Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

Discourse Community Ethnography

Iram D. Hernandez

The University of Texas at El Paso

RWS 1301

Dr. Vierra

October 9, 2019
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 2

Abstract

Is this class a discourse community as defined by Swales? Why does that matter? The purpose

of this paper is to explain how the RWS 1301 course fulfills the characteristics of Swales

discourse communities. This will catalogue the course as a discourse community, meaning it

benefits the society apart of the members of the group. The paper explains Swales characteristics

and backs them up with research from other authors, such as Porter and Johns.
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 3

Discourse Community Ethnography

Is this class a discourse community?

The limitation of knowledge, and the distribution of inaccurate research, poisons research

topics, such as rhetoric. It is important for the community to help in the progression of accurate

information. Groups in charge of expanding knowledge are known as discourse communities. This

type of community can be found in different places, one of them being a university. However, it

is important to know if the groups of scholars meet the criteria to be catalogued as a community

of practice. The RWS 1301 course has all the characteristics of a discourse community.

Literature Review

A discourse community has six distinctive characteristics. It contains, and applies, the

genre of rhetoric and structural writing, making it differ from speech communities. According to

Swales (1990), discourse communities manipulate genres towards the benefit of completing their

pre-established goals, limiting to the options that are mostly in favor of the goal (p. 471). Also,

Swales (1990) explains that this type of community uses specialized vocabulary, has a form of

participation, encourages communication between its members, and follows a hierarchy system

(p. 471-473). Although they are both social groups, speech groups have more of a social focus in

comparison to the discourse groups (p. 470). Thus, based on the evidence, discourse communities

contain 6 unique characteristics.

One of the main purposes of intertextuality is to connect people to a discourse community

through-out their work. According to Porter (1986), the term intertextuality refers to the connection

between a new piece of rhetoric, and previous scholar piece, whether it’s by referencing the older

source, or suggesting a claim in regard to the characteristics, author, and influence of the piece of

work (p. 35-38). Also, Porter claims that intertextuality has the purpose of creating links between
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 4

people’s rhetorical work, and discourse community genres (p. 42). The goal of the pedagogists, as

suggested by Porter, is to teach students how to write a piece of work, while taking in account the

discourse community they want to belong in. Therefore, it can be concluded that the networking

between new rhetors and discourse communities is a main goal proposed by intertextuality.

Discourse communities have the possibility of being socially bias and having a poor

authority system. Discourse communities, or communities of practice, have certain requirements

for people to be able to become member; however, some of these requirements can be culturally

bias (p. 332). Johns (2017) claimed that the cost of joining an affiliation is more directed towards

the social life of the member, rather than to an economic value, because it separates the member

from its culture and values learned at home, in order to adapt to the established ones by the

community (p. 333). Communities of practice also have an authoritarian system to keep the

affiliation in order, but sometimes these can be rigged (p. 334). According to Johns, the head of

some of these communities impose their beliefs and control through the academic writing of lower

tier members (p. 335). Based on the evidence, discourse communities can be considered socially

incorrect, and recognized for having a controlling authority system.

Methods

The primary research methods are interviews, surveys, and observations. In the RWS

course, students use interviews and observations. However, the primary method was observation.

Students observed and analyzed how the RWS course matched Swales characteristics of a

discourse community. The research implemented both primary and secondary sources that

focused on discourse communities.

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 5

Discussion

Common Goals

The RWS has common public goals. The course advances knowledge of undergrad

students through research and educates students on how to properly document the new knowledge,

for the purpose of presenting it to the community. Examples of these communities could be a

religious affiliation, a sorority, and/or an honor society group. According to Swales (2011),

discourse communities have set in mind common public goals (p. 471). Batista (2019) supports

the definition by explaining that individuals establish long term goals that are overseen as they

progress by the head of the community (p. 300). In addition, Porter (1986) claims that individuals

of the discourse community are bound by a common interest (p. 39). An example set by the RWS

course is to advance education for students, so they can continue their path to achieve a degree as

scholars. Therefore, this course, or community, has common public goals set.

Intercommunication

The RWS course uses intercommunication. Students in the course communicate face to

face during class time and use the Blackboard discussion website for after class discussion. Swales

(2019) defined intercommunication as the interaction between its members physically, or through

media (p. 472). Porter (1986) expands Swales claim by explain that adequate communication

channels, or sources for intercommunication, are called forums, and each of the forums have their

specific set of rules to maintain professionalism (p. 39). Students communicate within themselves,

and with the professor, to be aware of the deadlines, expectations of the assignments, and to

communicate their beliefs. Batista (2019) connects these characteristics to the setting of a math

class and explains how the intercommunication between the students and the teacher takes place
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 6

(p. 299). Based on the evidence, it can be concluded that the RWS 1301 class has

intercommunication between its members.

