Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

Discourse Community-Ethnography

Lianna Onate

The University of Texas at El Paso

RWS 1301

Dr. Vierra

September 27, 2018

Abstract

This paper has no abstract

Discourse Community Ethnography

According to Swales, there is no correct or agreeable definition of a “Discourse

Community.” Swales states from his point of view that the definition of a discourse community

is a group of people who share common goals. As stated by Swales, a discourse community

consists of six characteristics, a common set of goals, intercommunication among members,

information and feedback, one or more genres, specific lexis, and having a threshold level of

members with a suitable degree of relevant content. The RWS 1301 class here at the University

of Texas at El Paso has all of these six characteristics, which makes this classroom a discourse

community.

Literature Review

According to Swales (1990), a discourse community is defined by having a broadly

agreed set of common goals, mechanisms of intercommunication among its members, its

participatory mechanisms to provide information and feedback, utilization and hence possesses

in one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims, having acquired some

specific lexis, and having a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant

content. An example given is an organization called the “Hong Kong Study Circle”, their goals

are to foster interest and recognize the stamps of Hong Kong and their uses. Swales says there’s

many reasons to why he says they cannot combine both speech community and discourse

community. A speech community according to Swales has been defined as a community that

shares knowledge of rules for conduct and interpretation of speech. Swales states that “Speech”

is not the right way of describing the different communities that are in writing because Swales

says they should be separated in order to tell the difference between a sociolinguistic group and a
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 4

sociorhetorical one. Another thing about speech communities is that they are centripetal and

discourse communities are centrifugal.

As Swales (1990) mentioned, speech would not be the right way of explaining different

communities, because each community is made up of and carries their own kind of

characteristics. Erik Borg (2003) used many resources and also put his input as well to make a

better claim. According to Borg, a discourse community develops from the concepts of speech

community and interpretive community and lies in between the both of them. While comparing

speech community with discourse community, Borg says that a membership of it is mostly a

matter of choice. The discussions in a discourse community are focused on the use and analysis

of written communication. Borg says that some people often question if the definition of a

discourse community is a group of people with common goals. An example that was given in the

article was a family or the alumni body of a university, because although in a university they all

have a common goal, which is to graduate they are still different in a way because they don’t all

want the same career or future.

As said by Borg (2003), in a discourse community people share common goals, buet even

though a common goal is shared between a group of people, they are in a way different from one

another. According to Porter (2017), the principle explored is intertextuality, idea that all texts

contain “traces” of other texts and that there cannot be text that reflect others (Porter,2017, p.

543-545). He says that his aim is to demonstrate the significance of this theory to rhetoric by

explaining intertextuality and its connection to the notion of discourse community and its

implications for composition (p. 545). According to what Porter says later on is that a “discourse

community is a group of individuals bound by a common interest who communicate through

approved channels and whose discourse it regulated.”(Porter, 2017, p.548). Another thing he
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 5

states is that an individual doesn’t just belong to one group of people, but may also belong to

several groups such as professional, public, or personal kinds of discourse communities. The

things Porter explained in the book were kind of similar to what Swales said. One of the ways

they were similar was that a discourse community is defined as a group of people that share

common goals.

Porter (2017) explains, that a group of people share a common goal and even though they

are somewhat still different, in order to achieve their goal a discourse community still uses

multiple common in order to achieve them. According to Wardle and Kain (2003), the activity

theory was a helpful lens for thinking about writing, but without an answer for activity theory

that was acceptable for undergraduates. It helped analyze how texts, language and discourse help

mediate the activities and meaning that groups try to create together. The lens of this theory was

used to look at groups of people doing work together, called activity systems, and also consider

not only their common motives but also how to achieve them. They go on to explain their theory

and how it works. They state that us as a society recognize different activities by knowledge,

tools, and tasks that people use to reach a certain outcome and an activity theory gives us an

understanding of how people carry out their activities. The way Wardle and Kain show us how

this system works is by illustrating a triangle in the book giving us the different

sections/characteristics in the theory. According to Donna and Elizabeth, stated in their chapter

(p.405), the main goal is to have a better understanding not only of what particular tools look

like, but also know the five w’s.

Methods

One of the methods used was interviews. The people that were interviewed were Swales,

Porter, Kain and Wardle, and Erik Borg. While reading articles by all of these authors and their
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 6

point of view on a “Discourse Community,” the students were able to make a reflection on each

of them. After being able to get information from each of these authors, it helped, in a way where

it backed up and proved that the RWS 1301 class at the University of Texas at El Paso is a

discourse community. This method was probably one of the most helpful methods used while

researching about discourse communities because not only were we able to just get information

or facts from just one reliable resource but multiple and because of that also prove the main

claim.

Surveys was another method the students used while writing their discourse community

ethnography. One survey was when the professor gave the students the assignment to do a

scavenger hunt. This was a helpful method because during their scavenger hunt they were able to

find examples of how their RWS 1301 class at their university is a discourse community. By

doing this students were able to contain data and proof, in order to back up their claim on

discourse communities. This helped students know that for sure that their class was considered to

be a discourse community because they were able to compare the characteristics with the daily

things students do during class and receive evidence.

Another method used was observations. The observations made during classes were

helpful while trying to figure out how the RWS 1301 class was a discourse community. Before

reading and learning about discourse communities as a student would’ve never imagined that just

by observing the class would show that this classroom was a discourse community. After reading

and learning about discourse communities and comparing it to the classroom it was certain that

there were many ways that made the RWS 1301 class fit into a discourse community.

