Running Head: Discourse Community Final 1
Running Head: Discourse Community Final 1
Joshua A Zamora
Introduction
between your conscious and your sub-conscious. No matter the case, discourse communities are
everywhere and in many ways, they make up the very framework that outlines human activity
they strive to accomplish a similar goal. Of course, this is a somewhat narrow view of what a
discourse community really is but this definition will suffice for the time being.
directly involved in one. The reason I have chosen this community over many others is because
Ive been a part of an athletic community ever since I was ten years old. I remember when I first
started playing sports like football, baseball, and swimming but basketball turned out to be the
most enjoyable sport to me. When I was on a basketball team my teammates and I all did drills
that helped us become better at specific areas of the game. Although they were hard, our overall
goal was to make the playoffs and eventually win the championship, so that meant we had to go
one hundred and ten percent at each practice. This eventually propelled us to the next level and
as a result, we won against many different schools from around the city. After every game,
whether it was a win or a loss, we all learned from our mistakes and even made friends from
opposing teams in the process. The satisfaction of downfall then triumph is one of the many
reasons why I have had a deep interest in this community, thus in my eyes makes it one of the
most thrilling and fun sports out there. Therefore, I will venture into my own basketball class to
Literature Review
What better way to describe what exactly a discourse community is than to show how
John Swales describes one in his book Genre Analysis. In the chapter Ill be analyzing, Swales
first examines how numerous instructors and researchers know there is a problem in defining a
discourse community. He answers by saying We need then to clarify, for procedural purposes,
better to offer a set of criteria sufficiently narrow that it will eliminate many of the marginal,
blurred and controversial contenders (Swales, 1990, p. 400). From here he goes on to state the
difference between speech communities and discourse communities then finally proceeds to
classify the six criteria that define a discourse community; A discourse community has a broadly
agreed set of common public goals, has mechanisms of intercommunication among its
members, uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback,
utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims,
has acquired some specific lexis, has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of
In contrast, Porter argues that a discourse community must have a much wider definition
in his book Intertextuality and the Discourse Community. He summarizes by saying, We are
free insofar as we do what we can to encounter and learn new codes, to intertwine codes in new
ways, and to expand our semiotic potential- with our goal being to effect change and establish
our identities within the discourse communities we choose to enter (Porter, 1986, p. 396). By
stating this porter is directly saying the opposite of Swales idea that discourse communities must
follow six criteria. Whereas Porter only gives one to two criteria. Overall, both authors
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY FINAL 4
thoroughly explain the concept of discourse communities but I believe Swales is on point with
his definition.
Methods
For my research, I explored the various aspects of my basketball class by doing several of
things. One of which was by attending the class myself which allowed me to have a front row
seat. I attended each class session for about two weeks to totally analyze the environment and the
relationships between each player and coach. Secondly, I interviewed my brother that is in the
class with me and I asked him questions about examples of jargon and different rules that they
follow from written rules to unconventional rules. Also, I played basketball myself which further
Discussion
To begin, the first criteria that John Swales discussed is the idea that a discourse
community must have an agreed set of common goals. For example, in my basketball class there
are only about twenty students but the atmosphere is competitive when it comes to playing on the
court. We try our hardest to not only individually show off our skills but to reach our overall
The second is whether the community has methods of intercommunication among its
members. Basically, my basketball class has a direct line of communication by chatting on the
The third is if the community has ways of providing information and feedback.
Throughout the class you are getting critiqued by either other players or the coach on what your
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY FINAL 5
game needs to be improved on. It can get critiqued by not being athletic enough to being to
hesitant but criticism is rather open and can be shared at any time.
The fourth is that the community must have one or more genres of communication. My
basketball class has verbal communication as well as hand signals. Whenever we want to be
discrete about certain plays we use hand signals so no one will know our specific meanings.
The fifth is that a specific lexis or language must be attained by the community.
Vocabulary thats is specialized to the point where only the community knows what they mean
when communicating to each other. In basketball these terms would be, alley oop, bounce pass,
yam, windmill, buzzer beater, fast break, elbow, wing, and arc, etc.
The sixth is that there must be a chain of expertise throughout the community meaning
that people must go in knowing basically nothing then come out knowing basically everything.
In basketball, this is the case because two students currently in my class are new to the sport but
like everything in life, with enough practice and critique you can become good.
Conclusion
Overall, discourse communities can be described differently from many different credible
authors but by far, John Swales has the most entertained definition. His definition of a discourse
community contains six key characteristics that my basketball class is a prime example of. Not
only my basketball class but there are discourse communities around every corner so its a
guarantee that everyone has been a part of one some point of their life. Knowing this makes you
just that more aware of how interactive our environment is. Discourse communities can even
interact and learn from one another so much so that they end up being involved in our everyday
lives.
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY FINAL 6
References
Porter, J. (1986). Intertextuality and the discourse community. In E. Wardle & D. Downs (Eds.),
Writing about writing: A college reader (p. 395-405). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins.
Swales, J. (1990). The concept of discourse community. In E. Wardle & D. Downs (Eds.),
Writing about writing: A college reader (p. 212-227). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins.