Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY 1

Discourse Community Ethnography

Following the APA 6th Formatting

Danny J. Magaña

University of Texas at El Paso

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY 2

Abstract

There is no abstract.
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY 3

Discourse Community Ethnography

Swales (1990) had concluded, through observation, that within a crowd of people,

specialized groups/communities begin to form. During the point in time Swales had made this

observation, there was no established definition for these communities, alongside them being

quite distinct from “speech communities.” His conclusion was to put forth his own definition of

the “discourse communities” to separate them from other types currently defined. When taking

into consideration Swales’ characteristics the RWS 1301 class at the University of Texas at El

Paso can go from just some class in a university into a consideration for the status of being a

“discourse community.” Following these characteristics provides substantial evidence that the

RWS 1301 class is a discourse community.

Literary Review

A claim presented by John Swales (1990), is that discourse communities can fit within

some set criteria. According to Swales, communities (to be classified as a discourse community)

must have a means for members to share common goals, have participatory mechanics in place, a

mode of information exchange, contain genres (specific to them), and terminology special to

their group with a possibility of high level expertise or hierarchy. Presented by Swales was an

example of a “Hong Kong Study Circle” (HKSC), which was shown to contain each of these

needed criteria. Great examples would include educational groups (i.e. our RWS course), with

the professor being a person with “high level expertise”, participatory mechanics being

assignments such as these reflections, information exchange such as through BB or email, and

contain community genres such as more “academic english” studies and focuses. Leading to a

consensus that discourse communities could fit this, with Swales even stating that there are some

factors that could create some hiccups down the road though.
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY 4

According to Richard C. Freed and Glenn J Broad (2018) a company such as Apple can

be considered and be used as an example of a discourse community. Following the

characteristics presented by Swales (1990), it could be argued that the claim of a company such

as Apple would classify as a discourse community. Using Swales’ characteristic of “common

public goals” as evidence to support this show that it is in fact present in the company (i.e. to

make innovative technology), alongside this, intercommunication is also present within the staff

through peer-to-peer and electronic means, which leads to info and feedback taking place

through the same intercommunications. More well-known to employees than outsiders, genres

created within the corporation (i.e. the Apple ecosystem and security measures) are present, and

specialized vocabulary which is unique to staff present at Apple is observable. Ultimately a

present hierarchy with Tim Cook being the highest on the pyramid as CEO of Apple and

employees falling neatly in the lower levels is seen, and with each characteristic being present

shows that Apple qualifies as a discourse community.

Kain & Wardle (2017) presented in their essay the “Activity Theory” which was

followed by the claim stating that this theory could be utilized to examine “groups” and

“communities” which is outlined within their theory. According to Kain & Wardle, this way of

observation can be used by anyone within a “community” (i.e. a university) such as a student.

This is laid out with the ways in which the people who are a part of this community influence

how their texts and other such things are organized and worded in order to be considered

acceptable. Given example is a worker in an organization desiring to see why a specific

document is made that way, to enhance their understanding and strength to create such a thing so

it becomes natural to create documents like them.

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY 5

According to Porter (2017), the concept that the idea of each writer must be original and

adhere to the strict rules bestowed upon them through their discourse community is false. Within

their assigned ways Porter states that every writer utilizes other works (including other people) to

create or emphasize portions of their own writing. To show a possibility of this thought process

Porter makes an example out the Declaration of Independence, stating that it had been found that

most of the writing within the document was not Thomas Jefferson’s alone. This leads to the

discovery of environmental factors that contribute to the way the final document is formatted and

worded, including other bills created for this very purpose, others reviewing the speech used to

prove the point, and other works of writing.

Methods

During the researching of information for this paper interviews, surveys, and

observations were used throughout. For interviews the readings of Swales (1990), Porter (2017),

Freed and Broadhead (2018), and Kain and Wardle (2017) were used, allowing for greater InSite

of the aspect of a discourse community. Swales (1990) argued that discourse communities could

be classified within six categories such as, sharing a common public goal, intercommunication

between members, information and feedback, genres, specialized vocabulary, and a form of

hierarchy. To further this concept an examination of a university class was conducted (RWS

1301 at the University of Texas at El Paso).

Discussion

From the characteristics (p.220 Swales) put forth by Swales (1990), it could be

determined that discourse communities not only take place in areas of higher education or more

professional settings, but also areas of more mundane note such as a typical classroom.

Therefore, a class such as the RWS0 1301 could be taken into consideration when searching for
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY 6

local discourse comminutes. To provide evidence observations were made to conclude whether

this run-of-the-mill class can classify as a discourse community.

The RWS 1301 class exhibits common public goals (p.220 Swales). According to Swales

(1990), this is a shared interest between the community. Upon observation it is apparent that the

RWS 1301 class is set with the one common goal of graduation along with receiving a diploma

(evidence being that it is a University course). To build upon the goal of graduation, receiving an

education is self-evident with this as each student is paying in some form or another to better

themselves through the higher education. With shared public common goals, it allows for the

first metaphorical checkmark to be placed, and in turn starting an argument that the RWS 1301

class is in fact a discourse community.

