Running Head: HISTORY TO 1500 DISCOURSE COMMUNITY 1

World History to 1500 Discourse Community

Idalis Calderon Figueroa
The University of Texas at El Paso
RWS 1301
Professor Christopher Herrera
History to 1500 2

Introduction
Although you may not know it by its name, we all belong to a discourse community. It is

a community where there is communication in certain forms and that have information that is

solely understood by those members in that discourse community. If you partake in a fandom

page online, that is a discourse community, if it meets certain criteria. Scholars have debated on

what discourse communities consist of and how they function, but according to John Swales, a

linguistic analyst at the University of Michigan, there are six key characteristics that all

successful discourse communities have. My major is history, so I studied a history course at

UTEP.

World History to 1500 is a sophomore level history course that studies world civilizations

to the 16th century in one semester. Dr. Joshua Fan, the professor of multiple history courses such

as History of Modern China, and History of premodern and modern East Asia. In the following

paragraphs, I will explain and argue if World History to 1500 is a discourse community using

Swales six characteristics.

Literature Review

The Concept of Discourse Community, written by John Swales defines

discourse communities using these six characteristics: set of common public goals, mechanisms

of intercommunication among its members, uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to

provide information and feedback, genres that further their aims, specific lexis, and levels of

expertise (Swales). John Swales, continues throughout the journal to explain how previous

scholars have said that discourse communities have certain aspects of it, but it is too broad and

encompasses groups that are not discourse communities or leaves out some. Discourse

communities are not the same as speech communities, because while speech communities are
History to 1500 3

centralized on their location, discourse communities can be made up of members from all over

the world. Discourse communities are not limited to academic contexts, rather they can range

from fan clubs or professional businesses. Using Swales criteria, I will argue if the course I

observed is a discourse community.

Kain and Wardle, who co-wrote Activity Theory: An Introduction for the Writing

Classroom, explain that activity theory helps you consider what a particular group (like people

creating and using the food bank we mentioned in the chapter introduction) is trying to

accomplish, how it has gone about trying to accomplish that work in the past, and how is it doing

so now. It is similar to Swales, because the unit of analysis, an activity system, describes it as

a group of people who share a common object and motive over time, as well as the wide range of

tools (Kain and Wardle). This theory can help breakdown texts by understanding why its

written a certain way and why are there specific conventions for that group. Activity theory also

analyzes groups over time and how theyve changed. This helps me analyze the course, because

most college courses rarely change over time, but the documents and context change.

Both of the authors have brought up good points about communities and how they

interact regardless of distance, time, and language. I agree that some communities have lack of

back and forth communication, but I dont believe that excludes them from being a discourse

community. Now that I think about it, I am in particular groups that could be classified as

discourse communities, and activity systems. I believe both these theories work well together to

explain groups that dont fit into either, but are a combination of both.

Methods
History to 1500 4

The community that I observed was on Tuesdays and Thursday, 12 pm to 1:20 pm in a

lecture hall. It was right after my second class, which ended at 11:50, but it was on the first floor

so I was in no hurry. Big classrooms where the professor is giving a lecture limits the amount of

discussions between the students and the professor. The class has two documents they need to

succeed in class: their textbook Traditions and Encounters: Brief Global History and their

Primary Source Reader. The reader was written by Fan, who summarized the textbook and added

questions to be used for their response papers and group discussions.

I interviewed Dr. Joshua Fan, and one of his students. Both agree that there is lack of

communication back and forth. Mainly, Fan would lecture the class, asking a couple questions

here and there, but his students dont come prepared. There is no participation, but Fans goal is

for his students who are not studying history to have a greater appreciation and understand of the

culture and heritage that still affects us today. The goal for the student is to pass the class. There

are plenty of lexis that would not be understood if you werent in the classroom or if you werent

a History major. Fan responds that although there are plenty of lexis to be learned, it is the skill

to read and to analyze data and text and apply the relevance of texts in the modern era from the

ancient times.

Discussion

To be frank, I believe that this course is not a discourse community, because it

only agrees with some of Swales criteria. There is a different goal for the professor and the

students. Joshua Fan wants them to have a greater understanding of world history, but the

students shared goal is to pass the class and not fail. As a history major, I would share Joshua

Fans goal, but his audience is mostly students who are required to take the class. According to

Swales, this would be enough evidence for them to not be a discourse community.
History to 1500 5

The group exists, because it is part of the universitys curriculum for its students.

Mechanisms that the class takes part in is response papers, group discussions, Blackboard, but

there is not an equal amount of communication between students and teacher and Swales agrees

that there must be feedback and information passed back and forth. The purpose of these

mechanisms is for Joshua Fan to know how well his students understand the subject and to

observe if he needs to adjust his teaching. Genres would include response papers and group

discussions, because they are trying to further their aim; understand World History to 1500s.

There is specific lexis that the group uses, but it changes with every class discussion. This

grouping would not yet constitute a discourse community. The highest expertise in this

community would be Joshua Fan, because he has spent most of his life studying and analyzing

ancient world history. The students would be the so-called newcomers, because they are being

taught by Fan, who is more knowledgeable about the topic. They learn how the community will

function through Fan and his expectations.

The use of the textbook and the reader, according to Kain and Wardle, are supportive of

this medium to achieve their short-term object(vies) and long-term outcomes, which for the

student is to pass the class. Again, there are some discourse communities that dont fit the mold

for Swales and Kain and Wardle, but they can exist in both.

Conclusion

After observing the classroom, interviewing, and analyzing the groups documents,

I can conclude that this course would not constitute as a discourse community, because

communication that is between both parties is what discourse communities rely on, and there is

not enough of it in this course. Due to this assignment, I could use what Swales and Kain and
History to 1500 6

Wardle have discussed and apply it into the communities I am in right now, and improve their

objective.
History to 1500 7

References

Kain, D., Wardle, E. (2005). Activity Theory: An Introduction for the Writing Classroom. In E.

Wardle & D Downs (Eds.), Writing about writing: A college reader (p. 277). Boston,

MA: Bedford/St. Martin's.

Swales, J. (1990). The Concept of Discourse Community. In E. Wardle & D. Downs (Eds.),

Writing about writing: A college reader (p. 212-227). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martins.