Project #3 Intro/Conversation

Project 3 Intro/Conversation

     When looking into the topic of discourse communities, we find that there are widespread, controversial means of defining the term. Everyone seems to have their own idea of what a discourse community is and about how exactly it fits in to the world of language and literacy. There has to be a main definition for “discourse community,” right? In reality, there is no set definition. Every author we have read from has explored the concept of discourse communities in different ways.

     For example, John Swales writes in his article, “The Concept of the Discourse Community,” about his six characteristics that help define what a discourse community is. According to Swales, a discourse community must: have a set of common goals; have intercommunication among members; use “its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback” (472); utilize and possess “one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims” (472); have “acquired some specific lexis” (473); and have “a threshold level of members within a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise” (473). Swales strongly believes that all of these characteristics are required in order to recognize a group of people as a discourse community.

      James Paul Gee has a slightly different approach on the concept of discourse communities. He discusses his idea of discourse as a way of being in the world. Gee’s ideas differentiate from Swales because Gee thinks that no one can be a pure member of a certain discourse community. This is due to the fact that we all take part in many discourses that influence one another. His main point is that “you’re either recognized by others as a full member or you’re not” (481).

     The Devitt et al. article is another take on the discourse community concept. Amy Devitt agrees with John Swales, yet she expands on the whole topic by pointing out the importance of genre analysis in comprehending discourse communities, as well as the other authors in the whole article do.

     In “Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces” by Elizabeth Wardle, Wardle adds to the conversation as well as begins a new one. Instead of focusing on how to define discourse communities, she discusses issues that were also brought up by James Paul Gee. Wardle explores how people write and adjust to several different discourse communities. Her article explores the struggles that can occur when moving into a new discourse community due to miscommunication in the forms of authority and identity.

     This ethnography will explore the discourse communities among choral and a cappella groups. These singing groups can fit well into the ongoing conversation about discourse communities. Among all choral groups, there are common goals, ways of intercommunication, roles of authority and identities, and even analysis of specific genres. 

Mr. Vetter,

     I wasn't sure what else to add as far as my ethnography on the choral/groups since this is only the intro/conversation draft. As we continue expanding on the project I will add more details about how each concept is true of this specific community.