Next from Swales characteristics of a discourse community, The RWS 1301 class does

exhibit sings of “intercommunication” (p.221 Swales) between one another. Swales (1990)

claims that the characteristic of intercommunication within a community is necessary for it the

be classified as a discourse community. Evidence present is the use of resources available to

them through their technology, such as email, Black Board, and One Drive. From each of these

platforms the students share and discuss information gathered by one another, while providing

constructive criticism on each other’s works. Aside from just technology, the class does meet

twice a week for eighty minutes at a time. During these meetups the students can take place in

“intercommunion” while discussing their topics and information with their peers while being

face to face. From here a second check is placed alongside Swales list of characteristics of a

discourse community.

From observing the previous characteristic, it is already confirmed that this class does

exhibit signs of “Info and Feedback” (p.221 Swales) among the students. Swales (1990) argued
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY 7

that this characteristic (along with the others) are needed for any group to even be considered as

a possible discourse community. Already put forth was technological means of communication

such as email, Black Board, and One Drive, also serve as platforms for sharing information and

feedback. Also, during meetups on Tuesdays and Thursdays their communication while next to

one another is also a means that the students use to share information and feedback. In

conclusion, there is a way information and feedback are being exchanged between this

community, giving another positive that the RWS 1301 class is a discourse community.

The next characteristic is “genre,” (p.221 Swales) which, by observation, is present

within the class. According to Swales (1990), a community must have distinct genres to itself to

qualify as a discourse community. During the student’s time in class they are sure to utilize a

“writing notebook” which is specific to their class. Another thing observed is that the class

created an “E-Portfolio” which is also particular to them as they will use it later for their own

purposes. Some extra things which could be categorized as a genre for the class are their class

textbook (Writing about Writing) and the professor who is assigned to lead and teach the course.

Using the activity theory given by Kain & Wardle (2017), closer observation could be done and

use of the mentioned triangle (p.400 Kain & Wardle) to show that these are specific to the RWS

1301 class while better understanding why and how these genres are formed. Therefore, the

RWS 1301 class continues to exhibit sings of being a fully functional discourse community.

Furthermore, on Swales characteristics of a discourse community the RWS 1301 class

does partake in using “specialized vocabulary” (p.222 Swales). According to Swales (1990) this

is a required characteristic of classifying a group as a discourse community. Examples of the

specialized vocabulary used within the class are terms such as “discourse community,” AESL

(Academic English), and Political Rhetoric. Throughout the time this community congregates
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY 8

terms such as these and are used profusely throughout their discussions on their topics and within

their writing assignments/research. With the use of this specialized vocabulary the RWS 1301

class continues to classify as a discourse community according to Swales characteristics of a

discourse community.

According to Swales (1990), the last characteristic of a discourse community is the

presence of a “hierarchy” (p.222 Swales). Within the RWS 1301 class this is also very

prominent. For this class the Professor (Dr. Vierra P.J.) is the highest on the chain of command,

with others with lesser degrees in his field (i.e. persons with masters and bachelor’s degrees)

would be just under him. At the very bottom of this present hierarchy the students within his

courses would slot right into the position. With this last point being observed as present within

the RWS 1301 class, and all other presented characteristics being met, the RWS 1301, according

to Swales, is classified as a proper discourse community.

Conclusion

In conclusion, according to Swales (1990) set characteristics the RWS 1301 class

classifies as a proper discourse community. Using Kain & Wardle (2017) to finalize the

examination of the discourse community, the observation was done by a student present within

the RWS 1301 course. Leading to the previous observation done of the tech-giant known as

Apple presented by Richard C. Freed and Glenn J Broad (2018) lines up with the seen

conclusion come to from using the same characteristics to determine if the class and company

are discourse communities. Ultimately the observation of this class and other communities (i.e.

Apple) shows that discourse communities not only appear in higher academic areas or

specialized fields, but more plain and common areas.

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY ETHNOGRAPHY 9

References

Freed R. C. and Broadhead G. J. (2018). Discourse communities, sacred texts, and institutional

norms. College composition and communication (Volume 38 ed., pp. 154-165) National

Council of Teachers of English. Retrieved

from https://www.jstor.org/stable/357716?casa_token=RfoYiaVS8SAAAAAA:wgfTXJ7

21-iCR8WSZpLPPnvOFp5MfNJrw-e0Z7YnQExpcaIf--

GFylgBiVoio0LeoRY8RTBxXjO7iPCRcIdqXCc5JDhR74ECmDG4FeUlkNi6bQmgUig

&seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

Kain D. and Wardle E. (2017). Activity theory: An introduction for the writing

classroom. Writing about writing (Third Edition ed., pp. 395-406)

Porter J. E. (2017). Intertextuality and the discourse community. Writing about writing (Third

Edition ed., pp. 542-558) Bedford/St. Martin's.

Swales J. (1990). The concept of Discourse Community. (pp. 215-228) Retrieved

from https://blackboardlearn.utep.edu/bbcswebdav/pid-2292693-dt-content-rid-

48633724_1/courses/14395.201910/Swales%201990%20Concept%20of%20a%20Disco

urse%20Community.pdf