You are on page 1of 8

Closi 1

Catherine Closi
Professor Wolcott
ENC 1101
11 November 2014
Discourse Communities
In the past years, much research has been done on discourse communities. John
Swales, a professor of linguistics and codirector of the Michigan Corpus of Academic
Spoken English at the University of Michigan, wrote an article regarding the six
characteristics that make up a discourse community, which include common goals,
intercommunication, feedback, genre, lexis, and membership. Tony Mirabelli, a Tutorial
Coordinator at University of California-Berkeley, wrote an article regarding language and
literacy. Mirabelli acknowledges the six characteristics from Swales but he goes further
in his own research claiming genre is the focal point of discourse communities. As a
current student enrolled in ENC1101 at University of Central Florida, I too am learning
and researching about discourse community. As a student, I feel that I understand that
there is a discourse community for those who study writing. By understanding the
concepts of the discourse community, it will prepare me to be a better student and later a
better nurse.
In my opinion, some of the characteristics Swales came up with are more
significant than others. The reason behind my view is because some of the characteristics
truly depict and represent the essence of a discourse community best. I believe lexis and
genre embody a discourse community fully without needing to mention the other four
characteristics that Swales mentions. The term discourse community was first introduced

Closi 2
in an article by James Porter. Porter stated, A discourse community is a group of
individuals bound by a common interest who communicate through approved channels
and whose discourse is regulated (1986, Porter). This description distinguishes both
genre and lexis, too. By breaking down the description, I can infer that genre is
represented by common interests and lexis is represented by approved channels.
Genre isnt just about goals or interest but about the format. According to Swales,
genre may involve appropriacy of topics, the form, function and positioning of
discoursal elements, and the roles texts play in the operation of the discourse community
(1990, Swales). Thus, Genre is a structure common to the discourse community. I prove a
certain structure of genre by opening my introduction of this paper using John Swales
Create a Research Space (CARS) model. The model gives steps that are appropriate to
use in order to produce a well structured research introduction. This model is used almost
every time in writing a research paper. Therefore, the CARS model is a genre used by
writers of the discourse community of those who study writing. The CARS model also
proves that the book Writing about Writing from my ENC1101 class introduces
students to the discourse community of those who study writing. Genre depicts the style
of discourse. Another example of genre is a menu of a restaurant according to Mirablli
(2004, Mirabelli). The menu invites discoursal elements through its structure and format,
thus a genre.
Lexis can be described as the special language or dialect used in a discourse
community. Swales refers to lexis as a highly specialized terminology (1990, Swales).
Terminology is a major part of lexis. Every discourse community has terminology that is
used mostly within the discourse community. Outsiders are foreign to the lexis within a

Closi 3
discourse community; however, in my case, I have been studying writing and thus have
learned much terminology that primarily pertains to the lexis of a discourse community
of those who study writing. Such terminology includes discourse community, exigence,
rhetorical analysis, warrant, writing processes, etc. These terms are used in the lexis of a
discourse community of those who study writing. Lexis can also be described as
abbreviations of special terms.
The information and research I have gathered from articles of numerous authors
all come from my book for ENC1101 called Writing about writing. As a student
learning about discourse communities, I see the book presents the discourse community
of those who study writing through means of teaching what a discourse community is.
The previous description of discourse community provided by Porter evolves
from author to author and from article to article through the book Writing about
Writing. While Porter felt discourse communities are based on both the common interest
and regulated communication, other authors had their own views. Swales viewed that a
discourse community involves the six characteristics of common goals,
intercommunication, feedback, genre, lexis, and membership. Mirabelli viewed discourse
community centered about genre. Mirabelli gave his example of a restaurants menu as a
genre and that menus are texts that are catalysts for interaction (2004, Mirabelli).
Plainly, Mirabelli viewed that genre invites discourse in a discourse community. Gee
evolved the idea of discourse community as Discourses (1989, Gee). All these authors
agree that discourse communities exist but their view on the elements that make up a
discourse community differ. I can capture the discourse community of those who study

Closi 4
writing from my ENC1101 book, Writing about Writing, using the elements from
Porter, Swales, Mirabelli and Gee.
As mentioned before, Porter views that discourse communities arise from both
common interest and regulated communication. As one reads the book Writing about
Writing, the common interest is writing and the communication of writing is through a
collection of articles all structured the same. From Swales we have the six characteristics
of a discourse community: common goals, intercommunication, feedback, genre, lexis,
and membership. The common goal of Writing about Writing is learning about writing
through writing. Other interests of the book includes that there is more to writing than
words on a paper, discourse communities are always changing due to new goals and new
definitions, and to help students read difficult texts with some guidance.
Intercommunication of the book occurs in class as classmates talk about topics and
questions. Feedback, or participation, of the book occurs from the books questions for
discussion and journaling as well as applying and exploring ideas questions. From
class experience, our grades, comments from the teacher, unit review evaluations from
students, rubrics, and discussion guidelines all encompass feedback on the book. Genre
of the book is proven by the CARS model, because every article in the book is
structured/formatted the same. Lexis is the terminology throughout the book as
mentioned previously. Membership of the book is primarily run by PHDs. Thus, for me I
cannot enter the discourse community but assimilate instead. We (my classmates and I)
got into ENC1101 because we got into University of Central Florida due to our
placement tests, high school grades, and English scores on standardized tests. Once
entering UCF as a student, we must fulfill our General Education courses, one of which

