Running head: ANALYSIS OF THE 1301 RWS COURSE 1

Analysis of The 1301 RWS Course as a Discourse Community

Paola A. Ornelas

University of Texas at El Paso

Authors Note

Paola A. Ornelas, Business Major, University of Texas at El Paso

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Paola A.

Ornelas, Business Major, University of Texas at El Paso, TX 79968

Contact: paornelas3@miners.utep.edu
ANALYSIS OF THE 1301 RWS COURSE 2

Introduction

A discourse community is a human group that shares particular communicative

practices using particular texts and lexis to achieve a goal, among members that acquire a

specific role within the group. Through these practices and texts, the members of the

community share specific knowledge, cognitive skills and attitudes, exclusive to the group

that help the community to create an identity different from any other community. This paper

was written as an assignment required by Dr. Vierra. Only by questioning, true knowledge

can be achieved, therefore this paper will analyze several sources in regards to discourse

communities and writing process to achieve a conclusion. Such sources include a fragment of

Swales genre Analysis written in 1990. This paper will discuss several points that question

whether the 1301 RWS course is a discourse community or not.

Literature Review

According to Swales (1990) there are six defining characteristics that are sufficient

and necessary to identify a group as a discourse community. If the 1301 RWS course meets

each criteria, it can be considered a discourse community. Furthermore, Canagarajah (2002)

in his article Multilingual writer and the academic community: towards a critical

relationship discusses how the concept of discourse community merged the concepts of

speech and interpretative community, laying in between. The concept of discourse

community varies depending on the consulted source; therefore, the core source of this paper

will be Swales chapter analysis from his book Genre Analysis without discarding the

evidence provided by the additional sources.

The concept of discourse community can be useful in the study of writing for specific

purposes. The book Academic Writing for International Students of Business (Bailey,

2015) shows a description of the writing process considering a rhetoric situation within a

business context, which is perfect for my business major. Discourse communities might have
ANALYSIS OF THE 1301 RWS COURSE 3

common goals like learning the writing process, but not necessarily a shared object of study,

since the participants of this course are in different majors. Using these two sources, we can

see the concept of discourse community from another angle and follow along the

development of this paper.

The last consulted secondary source, was Communities of Practice and Social

Learning Systems: the Career of a Concept by Etienne Wenger. This source will help

support an alternative to the claim presented at the introduction of the paper. By questioning

the claim proposed at the beginning of the paper, a heuristical process to achieve to the

answer of whether the 1301 RWS course is in fact a discourse community or not. Wenger

defines the concept of community of practice and its applications in a social learning system.

The sources mentioned above will help the reader follow along a discovery journey that will

lead to the conclusion of this paper.

Methods

The writing process for this paper involved evidence extracted from different sources,

by following a method of research. The Academic Writing for International Students of

Business book was selected to accomplish an assignment asked by Dr. Vierra, professor of

the 1301 RWS course. This source involves concepts such as rhetoric, the writing process and

written models. Swales article introduced above was considered as a primary source for this

particular paper meeting the requirement from the courses professor; in addition to this

reason, this source was used is because it provides a concrete concept of discourse

community, as well as a criteria to follow. Finally, Canagarajahs and Wengers articles were

introduced to support the discovery process this paper will engage in. After revising each

source and methodology used in this writing process, the evidence to support and question

the claim of this paper will be presented.

Discussion
ANALYSIS OF THE 1301 RWS COURSE 4

A common public goal of the 1301 RWS course is to inspire others creative process

through the expression of each members ideas. By understanding rhetoric and using it to do

research, share knowledge and express ideas, the course members can be able to guide the

creative process of other people. The sources, genre, vocabulary and mechanisms of

communication used in this course can serve as examples and primary sources to upcoming

students. The expression of ideas can inspire peoples creative process in the form of oratory,

written research, journalism, and many other forms, ultimately collaborating in the

construction of a more informed, creative society.

The members of a discourse community share specific knowledge through a network

of media. In the 1301 RWS course, the communication inside and outside the classroom is

possible by using different verbal and non-verbal mechanisms. When the lecture takes place,

the professor teaches through speech, as well as using power point presentations and written

notes. During class, the courses members share with each other their ideas and opinions

through speech, reading and sharing their composition books, essays, or any other written

source. Outside the classroom, communication is possible with each other via email, as well

as using the discussion forums created inside a virtual platform called blackboard.

Every discourse community should engage in a two-way communication process, in

which feedback is an essential part of it. A looped communication involves a transmitter and

a receiver that exchange their roles as the process evolves. In the 1301 RWS course, an

environment that involves feedback is created during lectures, when members of the class

participate by expressing their thoughts, and when they form discussion groups. These groups

allows them to announce their opinions and ideas, as well as, to listen to those of the other

members. By engaging in a looped communication, the members of the course can deepen

their knowledge and broaden their perspectives.

ANALYSIS OF THE 1301 RWS COURSE 5

Each discourse community shares particular communicative practices, using

particular texts to achieve a common goal. One example that supports this idea is the

composition book used by the members of the 1301 RWS course. This primary source serves

as a mechanism of communication by allowing the members to establish a looped

communication, which consists of sharing drafts and giving each other feedback. The

composition book is full of drafts, ideas, opinions, and feedback that can help the course

achieve its common public goal by inspiring other peoples creative process. Another

example of dedicated genre is the virtual platform used by the students and the professor of

the course. In this platform the professor asks for assignments and the students input their

reflections of each class, as well as their knowledge and ideas.

