Running Head: RWS AS A DISCOURSE COMNUNITY 1

RWS as a Discourse Community

Deshaun Highler

University of Texas at El Paso

RWS AS A DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 2

Introduction

Discourse communities, loosely defined as groups of people who share goals and ways of

communicating to achieve these goals, exist all around society. The assigned group of people to

analyze is an RWS class. Through personal observations and careful research of a few scholarly

articles, an RWS class is indeed a discourse community based on John Swales six defining

characteristics of a discourse community.

Literature Review

Swales (1990) provides information about discourse communities. In addition to general

discussion of the topic, Swales explicitly lists the six defining characteristics of a discourse

community. This makes it possible to pick any community and decide whether it is a discourse

community or not. Swales also provides examples of different discourse communities and even

discusses whether or not certain groups and communities constitute a discourse community.

Using Swales definitions and examples, it can be proven that the RWS class is a discourse

community.

Heiberger (2015) discusses discourse communities in the business world, providing

insight and specific examples regarding the existence of discourse communities within the

workplace. Heiberger offers key definitions, which can be used to argue the case that a particular

group or business constitutes a discourse community. Considering a classroom, which contains

students and a teacher, resembles a workplace setting, which contains workers and a boss, this

article can be used to argue that the RWS classes constitutes a discourse community.

Chang (2002) specifically explores the idea of classrooms as discourse communities,

breaking down the relation of certain classroom practices to the definition of discourse. Chang

goes into detail about the benefits of proper discourse in the classroom for both students and
RWS AS A DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 3

teachers, and even provides suggestions on how teachers can improve discourse within the

classroom. Changs article defines classrooms as discourse communities, supporting my claim

that the RWS class is a discourse community.

Methods

The information provided is a product of observations and research of other primary and

secondary resources. The secondary sources include three articles (Swales 1990; Heiberger,

2015; Chang, 2002). The Swales article regarding discourse communities was provided by the

professor; it discusses the six defining characteristics of discourse communities, which will be

used for comparison and confirmation. First, discourse communities have a widely agreed upon

set of goals for a public good. Next, a discourse community has mechanisms of

intercommunication between its members; this intercommunication is looped. Discourse

communities also have specialized vocabulary as well as dedicated genres that are a part of

communicating. Lastly, a discourse community contains a self-sustaining hierarchy. The other

two articles were chosen because their contents support the claim that the RWS class constitutes

a discourse community. The primary research consists of firsthand observations, as well as

artifacts used in the class. Primary sources include the class composition book, which is a form

of discourse itself, and the Norton Field Guide, which documents some key vocabulary used in

the class. Its also been observed in classroom practices, as well as in student and professor

behaviors that the RWS class is, according to definition, a discourse community.

Discussion

The RWS class has a common goal of getting an education, which relates to Swales first

listed characteristic of a discourse community. Swales states that a discourse community has a

widely agreed upon common goal for the good of the public. Members of the RWS class share
RWS AS A DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 4

the goal of improving students reading, writing, and research skills. The class functions as a sort

of training program, and as Heiberger states, The goal of any training program is to accelerate

the students ability to become a part of the new community, therefore participating in the life

and activities of that community (2015, p. 01). The professor encourages deeper reading;

students are expected to find meaning other than what is obviously stated. Students are also

expected to follow new, high-level writing processes, as to prepare for the rest of their college

career. An important part of reading and writing alike is research, which, as students have

already learned, requires certain measures to be done properly and effectively. These are just

three ways in which students are introduced and included into the existing RWS discourse

community. Students and teacher come together every class, with the intention of learning

something new or expanding on previous knowledge, which is the meaning of education. While

education is key to the students individual progress, an educated public is necessary for the

advancement of society as a whole.

Swales second stated characteristic of a discourse community is that it contains

mechanisms of intercommunication among the members (1990). The third stated characteristic is

that such intercommunication is looped, meaning that it is a constant flow of deliverance and

feedback. A number of community-specific mechanisms of intercommunication are used to

accomplish the educational goals of the class, including verbal, physical print, and electronic

media. Each mechanism is used with the clear purpose of delivering information and drawing

feedback from the recipient, whether it be teacher or student.

Verbal media includes lectures and group collaboration. In lectures, the professor speaks

to the class with the intention of imparting knowledge, while the students are welcome to ask

questions regarding the teachings, thus creating a cycle of communication and feedback. Group
RWS AS A DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 5

collaboration is also fundamental to the educational growth of RWS students. By sharing and

reflecting on one anothers ideas, students gain knowledge from each other, rather than solely

learning from the professor. A professors lectures are extremely important; however, group

collaboration provides communication and feedback on a more personal platform.

Physical print media refers to the class composition book. Students write in the

composition book, as instructed by the professor, to display their developing writing skills. The

composition book is then turned in to the professor, who then provides feedback on the students

writing.

Electronic media used by the class includes e-mail and the Blackboard website. The

professor and students use e-mail to communicate about due dates and other class

announcements. The professor may e-mail the class informing students of a due date, expecting

that he will receive feedback in the form of students submitted assignments. Likewise, students

may e-mail the professor seeking feedback on one of his or her assignments or grades.

In addition to community-specific mechanisms of intercommunication, the RWS class

uses specific genres, Swales fourth characteristic of a discourse community, that are not

necessarily used in other classes (1990). The previously mentioned composition book is one of

these genres. Others include the course textbook, course syllabus, as well as the professors

personal e-mail and office hours. All five of these genres are relatively specific to the RWS class,

considering their usefulness outside of the RWS course is slim to none.

Throughout the progression of the course, students are exposed to specialized vocabulary

that is not necessarily used in other classes, which relates to Swales fifth defining characteristic
RWS AS A DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 6

of a discourse community (1990). For example, the use of the word rhetoric, which is

prominent in RWS, is not used near as commonly in a math or science class.

Swales sixth and final defining characteristic of a discourse community is a self-

sustaining hierarchal threshold of members (1990). The hierarchy of the RWS course is self-

sustaining, consisting of a professor with expertise, and students seeking to learn appropriate

language and genres in order to gain expertise. The professor, formerly a student of RWS,

teaches the class, however, if he were to vanish, another professor, who was also formerly a

student of RWS, would replace him. Likewise, future professors of RWS, will have been former

students of the course.

Conclusion

Throughout the research, it has been concluded that the RWS class meets all six of

Swales defining characteristics of a discourse community, often in more ways than one. The

class, including students and the professor, shares a common goal of furthering education, while

mechanisms of looped intercommunication are used to accomplish such goal. There are

dedicated genres and specialized vocabulary that the class uses as well. Finally, there is a self-

sustaining hierarchy within the class community. According to John Swales six defining

characteristics, the RWS class is clearly a discourse community.

RWS AS A DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 7

References

Chang, D. (2002). Classrooms as Discourse Communities. Retrieved September 24, 2017, from

https://www.teachers.net/gazette/JUL02/chang.html

Heiberger, C. (2015, January 28). The Discourse Community: Every Workplace Has One.

Retrieved September 24, 2017, from https://www.td.org/Publications/Blogs/Human-

Capital-Blog/2015/01/The-Discourse-Community

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

and Research Settings. Boston: Cambridge UP, .21-32. Print.