Hearts and Minds: A DiscourseCommunityAnalysis

1dis·course \ˈdis-ˌkȯrs, dis-ˈ\noun

Etymology: Middle English discours, from Medieval Latin & Late Latin discursus; Medieval Latin, argument, from Late Latin, conversation, from Latin, act of running about, from discurrere to run about, from dis- + currere to run — more at car. c.14th century 1archaic: the capacity of orderly thought or procedure :rationality2: verbal interchange of ideas; especially:conversation3 a: formal and orderly and usually extended expression of thought on a subject b: connected speech or writing c: a linguistic unit (as a conversation or a story) larger than a sentence4obsolete: social familiarity
5: a mode of organizing knowledge, ideas, or experience that is rooted in language and its concrete contexts (as history or institutions) <critical discourse> (from Merriam-Webster's Collegiate® Dictionary, Eleventh Edition.)

For the first part of the course, we conducted highly focused analyses of texts to explore the rhetorical situation (audience, purpose, and context), how writers use particular genres, and how written and visual texts rely on rhetorical features to achieve their goals. For this assignment, we will use the insights we gained from these microthemes to analyze how an advocacy or activist discourse community uses rhetorical and literary practices to represent its cause and itself in academic, political, social, or digital environments.

First Steps: Finding a Discourse Community

Discourse communities are all around us, though we might not think of them as such. John Swales, a linguist and Professor Emeritus at the University of Michigan, has done extensive work towards defining the criteria that determines a discourse community:

According to Swales, a discourse community:

  1. has a broadly agreed set of common public goals.
  2. has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members.
  3. uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback.
  4. utilizes and hence “possesses” one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims.
  5. in addition to owning genres, it has acquired some specific lexis
  6. has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise.

In other words, members of a discourse community share a common goal, exchange ideas, critique and revise those exchanged ideas, use particular genres frequently, communicate using a shared vocabulary (with all members recognizing the use of particular terminology), and are relatively knowledgeable about the discourse and subject matter.

In order to find a discourse community (DC) that you are interested in analyzing, you could poke around on Facebook, check out the bulletin boards around campus, conduct some follow-up research on a text from the syllabus that you found intriguing, or explore links that one of those texts posted in a “blog roll” or “other resources” section.

Your choice does not have to be contemporary, though it will probably be easier to research if it is currently active and has some degree of internet presence. Choose a DC based on its mission—one that you support or one that you revile. Or, perhaps you find the DC’s mission silly, funny, innovative, obscure, or trivial. Just be sure that you are INTERESTED in the community in some way.

If you are still at a loss, talk to me or email me for suggestions. I will also try to compile some extra examples that I find compelling.

Your DC doesn’t need to be a formal organization. It doesn’t need to have a Facebook page. Usually there are multiple groups that align themselves with causes that have varying degrees of hierarchy or organization. You may choose a group, like The Human Rights Campaign, or you may look at the larger DC concerned with gay marriage or marriage equality, for instance.

You may be asking yourself, “Alli, what about apathy? Could we research a DC that trades in the rhetoric of apathy?” Sure, but good luck finding one.

Conducting Your Research

Once you’ve decided on a discourse community, you will need to examine how the DC makes and transacts meaning. What jargon, terminology, iconography or rhetoric (lexis) do they commonly use? What form or genre does the DC employ to share ideas? Does one form of discourse seem more effective than others? Do those texts have a different intended audience or audiences in mind that are separate from the DC? Has the DC experienced major changes to communication styles and modes as our society has become more visual or digital? How does the group mediate its message? Do they use different communication styles to reach “outsiders”? What does it mean to be a literate member of your discourse community? How does the DC characterize the discourse of other groups and “non-members”? How does the DC respond to such oppositional or unaffiliated discourse?

You should draw upon all that you have learned this quarter in order to seek a full, complex, and diverse representation of sources primarily by but also about the discourse community of your choice. The point of this assignment is to help you learn more about how writers use discourse differently and to help you improve your research skills.

Writing Your Analysis

The essay should have a thesis, something that you are trying to prove. You could be arguing that the DC’s influence or impact is significant, or that its means of communication is less than effective. You could posit that the DC has gained or lost its relevance because of shifting ideas. You could simply be arguing that the DC is noteworthy for some reason. The point here is that there has to be a reason why your readers should care about your analysis.

When you have finished your final version, your essay should be 6-8 pages long. You may include images and charts or graphs, but your essay should be at least six pages long, not including those images OR YOUR WORKS CITED page. Do not use a title page. Please follow all the conventions of MLA formatting and citation.

Please submit to the appropriate Assignment forum on Blackboard in .doc or .docx form.

Works Cited

Swales, J. M. Genre Analysis: English in Academic and Research Settings. Cambridge: Cambridge

University Press, 1990. 26.