Running head: DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

Discourse Community Ethnography

Ceciliah Martinez

The University of Texas at El Paso

RWS 1301

Dr. Vierra

March 17, 2019

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 2

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to determine whether the class of Rhetoric and Composition

I is a discourse community by Swales definition. In this class, we use the guidelines provided by

Swales to meet the criteria and achieve common class goals. The class of Rhetoric and

Composition I class is a discourse community because it follows the six characteristics of a

discourse community as described by Swales.

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 3

Discourse Community Ethnography

Literature Review

There are six defining characteristics that identify a group of individuals as a discourse

community. According to Swales (1990), a discourse community has a broadly agreed set of

common public goals (p.220). A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication

among its members (p. 221). A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily

to provide information and feedback (p.221). A discourse community utilizes and hence

possesses one or more genres in the commutative furtherance of its aims (p.221). In addition to

owning genres, a discourse community has acquired some specific lexis (p. 221). A discourse

community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and

discoursal expertise (p. 221). Each characteristic contributes to identifying and defining a

discourse community. These characteristics can be used by individuals in a group to determine if

an environment of any kind is a discourse community.

There are communities in which we are born into and some that we choose to be a part

of. According to John (2017), people are born, or taken involuntarily by their families and

cultures, into some communities of practice (p. 322). Individuals are often members of variety of

communities outside academic life: social and interest groups with which they have chosen to

affiliate (p. 322). This suggests the choice people have in which community to be a part of and

actively engage in. There are some in which do not enjoy the community they have been born

into, that can choose to leave and seek one that interests them. Their interests tend to mainly be

the thing that guides them into such communities. One may also be part of multiple communities

for different interests they may have.

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 4

There are two types of intertextuality within a discourse community. Both types

contribute to the writing style within a discourse community. According to Porter (1986),

Intertextuality has been associated with both structuralism and poststruc- turalism (p. 35). We

can distinguish between two types of intertextuality: iterability and presupposition. Iterability

refers to the "repeatability" of certain textual fragments, to citation in its broadest sense to

include not only explicit allusions, references, and quotations within a discourse, but also

unannounced sources and influences, clichés, phrases in the air, and traditions. Presupposition

refers to assumptions a text makes about its referent, its readers, and its context-to portions of the

text which are read, but which are not explicitly "there” (p. 35). For iterability, this implies that

pieces from other texts are cited within a discourse to convey meaning of a topic spoken upon.

As for presupposition, the assumption within a discourse refers to the text itself and how it

signals to its readers of what the meaning is without officially stating it or having a clear stating

text. Presupposition is usually found at the beginning of a text to give the assumption of what the

rest of the text will contain.

Methods

The methods used in the RWS class were interviews and observation. For interviews, the

class searched for multiple articles in regard to the definition and outlook of a discourse

community. The other method used which was observation was used by the class to take visual

note of the classroom activities that may follow under the six characteristics. Primary sources

and other artifacts were discovered to serve as evidence to the claim. These methods were used

to determine whether the class is a discourse community.

Conclusion
DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 5

In conclusion, the class of Rhetoric and Composition I is a discourse community. It

follows all the guidelines described and consists of all six characteristics defined by John Swales

with provided examples to defend the claim. The most important of this is communication as the

class uses and is being taught on how to effectively communicate with one another to achieve the

common goal of the course. Without the presence of the six characteristics in the class, the

discourse community would not be as successful as it is.

DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 6

References

John, A . M. (2017). Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice Membership,

Conflict, and Diversity. Retrieved from

https://blackboardlearn.utep.edu/webapps/blackboard/execute/content/file?cmd=view&co
ntent_id=_2526339_1&course_id=_73379_1

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, John. (1990) “The Concept of Discourse Community.” Genre Analysis: English in

Academic and Research Settings. Boston: Cambridge UP, 1990. 21–32. Print. Retrieved
from

https://blackboardlearn.utep.edu/webapps/blackboard/execute/content/file?cmd=view&co
ntent_id=_2458607_1&course_id=_73379_1

Vierra, P. J. (RWS 1301, Discourse Community Ethnography, March 4, 2019).