McElwain 1

Jacob McElwain

Professor Volstad

UWRT 1103-010

11 February 2019

Discourse Communities

Do you remember that really hard math course you took your freshman year of college?

How about learning to make that new recipe? Or when you first started playing tennis? How

about that one video game level that you could not get through on your own? Who did you turn

to? Other students in the class? Other people who have made the same recipe? Other tennis

players? People who played the same game? YES! You would not turn to somebody who is

unfamiliar with the context of the situation for help—you would turn to somebody who is

knowledgeable about the subject or who you can relate to. These people you turn to help make

up a discourse community.

A discourse community is typically broad but can be specific. For example, all students at

UNC Charlotte make up a discourse community. All Wendy’s customers make up a discourse

community. A fraternity or sorority can be considered a discourse community. Basketball players

around the world can be considered a discourse community. However, according to Professor

John Swales, Ph.D., many things must occur before a group is considered a discourse

community.

The first thing he mentions is that a discourse community must have a “broadly agreed

set of common public goals.” For example, let us say that a discourse community exists for

tennis players. The common goals for this community are probably to get better at tennis, get
 McElwain 2

others into the sport, and to enjoy the game. A group of pilots most likely wish to fly their plans

safely from destination to destination.

The second aspect that Swales says a discourse community contains is “mechanisms of

intercommunication among its members.” He says that the mechanisms may alternate between

communities, however the methods will be similar to or consist of meetings, newsletters,

conversations, and others. Now, let us refer back to the tennis discourse community. This

community most likely has forums of some sort on multiple domains that users can interact with

each other on. These users will share tips about form, equipment, locations to play, etc.

The third point Swales makes is that a discourse community “uses its participatory

mechanisms in order to provide information and feedback.” He uses the example of people

paying a subscription to a particular society, but those people are not taking any information up

and therefore are not part of the discourse community. As another example, a discourse

community may use emails to get feedback from its members.

Swales’ next argument says that a discourse community must operate on more than one

genre “in the communicative furtherance of its aims.” Though, this point is similar to his second

point, it differs slightly. For example, members may have to write to or communicate with other

members and will most likely have to follow a specific template set forth by the leader of the

community. Genre is the tricky word here. A genre is basically a text. The genre could be a blog,

a newspaper, text messages, graffiti, or anything similar.

His second-to-last point says that a discourse community will share common lexis.

Common lexis are one of the most distinct properties of discourse communities. This term makes

up all the common words that one may find within a specific discourse community. Typically,

these words are only familiar with those within the discourse community and not those outside of
 McElwain 3

it. Lexis make communication between members of the community easier or simpler. Lexis is

jargon specific to a discourse community. Consider all those who play basketball to be in a

discourse community. This community certainly has common lexis. Some of those community-

specific terms include the elbow, free-throw, corner, wing, or poster. If one was not a member of

the community, he or she may need the term “poster” explained to him or her. (A poster is when

the ball handler dunks on a defender who attempted to block the offensive player’s shot).

Additionally, consider cyclists. They have specific terms that refer to bicycle parts and

equipment. Lastly, consider toxicologists and engineers. They will not understand the other’s

lexi.

Swales’ sixth and final point says that a discourse community must “contain a threshold

of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise.” This is a wordy

definition. Basically, a discourse community must contain “levels” (if you will) of membership.

Generally speaking, these levels can consist of apprentice, mentor, leader, etc.

Swales’ ideas about discourse communities were taught to me in my freshman-year

writing course at UNC Charlotte. I understood the general sense of what a discourse community

was, but to help us further our understanding, our professor had us play a game on our own and

then with our classmates. The game was called RuneScape. Although playing the game was a

whole new experience for me, I learned a lot from it. I learned a lot by playing on my own and

then playing again with other people. I immediately understood why lexis are important in a

discourse community because when I searched for help, I encountered a few terms I was

unfamiliar with (though, they were not difficult to decipher). I can say that the community all has

somewhat similar common goals. Those goals may consist of maxing out skills and stats to

completing a lot of quests. Basically, the goal of RuneScape is to achieve. Playing with a group
 McElwain 4

satisfied the intercommunication requirement, we used some of the lexis we learned throughout

our playtime and we communicated verbally, helping each other through different levels of the

game. Without their help, the quest I did would have taken me much longer, as I would have had

to figure out each part instead of discussing with the classmates when we got stuck. Because of

this, I found working with others greatly beneficial and would encourage others to work in

groups as well. One person can only do so much, and a group is capable of much more. I would

like to add that I learned about game, the community, and a lot about both of my groupmates as

well.

You are part of more discourse communities than you likely are aware of. This being

said, consider how much you benefit from being a part of these discourse communities. Have

they helped you sharpen your skills? Have they helped you broaden your horizons?

Since the answers to the previous questions were “yes,” I am sure you agree that

discourse communities are a crucial part of society. Participating in discourse communities is

crucial because these communities allow those who share common goals to communicate and

help each other reach their goals. Those in a fitness discourse community can share workout tips,

diet tricks, meal plans, schedules, gyms, etc. This communication helps everyone involved gain

information therefore allows for a timelier advance of knowledge and skills.

On another note, perhaps you are wondering how to know if you are part of a particular

discourse community. To do this, you must ask yourself a few questions. Do you share the same

goals as most or all of the other members? Do you contribute in the forums, letters, meetings, or

discussions that the community holds? If so, are you contributing useful, factual information? If

you can answer those questions with “yes,” then you are likely part of that community.
 McElwain 5

Everybody is involved with discourse communities some way or another. You are

associated with discourse communities from your interests, school, and even work. Discourse

communities are composed of members that share common goals, mechanisms of

intercommunication, mechanisms that provide feedback, multiple genres, lexis, and a threshold

of members. They can be highly useful for sharing information, advancing public knowledge,

and helping people become more well-versed. Discourse communities are an important part of

society.
 McElwain 6

Works Cited

Swales, John. “The Concept of Discourse Community.” Genre Analysis: English in

Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge UP, 1990, pp. 215-227.