Closi 5
being ENC1101. So, I assimilate the discourse community of those who study writing by
being a student of ENC1101 and reading the book Writing about Writing. From
Mirabelli, we have genre that invites discourse. The book is composed of articles that
exhibit a genre, or structure, which is used throughout the book. The books genre invites
discourse between readers, writers, and authors. Lastly, Gee explains multiple discourses.
Gee explains that you cant study your way into a secondary Discourse because you can
only be taught so much. This is also true in reference to the book and its secondary
Discourse. As a student reading the book, I cannot enter the discourse community but
only be taught about it to an extent and then assimilate myself through mushmaking.
Learning about discourse communities is beneficial in my opinion. I do think it
will help me be a better student as well as future nurse. As a student and future nurse, to
identify discourse communities around oneself is smart. To have knowledge of the
elements that depict discourse communities is even better. Common goals/interests are an
element that distinguishes discourse communities apart from one another. By
successfully identifying discourse communities around me, it will enable me to
communicate with each one without having to be part of the community itself. This is
advantageous as a student and future nurse.
Gee introduces the skill of mushmaking (1989, Gee). According to Gee,
mushmaking relates to secondary discourse because on your way to mastery, one must
pretend as well. The slogan fake it till you make it is key to this idea of mushmaking.
As a student learning the discourse community of those who study writing, I am not part
of the discourse community but can mushmake because I know enough about the
elements that comprise the community. Mushmake and assimilation go hand in hand too.

Closi 6
As a future nurse, I will have to mushmake. This is true because as a beginner I am not
part of the discourse community of medicine and therefore must mushfake.
The art of subtle argument comes from learning about discourse community of
writing as well. Subtle argument occurs between colleagues/authors of the same
discourse community and happens as there is controversy between views. Mentioned in
my introduction, Swales and Mirabelli both have views on discourse communities but
differ slightly. One doesnt attack the other but each contributes their own ideas creating
collaboration. As a student in an academic society, you cant call people names because
that person may be your boss some day. Thus subtle argument is key! In my future work
place, I will have to use subtle argument myself. My mother is a current nurse in a
hospital and has provided me with an example of subtle discourse. My mother had a
Doctor once order an unnecessary dosage of a medication for a patient. Since my mother
was subordinate to the Doctor, she had to use subtle argument to advocate for the patient.
Instead of telling the Doctor he was incorrect, my mother addressed the situation by
feeding the Doctor information about the patient, thus making him aware and leading him
to change his original act of treatment.
The example of subtle argument also shows how feedback and
intercommunication within a discourse community is extremely important. This
statement can even go further in the work field for nurses. Intercommunication and
feedback is a must. Nurses must communicate with not only coworkers (other nurses) but
also doctors, patients, patients family members, nurses aids, ancillary services, and the
list goes on. A nurse receives feedback from all over too. Feedback is essential because
feedback from patients, doctors, nurses, and ancillary services can help better a patients

Closi 7
outcome. Lexis is important with extensive branches of communication. A nurse must
speak using medical terminology to employees of the hospital but must use laymans
terms when speaking to patients and their family.
As a student I also will use intercommunication, feedback, and lexis.
Intercommunication and feedback between classmates and teachers is needed to grow
and develop as a student. Lexis is a factor as well. Just like a nurse interacting with
patients and doctors, a student addresses teachers and classmates differently according to
the discourse community. Therefore, using the appropriate lexis is needed.
Overall the collective idea of a discourse community is a group of individuals
coming together based on equivalent values and communicating through accepted
networks. As a student in ENC1101 learning about discourse communities, I
acknowledge Porter, Swales, Mirabelli, and Gees views of discourse community.
However, I value the elements of genre and lexis greater because I believe they
encompass and embody discourse community best. I feel that I grasp the concept of
discourse community and its element well from the book Writing about Writing. Thus,
I state with confidence that the book Writing about Writing presents the discourse
community for those who study writing. By understanding the concepts of the discourse
community, it will prepare me to be a better student and later a better nurse.

Closi 8
Works Cited
Gee, James. "Literacy, Discourse, and Linguistics: Introduction." Wardle, Elisabeth and
Doug Downs. Writing about Writing. Bedford/St. Martins. 2014. Print.
Mirabelli, Tony. Learning to Serve: The Language and Literacy of Food Service
Workers. Writing About Writing. Ed. Elizabeth Wardle. Boston: Bedford/ St.
Martins, 2014.
Porter, James. "Intertextuality and the Discourse Community." Writing About Writing:
A College Reader. Eds. Wardle and Downs. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins,
2011. 395-409. Print.
Swales, John. "Create a Research Space (CARS) Model of Research
Introductions." Writing About Writing: A College Reader. Eds. Wardle and
Downs. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. 215-229. Print.
Swales, John. "The Concept of Discourse Community." Writing About Writing: A
College Reader. Eds. Wardle and Downs. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins,
2011. 215-229. Print.

You might also like