Members of a discourse community acquire and use specialized lexis to communicate

with each other. This lexis can include items and terms that are known to other speech

communities, or it can be highly technical and exclusive (Swales, 1990). In the 1301 RWS

course, Academic English is used in essays, reflections and in the composition books, as well

as, rhetoric, linguistic and literate terms that have meaning within the context of the class.

However, if a student from another RWS course entered any 1301 RWS class, would he/she

understand what is being discussed and exposed by the members of the course? The answer is

probably yes, because he/she has a background of understanding in Rhetoric and

Composition. Since an outsider can join the course, This paper can venture and say that this

discourse community criteria is not met, therefore the claim that accepts the 1301 RWS

course as a discourse community can be refuted.

A discourse community possesses a hierarchical system in which novices can

incorporate and experts can leave. This particular characteristic is self-sustaining and it

ensures the structure of the discourse community. In the 1301 RWS course, a hierarchy

exists, composed by the professor, Dr. Vierra (expert), and the students (novices). In case Dr.
ANALYSIS OF THE 1301 RWS COURSE 6

Vierra needs to leave the course in a permanent way, the University will substitute him with

another professor. However, as the course develops and the students gain knowledge, they

leave behind the novice status and since no more students are allowed to join the course, by

University policies, the alumni move towards the expert status with nobody else to fill the

novice position. This aspect also questions question the status of this course as a discourse

community. A discourse community can dissolve if the members decide to take separate

ways, but in this case, all the members of the course remain within the community when the

novice status is lost and the hierarchy is no longer sustained.

The members of a discourse community get together by interest and willingness.

Swales proposed a prototypical discourse community in his analysis as a society of stamp

collectors from Hong Kong that communicated only in a written form. All the members of

this proposed discourse community share something in common: their interest in collecting

stamps. In case of the course in question, the University establishes it as a requirement in

each majors core curriculum. Perhaps some of the members joined, but there is the

possibility that some of them did not and that creates a breech in the claim that the 1301 RWS

course is a discourse community.

The purpose and composition of the 1301 RWS course can be considered a

community of participation. According to Wenger (2010) communities of practice are

conformed by people who start a process of collective learning and whom share a human

endeavor. Just like the concept of discourse community has several interpretations and is not

set in stone, the concept of community of practice varies from author to author. However for

the purposes of this paper, the concept proposed by Wenger will be used and deconstructed to

deliver a conclusion.

According to Wenger, a community of practice meets three structural requirements:

domain, community and practice. The domain refers to the common ground of knowledge set
ANALYSIS OF THE 1301 RWS COURSE 7

by the participants through a sharing process. The members of this type of community value

their collective competence and share a learning process. Unlike a discourse community were

the used lexis is exclusive, people outside the community of practice can understand what

happens inside it. The sense of community creates interactions that encourages mutual

sharing of ideas among the participants. The practice is the set of tools, experiences, etc that

enable the participants to engage in the learning process.

The 1301 RWS course can be considered a community of practice by following the

analysis of Wenger. The course is an open community that fulfills a cycle each semester by

renewing its members and engaging in different learning processes each time. Even though it

is the same course each semester, the outcome of the learning process is different, because

the participants are different. The knowledge obtained from the course can be shared by

former students or professors that are no longer participants of the community of practice,

and can be shared with other RWS courses, whether these courses are more advanced (e.g.

1302 RWS) or on the same level.

Conclusion

Despite the fact that the concept of a discourse community varies from author to

author, there are identifiable characteristics that Swales mentions in his analysis from 1990.

These six characteristics include a common public goals, intercommunication mechanisms,

looped intercommunication, dedicated genre, specialized vocabulary and self-sustained

hierarchy. This paper submitted the 1301 RWS course to an extensive analysis to define

whether it could be considered a discourse community or not by using the Swales criteria

mentioned above. With the help of various sources and the evidence obtained from them, the

claim previously mentioned is discarded, since the 1301 RWS course does not meet all the

criteria to be a discourse community. However, another concept was introduced: community

ANALYSIS OF THE 1301 RWS COURSE 8

of practice, and according to the structure proposed by Wenger we can consider this course a

community of practice.
ANALYSIS OF THE 1301 RWS COURSE 9

References

Bailey, S. (2015). Academic writing for international students of business New York :

Routledge, 2015]; 2nd Edition. Retrieved from http://0-

search.ebscohost.com.lib.utep.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=cat04704a&AN=nug.b360668

3&site=eds-live&scope=site; http://0-

ebookcentral.proquest.com.lib.utep.edu/lib/utep/detail.action?docID=1974417

Canagarajah, S. (2002). Multilingual writers and the academic community: Towards a

critical relationship doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/S1475-1585(02)00007-3

Swales, J. (1987). Approaching the concept of discourse community

Wenger, E. (2010). Communities of practice and social learning systems: The career

of a concept. In C. Blackmore (Ed.), Social learning systems and communities of practice

(pp. 179-198). London: Springer London. doi:10.1007/978-1-84996-133-2_11