Discourse Community
James Gee (1989) defines discourses as “ways of being in the world; they are forms of life which integrate words, acts, values, beliefs, attitudes, and social identities, as well as gestures, glances, body positions, and clothes. A Discourse is a sort of ‘identity kit’ which comes complete with the appropriate costume and instructions on how to act, talk, and often write, so as to take on a particular role that others will recognize” (p. 7). This definition is the one I had in mind while taking observations and explains what particulars I was looking to better understand through the process of my observation, interview, and research in regards to first year engineering students.
Photograph of Dr. James Gee
First year engineering students did display similar body language and followed the same unspoken rules. In my observation we saw students body language shift and change together as the speaker began their presentation showing that they were cohesive in their body positions, a requirement as stated by Gee. Unspoken actions that were followed could be seen in how all of the students avoided the front row of the classroom with no students occupying these seats until every other chair was filled and they were left with no other choice. Gee’s definition is also backed up by students’ choice in clothing. They were all wearing similar casual outfit choices consisting of jeans, jackets, and closed toe shoes. Students were also found to have similar beliefs and values according to the research conducted concerning undergraduate engineering student’s beliefs on education. According to Gee’s definition it seems that first year engineering students would satisfy the criteria to be considered their own discourse. However, John Swales further breaks up this definition of discourse into a set of rules a community must meet to be considered a discourse. I believe that in order to be considered their own discourse community they need to be able to able to fit into Gee’s definition and be unique enough to fulfill Swales’ rules as well.
Photograph of John M. Swales
John Swales (1990) lists his six defining characteristics of a discourse community as follows, “1. A discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals…2. A discourse community has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members…3. A discourse community uses its participatory mechanisms primarily to provide information and feedback…4. A discourse community utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims…5. In addition to owning genres, a discourse community has acquired some specific lexis…6. A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise” (p. 471-473). Swales’ first rule states that there is an overlying goal that is each student’s success in obtaining an engineering degree or a common goal of graduating NC State. A mechanism of intercommunication among first year engineering students is a little harder to define. There are ways for students to communicate with each other and the university advocates networking with each other however, there is not one place designated specifically for first year engineering students to communicate though intercommunication certainly occurs. As far as the community of students observing their own lexis, they were receptive to vocabulary and terms specifically aimed toward engineering students but I did not observe them using any kind of specific vernacular that was exclusive to their community, an outsider could have easily followed their discussion and understood. First year engineering students as a discourse community also encountered problems with rule number six, since all members would be freshman students they are all progressing together at the same rate leaving no room for novices or experts in their community. After reviewing both Gee’s definition of discourse and Swales’ defining characteristics of a discourse community I would conclude that first year engineering students while having all of the potential components to make a discourse community fail to have enough unique and defining characteristics to be viewed as their own discourse community though they may fall under a broader discourse community of North Carolina State University Students or undergraduate engineering students.
