Discourse Communities
In society, discourse communities develop over time. They converse, interact, develop, and grow. Throughout our day, the more we intermingle with others and begin to take part, with or without realizing it, in daily activities we create what is known as discourse communities. A couple discourse communities I belong to are baseball players and servers. I use to play baseball on an everyday basis since I was four and started to develop lexis that only baseball players understood. The same goes with servers. I began serving tables at the age of 18 and believe me when I tell you that people do not understand what it is like to be a server until you've done it. I work at Ruby Tuesday's and I've recently noticed they create their own discourse community with their employees through their advertisements, phone application for employees, and menu.
I knew that I belonged to groups while I was growing up but I always assumed they were just "clicks." However, John Swales enlightened me in his article "The Concept of Discourse Community" that they were not just clicks but instead they were discourse communities. These discourse communities are not just a random group of friends but instead they have requirements to be considered a discourse community. Swales uses six defining characteristics the he believes is necessary and sufficient to identify a group of individuals as a discourse community.
I knew that I belonged to groups while I was growing up but I always assumed they were just "clicks." However, John Swales enlightened me in his article "The Concept of Discourse Community" that they were not just clicks but instead they were discourse communities. These discourse communities are not just a random group of friends but instead they have requirements to be considered a discourse community. Swales uses six defining characteristics the he believes is necessary and sufficient to identify a group of individuals as a discourse community.
- A discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals.
- A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members
- A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback.
- A discourse community utilizes and hence posses one or more genres in the commutative furtherance of its aims.
- In addition to owning genres, a discourse community has acquired some specific lexis.
- A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise.
John Swales Article
My Response To Swale's Article
John Swales "The Concept of Discourse Community" was harder to read than normal texts and was very confusing, even after reading it twice. Although it was difficult, the beginning of the text helped me because it pre-warns you that Swale's writing style is dry and uses specialized terms. This allowed me to sit down and actually focus on the writing more than I usually would.
Although the reading was very confusing, Swales did a good job outlining what his definition of a discourse community is. Swales used six defining characteristics to identify a group of individuals as a discourse community. These characteristics allowed me understand discourse community a lot better because it outlined the essential points. The one that stood out the most to me however was the last one which stated "A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise." This stood out the most to me because to maintain a discourse community you must have members that are experienced and unexperienced at the same time. It also showed me that once you become part of a discourse community you are in it until something drastic happens. For example, I was apart of a discourse community in high school which was my baseball team. We all shared common interests and we even had our own language or slang.
Swales, John. "The Concept of Discourse Community." Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Boston: Cambridge UP, 1990. 21-32. Print.
Although the reading was very confusing, Swales did a good job outlining what his definition of a discourse community is. Swales used six defining characteristics to identify a group of individuals as a discourse community. These characteristics allowed me understand discourse community a lot better because it outlined the essential points. The one that stood out the most to me however was the last one which stated "A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise." This stood out the most to me because to maintain a discourse community you must have members that are experienced and unexperienced at the same time. It also showed me that once you become part of a discourse community you are in it until something drastic happens. For example, I was apart of a discourse community in high school which was my baseball team. We all shared common interests and we even had our own language or slang.
Swales, John. "The Concept of Discourse Community." Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Boston: Cambridge UP, 1990. 21-32. Print.
Peers Reflection on Swale's That Helped
Below is a fellow classmates reflection on Swale's article that helped me understand it more. Just like her I came into this article not know a single thing about discourse communities. However she pointed out the difference between a speech community and a discourse community and I was struggling trying to understand the difference.
Prior to reading Swales’ article, “The Concept of Discourse Community,” I did not have much of an idea of what a discourse community could be defined as. We had mentioned discourse community a few times in class but I was never confident in knowing what it exactly meant. Swales’ article, though quite difficult to read, made a point that most people do not truly understand what makes up the discourse community. This, I can completely understand. Swales brings up the notion that speech communities and discourse communities are often confused. He defines the speech community as, “a community sharing knowledge of the rules for the conduct and interpretation of speech (Swales 219).” To me, this definition shows the speech community primarily focuses on speaking in itself. Swales discusses that there is a great difference between the two. One of the best ways that I think Swales differentiates the two is when he states that, “a speech community typically inherits its membership by birth, accident or adoption while a discourse community recruits its members by persuasion, training or relevant qualification (Swales 220).”
