Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY 1

Discourse Community Ethnography

Llancy Aguilar

The University of Texas at El Paso

RWS 1301

Dr. Vierra

October 9, 2019
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY 2

Abstract
Is this class a discourse community as defined by Swales? With the purpose of

understanding discourse communities and be able to define and identified then, this question is

answered by defending each of the six key characteristics of discourse community. while relating

each one of the characteristics with the class, different authors are being added to the

conversation with the intention of evaluating and expanding on the definition for discourse

community and the different ways in which students can be associated with this.
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY 3

Discourse Community Ethnography

Observe the activities that take place within any classroom. Students write papers, do

research, meet frequently, have their own language, between other things. If these behaviors are

compared with the six characteristics of discourse communities defined by Swales, it might let

people wonder if the class qualifies as a discourse community, and if that is the case, how

students apply these six characteristics in the class. This paper is to discuss the different

characteristics of discourse community and the relation with the RWS class to know if this class

is a discourse community according to swales.

Literature Review
Discourse communities are defined by six characteristics. Swales (1990) acknowledge

that in order to decide if a group is a discourse community or not, is important to look for

common goals, intercommunication, participatory mechanisms and feedbacks, genres, specialize

language and hierarchy (p. 220). All these characteristics connect with each other and cannot

function without one another. If a community lack any of these properties then most likely it

isn’t a discourse community and instead might be a speech community. However, they differ in

that speech community is less excusive, have different mediums of communication, and have a

socialization approach (p. 220). This confirms that discourse communities are way different than

other groups due to the 6 defining factors given by Swales (1990).

All the characteristics for discourse communities relates to intertextuality, which is

crucial for these communities to achieve their goals. The base of intertextuality is the symbiotic

relation between discourse communities and the writers. During the writing process, Porter

(1986) observed, the author must gather key points and information from different sources in

order to obtain an impact on the audience (p. 34). However not all the information and resources

are appropriate for the paper, it all depends on the discourse community to which the writing is
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY 4

directed. Many people assume that the only audience’s purpose is to be influenced. Though, they

don’t realize that authors are affected by the discourse community as well. Porter acknowledged

that affective compositions are the ones that follows the outlines, language, topics and

appropriate rhetorical appeals stated by the discourse community (p. 43). This implies that when

researching for information and sources, as well as when writing the paper, discourse

communities should be considered because at the end this audience will decide if the

composition is appropriate and useful for their purposes.

Characteristics and rules may vary within discourse communities. Johns (2017) insisted

that there are general discourse communities which share the same values, goals, language and

communication. Thus, with in those communities there are specialize areas of interest (p. 325).

For instance, Johns mention that there are many areas within the academic discourse community

which called “discipline-specific faculties” and even though they share the general rules for

academic language, sometimes these rules might be broke or redefine within each discipline (p.

332). This evidence suggests that an individual may be identified with a discourse community.

However, this individual will be directly affiliate to the specialization they choose within that

community.

Methods
In order to acknowledge the class as a discourse community, it was necessary to observe,

the behavior and activities of the students, to later on compare them with swales’ definition of

discourse community. Guided by Swales, resources were selected and from there, discussions

between these sources were held, in which each one of them were question and authors were

interviewed in order to define each characteristic of discourse community. Though these

discussions, interviews and observations, it was possible to answer if the class is a discourse

community or not.
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY 5

Discussion
Common goals

This class shares common goals. According to Swales (1990), a common goal is

something that an individual or a group of individuals what to achieve (p. 220). In the RWS

class, students’ common goal is to pass the class. They do so by reading the material and writing

the Expository Reflection that the professor asks them to write. Borg (2003) question Swales’

belief by claiming that discourse communities does not necessarily have to share a common goal

(p. 399). To understand better what Borg is trying to say is necessary to bring Johns into the

discussion. According to Johns (2017) there are general discourse communities, in this case

could be an academic discourse community, and within it there are specialize, RWS class area of

interest is writing and composition (p. 325). Students within this class might share the same

language, values and ways of communication thus, a science class might have a different

language, values and ways of communication. There is no doubt that specialized areas of interest

share common goals and general or public discourse communities does as well is just harder to

notice them due to the division of specialize interest that exists within them.

Intercommunication

Intercommunication is held in every class. According to Swales (1990)

intercommunication is sending and receiving messages among members through different

methods of communication with the purpose of achieving their goals (p. 221). The students of

RWS communicate during lectures by having conversations and sharing ideas with each other,

the professor would send them emails letting them know about the progress of the class and

through blackboard students will write their beliefs. As an academic discourse community

communication take place through academic journals, monographs, anthologies and writings.

Porter (1986) refers to these methods as forums. Porter (1986) and Johns (2017) agree that these
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY 6

forums serve to be analyzed, produce discussions, controversies, and keep members in touch

(Porter, p. 39; Johns, p. 325). This evidence suggest that the students make use of forums to

achieve their common goal.