Participatory Mechanisms

The RWS 1301 class has participatory mechanisms. Students in the course are able to

participate through the Blackboard online discussion forum, and during class time Mondays and

Wednesdays, while always keeping in mind to be respectful towards other’s ideas, and to provide

feedback instead of critiques. Swales (2011) explained that the purpose of having a participation

method is to provide feedback (p. 472). Batista (2019) added that the members of the community

listen respectfully to the person presenting his/her idea (p. 300). However, the publication of a

paper requires to follow standards before being provided feedback. Porter (1986) explained that in

order to publish a written piece of work, it must follow a set of criteria imposed by the forum, or

the discourse community itself (p. 39). This proves that this discourse community implements

participatory mechanisms

Genres

The RWS course has specific genres. These set the expectations for the course. Examples

of genres used in class are rhetoric and scholarly research, and they set the expectation of analyzing

articles based on this topic and improving the members’ writing process. According to Swales

(2011), Discourse communities follow a set of expectations, based on the type of genres they share,

or are established by the group (p. 472). Batista (2019) explained that a genre can be specified by

the topic covered by the leader of the community (p. 299-302). In addition, Porter (1986) claimed

that individuals must belong to several discourse communities, which may include professional,

public, or personal (p. 39). Therefore, the RWS course is characterized by its genre.
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 7

Specialized language

This university course uses specialized language. RWS 1301 focuses on scholar vocabulary

related to the topic of rhetoric and the writing process, and its branches, such as Aristotle’s

rhetorical appeals. According to Swales (2011), discourse communities use terminology based on,

or related to, the established genres (p. 473). Porter (1986) explains that the application of

vocabulary related to the genre that the discourse community represents show professionalism and

credibility towards them (p. 39). In addition, Batista (2019) claims that members of the discourse

community use a vocabulary that shows civility and respect towards every other member (300-

301). In conclusion, the RWS course uses specialized vocabulary.

Hierarchy

This course contains a hierarchy system. It is composed by the professor, being the highest

position of the course, and the students being the lowest ranking members. Swales (2011) explains

that a discourse community establishes a form of membership which allow individuals to join, go

up in rank, descend, or leave (p. 473). Porter (1986) adds to Swales definition by claiming that

members must not only be involved in a particular field that is related to the discourse community,

but they must also show knowledge in the genre and demonstrate scholarship in its rhetoric pieces

of work (p. 39). Batista (2019) claims that the hierarchy can follow the one of a regular class,

which consists of teacher being at the top, and students below him/her (p. 299). Thus, the RWS

has a Hierarchy system involving the students and the professor.

Analysis

The research done on discourse communities matches, and supports, Swales characteristics

of a Discourse community. According to Swales (2011), discourse communities are bound by a

set of common public goals, the use of intercommunication, participatory mechanisms and
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 8

specialized language, a hierarchy system and the use of genres (p. 471-473). Johns (2017) supports

Swales’ statement and expands on this topic by analyzing the community’s authoritarian system

and demographics (p. 332-334). Also, Batista (2019) incorporates the example of a math class

being a discourse community, and supports her claim using Swales characteristics (p. 299-302).

Thus, the research done on discourse communities relates to Swales research.

Conclusion

The RWS 1301 course is a discourse community. It contains all the 6 elements that

characterize one. Discourse communities have a set of common public goals, specific genres, a

hierarchy system, and they use intercommunication, specialized language, and participatory

mechanisms. These communities help advance accurate knowledge in society. Without this

discourse community, knowledge in rhetoric would be limited and/or erroneous.

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 9

References

Batista, L., & Chapin, S. (2019). Creating a Discourse Community. Teaching Children

Mathematics, 25(5), 298-304. Retrieved from

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5951/teacchilmath.25.5.0298

Johns, A. M. (2017). Discourse communities and Communities of Practice. In Writing about

writing. (ed. Wardle, E. & Downs, D.). 319-42. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.

Porter, J. E. (1986) Intertextuality and the Discourse Community. Rhetoric Review 5, no. 1: 34-

47.

Swales, J. (1990). The Concept of Discourse Community. Genre Analysis: English in Academic

and Research Settings. Boston: Cambridge UP. 21–32.

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 10

Tables
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 11

Figures