Towards the end of Swales’ article, he sets six specific characteristics that define the idea of a discourse community. These six characteristics made it easier for me to understand the components of a discourse community but what really gave me a clear vision was his example of the “umbrella organization.” Just like the umbrella organization, it seems that any organization that someone is a part of, based on their interests and beliefs, can be considered a discourse community. This shows that unlike a speech community, where you are born into it, a discourse community is joined primarily by choice, based on your interests.
Though Swales’ article did a great job in defining what a discourse community is, I still feel I need more help in understanding how to identify discourse communities. I think I may have a decent grasp on the material but the more examples I have, the easier it is for me to understand a concept. Therefore, I am anxious to discuss the topic of discourse communities in class.
Swales, John. "The Concept of Discourse Community.” Writing About Writing: A College Reader. Ed. John E. Sullivan III. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2014. 215-229. Print.
Prior to reading Swales’ article, “The Concept of Discourse Community,” I did not have much of an idea of what a discourse community could be defined as. We had mentioned discourse community a few times in class but I was never confident in knowing what it exactly meant. Swales’ article, though quite difficult to read, made a point that most people do not truly understand what makes up the discourse community. This, I can completely understand. Swales brings up the notion that speech communities and discourse communities are often confused. He defines the speech community as, “a community sharing knowledge of the rules for the conduct and interpretation of speech (Swales 219).” To me, this definition shows the speech community primarily focuses on speaking in itself. Swales discusses that there is a great difference between the two. One of the best ways that I think Swales differentiates the two is when he states that, “a speech community typically inherits its membership by birth, accident or adoption while a discourse community recruits its members by persuasion, training or relevant qualification (Swales 220).”
Towards the end of Swales’ article, he sets six specific characteristics that define the idea of a discourse community. These six characteristics made it easier for me to understand the components of a discourse community but what really gave me a clear vision was his example of the “umbrella organization.” Just like the umbrella organization, it seems that any organization that someone is a part of, based on their interests and beliefs, can be considered a discourse community. This shows that unlike a speech community, where you are born into it, a discourse community is joined primarily by choice, based on your interests.
Though Swales’ article did a great job in defining what a discourse community is, I still feel I need more help in understanding how to identify discourse communities. I think I may have a decent grasp on the material but the more examples I have, the easier it is for me to understand a concept. Therefore, I am anxious to discuss the topic of discourse communities in class.
Swales, John. "The Concept of Discourse Community.” Writing About Writing: A College Reader. Ed. John E. Sullivan III. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2014. 215-229. Print.
James Paul Gee's Article
My Response to Gee's Article
The article "Literary, Discourse, and Linguistics" by James Paul Gee was very hard to understand at first. Gee had an entirely different outlook on discourse than some previous articles that we have read. For example, Gee explains that a Discourse is like an "identity kit" that comes with instructions on how to act, talk and often write. I find this very true because a discourse is something that you must be shown to become apart of it. Gee then goes on to talk about how there is a primary discourse and a secondary discourse. For example, learning a second language would be a secondary discourse. However, once the second language has been learned, it can then strengthen the primary language or discourse. This then leads to Gee's next point, and his definition of "literacy." He defines it as the mastery of or fluent control over a secondary discourse which leaves literacy always plural.
Gee, James. “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction.” Writing About Writing: A College Reader. Ed. John E. Sullivan III. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2014. 481-495. Print.
Gee, James. “Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction.” Writing About Writing: A College Reader. Ed. John E. Sullivan III. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2014. 481-495. Print.
Drafts and Finalized Work
The main point of this project was to see if the books attempt to draw you into the discourse community of people who study writing, who variously call themselves compositionists, Rhetoricians, and scholars of writing was successful or not. You had to state whether the book did its job or it did not and make an argument about the books success. I believed that the book did a way better job than I can ever of expected, coming into this class I hated writing and reading. Writing about Writing allowed me to connect with the articles inside on personal levels. Since I've been in the class I've realized a few things that have changed my mind on the subject and has left me interested. So I would say yes, the book has done its job attempting to draw me into its discourse. Below I have attached my rough and final drafts of this project.
Rough Draft
Final Draft
Revision
Along with the rhetorical analysis assignment I was also medically excused from school and could not physically go to class to get peer reviews during this assignment. Instead I was back in Tampa with my family recovering from my illness when I wrote this, so I used my father as a peer review. He told me that I needed to reword certain areas and that I needed to redo my entire conclusion. Since I did not get much of a peer review for this assignment, I ended up only changing the conclusion and a few sections throughout the essay. I was very confident with this paper and believe that it did not need very much revision from the first draft. However, I still believe I can work on a stronger conclusion than what I ended with. If I could go back I would change it around again to make it fit the essay better to allow for a more clear ending to my essay.