Feedback Mechanisms

All members provide feedbacks to whom may needs them. Even the professor is involved

in this characteristic. Swales (1990) defined feedback mechanisms as information exchange to

improve practices among members of a discourse community (p. 221). Swales (1990) argue that

if an individual does not make use of participatory mechanism to provide and receive feedback

then this individual cannot be considered part of the discourse community (p. 221). Students

should be active participants of discussions in blackboard in order to receive comments and

improve. Johns (2017) observed that students tend to be confused about genre, rules and values

of the discourse community due to lack of advice from professors (p. 336). For this reason, all

students are encouraged to ask questions to each other if they don’t understand something or

address their concerns with the professor during office hours, which are stablish as a

participatory mechanism to receive advises. All this proves that in order to be part of the

discourse community, and thus to accomplish common goals, students of the RWS class address

concerns and exchange criticisms and comments.

Genres

This class has genres. Swales (1990) defined genres as expectations made by the

audience about the discourse community (p. 222). Johns (2017) refers to genre as a

representation of the discourse community. in the class, style, language, values, and topics

addressed in the writings are part of the genre that students shared. Swales (1990) argue that

genres are useful for discourse communities to connect and meet objectives (p. 216). In order to
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY 7

connect with the desired audience, members must follow writing rules that would differ from

other discourse communities. Porter (1986) claim that genres are influenced by audience and the

author must comply with what the audience sets in order to connect (p. 43). students in this case

must follow writing rules set by the academic discourse community such as avoid first person

pronoun or make use of modals when presenting arguments or results, with the purpose of create

effective writings. This means that based on the genre, is influenced by the discourse community

and therefore genre represents it.

Specialize language

Members of the class use academic language to reach their goal. According to Swales

(1990) specialize language are lexical items use by members of a discourse community to

communicate to each other but are hard to understand for outsiders. Johns (2017) argue that even

though there are different specialized groups within the academic discourse community, it still

shared general style and language (p. 326). The specialized interest groups within the discourse

community have some variations in style, genre and language, a science class will use a technical

vocabulary related to the scientific discourse community. However, they still share some items

of academic language. Students in the RWS class share academic language and literary language.

This vocabulary is used in discussions, writings and any other way of communication that the

members of the discourse community have. Porter argued that authors are being influenced by

the discourse community they are targeting when writing a paper (p. 40). Therefore, these

authors must use the specialized language of the discourse community in order to produce an

impact on the audience and in this way achieve their goals. This evidence suggests that

identifying and using the right specialized language for the audience is crucial for the discourse

community to have credibility and communicate with each other to reach the common goal.
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY 8

Hierarchy

This class has a hierarchy. Swales (1990) defined hierarchy as levels of experience and

relevance that members of the community have (p. 222). Johns (2017) observed that the highest

level of the hierarchy in the academic discourse community are the authors of journals and

researches who through the credibility they possess, they impose values, language, and research

findings (p. 334). The professor would be above the students in the hierarchy and above the

professor would be the president of the university. According to Swales (1990) the survival of a

discourse community depends on hierarchy (p. 222). If members of the community do not evolve

their knowledge to replace the ones above them that leaves, either voluntarily or involuntarily,

then discourse communities would not be able to last much time. This is important because

hierarchies keep an order and extend the lifetime of discourse communities so this can evolve

and grow to reach their goal.

Analysis
During the discussions the authors question each other about the characteristics of

discourse communities. however, with their ideas these authors also complement the research

and help to make connections with the RWS class in addition to expand on the definition of

discourse community.

Conclusion
Students of the class are members of a discourse community according to swales’

definition. By sharing values, beliefs, languages, genres, participatory mechanisms and rules,

RWS students work to achieve their common objective, which is to graduate. Therefore, it can be

said that this class possess all the characteristics of a discourse community. it is just the matter of

observing the activities that take place in the class by the students and compared them with what

swales defines as discourse community.

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY 9

Reference
Borg, E. (2003). Discourse community. ELT Journal, 57, 4. Retrieved from

http://stabler3010.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/58120109/Borg%20Discourse%20Communi

ty.pdfJohns, A. M. (2017). Discourse communities and communities of practice. In E.

Wardle, & D. Doug (Eds.), Writing about writing (pp. 319-42). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.

Porter, J. E. (1986). Intertextuality and the discourse community. Rhetoric Review, 5(1), 34.

Retrieved from http://0-

search.ebscohost.com.lib.utep.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=edsjsr&AN=edsjsr.466015

&site=eds-live&scope=site

Swales, J. (2011). The concept of discourse communities. In E. A. Wardle, & D. Doug (Eds.),

Writing about writing: A college reader (pp. 466-480). Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY 10

Tables
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY 11

Figure