Discourse Community
Page 1
Blake Kiedrowski
Mr. Hildenbrandt
Writing Seminar 101
11/22/14
Discourse Community Essay
Best Buddies
Discourse community, a term given multiple definitions, has been most consistently defined as a group of people, who normally meet in a certain place, that have texts and practices in common. John Swales, the author of The Concept of Discourse Community, gives a list of six characteristics a group of individuals should uphold to be considered a discourse community. Even though a few of John Swales’ characteristics of a discourse community are shown in the Best Buddies organization, they are not a discourse community because they do not fully embody all of the attributes such as: a set of common public goals, use of genres to communicate, a required lexis, and have members that are a suitable degree of expertise. Before diving into proving that Best Buddies is not a discourse community, the organization deserves a proper introduction. The University of Dayton has a club called Best Buddies, which fosters a one-to-one friendship between a college student and an adult with an intellectual and developmental disability (IDD). The purpose of the organization is to provide an IDD adult with a friend or mentor. Throughout the academic year, the university creates certain events so all the members of the group can come together to socialize. These gatherings are based on certain holidays or events. A prime example of this is a big feast to celebrate Thanksgiving. They meet three times a month as a group so the IDD adults can communicate
Page 2 with one another. Aside from the club events, the college student and the buddy are supposed to meet twice a month to develop a relationship with each other. Even though Best Buddies meet together as a group, they are not a discourse community.
The first characteristic written by Swales states, “A discourse community has a broad set of common public goals” (221). This statement means the group must have a
Blake Kiedrowski
Mr. Hildenbrandt
Writing Seminar 101
11/22/14
Discourse Community Essay
Best Buddies
Discourse community, a term given multiple definitions, has been most consistently defined as a group of people, who normally meet in a certain place, that have texts and practices in common. John Swales, the author of The Concept of Discourse Community, gives a list of six characteristics a group of individuals should uphold to be considered a discourse community. Even though a few of John Swales’ characteristics of a discourse community are shown in the Best Buddies organization, they are not a discourse community because they do not fully embody all of the attributes such as: a set of common public goals, use of genres to communicate, a required lexis, and have members that are a suitable degree of expertise. Before diving into proving that Best Buddies is not a discourse community, the organization deserves a proper introduction. The University of Dayton has a club called Best Buddies, which fosters a one-to-one friendship between a college student and an adult with an intellectual and developmental disability (IDD). The purpose of the organization is to provide an IDD adult with a friend or mentor. Throughout the academic year, the university creates certain events so all the members of the group can come together to socialize. These gatherings are based on certain holidays or events. A prime example of this is a big feast to celebrate Thanksgiving. They meet three times a month as a group so the IDD adults can communicate
Page 2 with one another. Aside from the club events, the college student and the buddy are supposed to meet twice a month to develop a relationship with each other. Even though Best Buddies meet together as a group, they are not a discourse community.
The first characteristic written by Swales states, “A discourse community has a broad set of common public goals” (221). This statement means the group must have a
Cited: Page: Swales, J. (2014). The Concept of Discourse Community. In Reading and Writing for ENG 100: Writing Seminar 1 (3rd ed., pp. 218-230). Boston: Bedford.