “threshold level of members with a suitable degree

of relevant content” (p. 222). More than a level established between the instructor and the

students, there is another kind of division level. Some students are considered in a higher

position than the rest considering the amount of knowledge on the content. What that means, is

that some students have a better knowledge which positions those particular students in a higher

level than those who still considered confused. Swales (1990), describes the ratio between

“exerts” and “novices” (p. 222). The last characteristic has been achieved within this classroom.

With that being said, it is to evaluate and determine that RWS 1302 classroom is a community

discourse.

Conclusion

Swales’s knowledge, determined this class is a discourse community and it may be used

in other classrooms as well. After several observations and interviews, it is clear that the

Rhetoric and Composition I is efficiently a discourse community. John Swales and other authors

provided many clear examples and definitions were as to serve as evidence that RWS 1301 is a

discourse community. This course teaches and improves each student in a variety of way as to

accomplish the goal in this course. It was being said that a group had to meet all criteria and

characteristics in order to be considered a discourse community. Based on the evidence, this

class has successfully proved that is considered a discourse community in the path of improving

and proceeding in this course.

References

Johns, A. M. (1997). Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice: Membership,

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

Boston: Cambridge UP. (pp.51-70)

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

Wardle, and D. Down (Eds.), Writing about writing: A College Reader (3rd Edition ed.,

pp.273-283)

Martin, J. R. (1985). Process and text: Two aspects of human semiosis. In Benson and Greaves

(eds.): (248–74).

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

and Research Settings Boston: Cambridge UP. (pp. 21–32).