Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

Discourse Community Ethnography

Jake Kopinski

The University of Texas at El Paso

RWS 1301

Dr. Vierra

September 27, 2018

Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

Abstract

This paper has no abstract

Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

Discourse Community Ethnography

A discourse community occurs when people come together to attain a specific goal or set

of goals. These goals are achieved through communication within the community. A discourse

community communicates in a specific language understood by all members. These different

ranking members of the community spread knowledge to each other through genres that are

available to everyone considered to belong to the discourse community.

Methods

The methods of research used for this paper were interviewing, surveying, and

observations. Through an interview, or conversation, with the source: quotations and information

were used to support the claims made in this paper. Surveying was used to gather artifacts. These

artifacts gathered from the RWS 1301 classroom are evidence to prove that it is a discourse

community. The last method used is observation. By relating the definition to other familiar

examples of discourse communities the topic is then understood on a deeper level.

Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

Literature Review

According to Porter (2017) “all texts are interdependent; we understand a text only

insofar as we understand its precursors” (p. 34). What Porter is getting at is the idea of

intertextuality. Intertextuality is the idea that no piece of text is original, you can always trace it

back to something in a discourse community. Porter then uses perhaps the most well-known text

in American history, The Declaration of Independence, to prove his point. Most people believe

Thomas Jefferson to be the leading author of the text but in reality, almost everything in the

document is borrowed from the discourse. With Jefferson taking every day sayings from the

time, ideas from earlier legislation, and philosophers; he was able to compose the text. Which

leaves the originality of the document up for debate.

After a brief amount of research, I discovered an article dealing with the qualifications

for a discourse community. Mostly everything that is said in the article matches the

characteristics of Swale’s discourse community. According to Moon (1995), “a society whose

institutions and practices were governed by valid norms would instantiate the ideal of a moral

community”. This matches Swales characterization of common public goals. What the author is

saying is that if everyone in the community lives by a moral code, then the community would be

moral as a whole. Another characteristic of Swales that relates to the topic is information and

feedback. Without the communities input there would be no way to determine what is socially

moral in the context of a discourse community.

Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

Discussion

The exact definition of what a discourse community is, is highly debated. Many different

members of the academic community have attempted to define this term with little to no luck. I

believe the best interoperation of the term comes from John Swales. Throughout this paper I will

highlight the components of Swales definitions and relate that to the RWS 1301 class to further

prove that the class is a discourse community. I will also use components from other authors to

help further define Swales claim.

A common public goal of Rhetoric and Writing Studies 1301 is to become a better

writer. Swales says that all the members in a discourse community are working together to

achieve the same goals. With RWS 1301 being a required class for all students attending the

University of Texas at El Paso; rhetoric is an important topic that needs to be studied, learned,

and practiced. As mentioned in the syllabus, this class is designed to prepare students for writing

that will be done in their academics, personal, and professional careers. The goal of becoming a

better writer is achieved through revision. Students are normally asked to compose two

reflections a week and these reflections can be revised or re-written for full credit at any time in

the semester. An artifact found to support the idea of common public goals would be a diploma.

This diploma represents graduating university and overall further self-knowledge.

Members of RWS 1301 have the ability to be in constant contact with one another.

Swales mentions that “a discourse community has a mechanism of intercommunication among

its members” (p.221). This means that people belonging to the community have the ability to talk

amongst each other. A tool used for intercommunication in this course is a group email set up

between member of the discourse community. Through this group email, classmates have the

ability to stay connected and share ideas while away from the community. In theory, a member
Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

of the community could decide to not attend class or could have an excused absence and still be

able to receive all the essential materials that the professor provided in class. All of this possible

through intercommunication between members of the class, or as we call it, community.