Discussion
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 7

The RWS 1301 class demonstrates common public goals. According to Swales, a

common public goal is a group of people that share the same goal (Swales, 1990, p.220). The

RWS 1301 class shares many common goals, one being that we all want to pass this class, but

along with that students also want to be able to better their writing, learn more about writing,

learn how to write a research paper, and also be able to get dependable resources. As a class,

students push to become better writers, so in the end they can be able to write and impress others

by not only what they can do, but also by what they are capable of writing, for example a resume

for a job they want to apply for a lot of managers or businesses look into a persons resume and

try to see who stands out from the others. Another example was when students had their very

first class the professor asked the whole class what their main goal or goals for that class were

and students said that their goal was to pass the class, not only that, but also be able to better

their writing and, because of that it showed that as a class the students shared common goals.

Intercommunication is something students in the RWS class use practically daily at

UTEP. According to Swales, a discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication

that is used within their members which is a form of communication between two or more

people. As a class intercommunication is used by reading classmates reflections on readings they

previously had, as well as the examples given by their professor. By meeting with the professor

during his business hours about any questions students may have on assignments or their grades

shows another form of intercommunication. Not only do students meet with the professor but

also the writing center in regards of any assignments students may want help looking over. When

he put us into groups to research a topic, it showed an example of intercommunication because in

order to exchange or inform with their group mates about the information they had discovered,
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 8

they had to be able to interact with their group mates and exchange each others contact

information in order to be able to move forward on their paper.

Info and feedback takes a major part in the RWS 1301 class. Swales states that info and

feedback is a source or someone who helps give you feedback or information on something you

are having issues with (Swales, 1990, p.221). Information and feedback is also something used to

improve certain goals, for instance an example given by Swales was to improve performance in a

football team. The RWS 1301 class has many sources that provide information and feedback,

from blackboard to students UTEP emails to being able to contact other classmates and their

professor with questions as well. Being able to contact other students and the professor is

something that is used a lot in the class, it helps students ask questions about any confusion they

may have had in class and allows classmates and the professor clarify any confusion the students

might have had. When the professor provided students with his contact information it was an

example of info and feedback because students were able to contact him for any information they

needed and any feedback on their assignments. Another example of this characteristic would be

OneDrive, it is something students use in class before turning in their final draft, on OneDrive

the professor is allowed to leave comments that will help students better their paper.

The RWS 1301 class itself is considered a “Genre”. According to Swales, a discourse

community must contain one or more genres, which are types of texts that are noticeable to not

only the writers but also the readers. (Swales, 1990, p.216). A genre is what is considered to be

what gets things done when language is being used in order to achieve them. The genre in this

classroom is considered to be is “writing.” Students focus on how to better their writing and also

learn the correct format and correct sources to use that are reliable. Every class that students have

is to help them improve on their mistakes and help them later on when they need to make a good
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 9

first impression. An example was when the professor explained to the class the purpose of the

class because it was considered the “genre” of the RWS 1301 class.

One thing used a lot in the RWS class at UTEP is specific lexis. According to Swales, a

discourse community uses specific lexis, which is lexical items that are known to be wider

speech communities in technical ways, like using high technical terminology, in other words

high vocabulary. (Swales, 1990, p.222). In the classroom students use academic English or what

is known to be “professional language”. Every time students write a reflection, bibliography, or

an essay they use academic English in order to sound or make a “professional” impression, the

reason why students use this specific lexis is because if they were to use the kind of vocabulary

they use while texting or talking to others outside of this class it would not sound professional.

When our professor encouraged us to use academic English, it was an example of him teaching

us how to use specific lexis.

Hierarchy is something that is displayed in the RWS 1301 class. According to Swales, it

is where a person or group who is powerful is at the top of the pyramid and the rest are below

them, doing things in order to become as powerful as the people at the top of the pyramid

(p.222). An example of hierarchy that is shown in this classroom is the professor and us as

students. The professor is at the top of the pyramid and as students they are at the bottom

working up to the top to become like the professor. Another example shown in this classroom

was when the professor gave the students lectures on topics, this showed hierarchy because he is

the one in power while the students are the ones in learning.

Conclusion
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 10

A discourse community is a group of people that share the same common goals. A shared

common goal according to Swales is a group of people who are aiming for the same thing for

example freshman in college are aiming to get their bachelors. Intercommunication is what a

discourse community uses in order to have a two-way communication. Another characteristic

that makes up a discourse community is info and feedback, which according to Swales is where a

group can exchange or receive any information or feedback. The RWS 1301 class at the

University of Texas at El Paso is considered to be a discourse community according to the six

characteristics stated by Swales. This class represents shared common goals, info and feedback,

genre, specific lexis, hierarchy and intercommunication. Because students are able to prove that

their RWS 1301 class shows all of these characteristics makes it a discourse community.
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 11

References

Porter, James E. (1986). “Intersexuality and the Discourse Community.”

Borg, Erik. (1 October 2003). Discourse Community, ELT Journal. vol 57. Retrieved from

https://dori.org/10.10;93/elt/57.4.398

Swales, John. (1990). Boston:Cambridge. (p.21-32).The Concept of Discourse Community. In

“Writing about writing”

Wardle, E.(2017). Boston,MA. Bedford/St.Martin’s. Writing about writing: A college reader.