To further knowledge, members of the community will share information and feedback

with one another. The OneDrive is the best tool used in this discourse community that matches

Swales definition for information and feedback. As stated in the third section of Swales

definition for a discourse community, “a discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms

primarily to provide information and feedback” (p.221). Every major assignment can be

submitted online to the OneDrive. In the OneDrive, a professor can give feedback and revision

recommendations in that moment. For this tool to be useful, a member of the community must

take advantage of it and submit work through it. If not used to its full potential a student can risk

failing and may no longer be recognized within the community.

Genres are used to pass along information, feedback, and knowledge in text throughout

the community. Be careful not to confuse it with the genre that is associated with different types

of books or movies. As Swales stated, “a discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one

or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims” (p.221). What he means is that

discourse communities have a medium to communicate knowledge to one another. To be

considered a discourse community these genres must be completed in an agreed upon language.

It is possible for a genre to belong to multiple different discourse communities. According to

James Porter (1986), for a text to be “acceptable”, “the manuscript must reveal certain

characteristics, have an ethos (in the broadest possible sense) conforming to the standards of the

discourse community” (p.549). Take the Declaration of Independence for example, it is common

knowledge that Thomas Jefferson is the main author of the document. But after further review,
Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

you can see that almost every idea is borrowed from a philosopher like John Locker or another

great thinker before his time. This idea is borrowed from Porter and is called intertextuality.

In the discourse community that is called RWS 1301, the members speak and

communicate with each other in academic English. Class room discussion and all assignments

should be done in this language to avoid confusion within the community. Swales says, “a

discourse community has acquired a specific lexis” (p.222). In this part of the definition, the term

“lexis” means a specific vocabulary. Without a specified vocabulary intercommunication is not

possible. Therefore, without a common language or way to communicate, a discourse

community could not exist. With having specialized vocabulary, it is possible for a member to

belong to multiple different communities. These members will speak and interact differently in

their separate communities’. For instance, the words people use in a classroom setting are

different than the way they would communicate in a locker room setting.

The last component of Swales definition is the presence of a hierarchy. In our class the

hierarchy that is present is the relationship of professor to student. As Swales published,

“discourse communities have changing memberships; individuals enter as apprentices and leave

by death or involuntary ways” (p.222). Swales also states that for a discourse community to last,

it must have “a reasonable ratio between novice and experts” (p.222). If our class had 200

students enrolled instead of about 40 students, I would not consider it a discourse community

because the ratio of pupil to teacher would be too large for a student to get the proper attention

needed to be a functioning member of the society. With that large of a population the professor

may feel overwhelmed and that could further hinder the learning development of the pupils. The

professor of the class is not the only expert in the community. He is merely the primary source
Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

for knowledge. Members who work in the library and student help centers could also be

considered experts in the community.

Conclusion

No matter where you look for a definitive definition of the term you will always come

across something similar: whether it be Discourse, or Donna Kain and Elizabeth Wardle theory

of the activity system, which they define as “a group of people who share a common object and

motive over time, as well as the wide range of tools they use together to act on that object and

realize that motive.” (p.398). Our class matches both descriptions, but Swales is preferred due to

the fact that it goes more in depth to mention other aspects and components of how the

community is defined. I hope by relating the term to a to a familiar example, the evidence of

artifacts in the community, and the conversations had with the sources you were able to

understand how RWS 1301 is a discourse community and what the qualifications are for a

discourse community.
Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

References

John Swales. (1990). The Concept of Discourse Community. Boston Cambridge. Genre

Analysis: English in Academic and Research Setting, pp.215-228.

Kain, D. Wardle, E. (2011). Activity Theory: An Introduction for the Writing

Community. Writing About Writing, vol.3, pp.395-395-406.

Moon, J. D. (1995). Practical Discourse and Communicative Ethics. In S. K. White (Ed.), The

Cambridge Companion to Habermas (pp. 143-164). Cambridge: Cambridge University

Press. doi:10.1017/CCOL052144120X.007

Porter, J. E. (Autumn 1986). Intertextuality and the Discourse Community. Rhetoric

Review.5(1), pp.34-47.