Discourse Community Paper

            Before I read the articles by Swales, Gee, and Mirabelli, I had not even the slightest idea what a discourse community was, but the idea, once known, is quite simple. A discourse community, according to Swales, has six defining characteristics. First, a discourse community must have a common set of public goals. The community must also have methods of communication between its members. Primarily, these methods are used to provide information and feedback to its members. Throughout these communications, specific lexis is used to help describe anything in the discourse community. The last point Swales stresses states “A discourse community has a threshold level of members with a sustainable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise,” (473). Although it may seem to be a large criteria to meet, hundreds of discourse communities can be found in the average citizen’s daily life. Anything from a sports team to a small business could be considered a discourse community as long as it fit the list Swales imposed. For this assignment, I chose to follow a soccer team midway through their season to find out just how good of a discourse community a soccer team was.

            To me, a soccer team is the perfect example of a discourse community. Although a soccer team may seem simple, it is quite the opposite. In soccer, there are no time outs and little stoppage of play, so communication with coaches is limited. For a soccer team to play well, each player must know their responsibilities on and off the field. Swales first point states the “discourse community has a broadly agreed set of common public goals,” (471). The common goals of a soccer team are pretty rudimentary; score but don’t let opponents score. In other words, when their team has the ball, every player already knows to help the person with the ball score. As soon as possession is lost to the opponent, the team switches to a defensive mentality. In this ever-changing game, players must constantly be aware of their surroundings. Every player knows their own duties and how to perform them the best. This is because every person on the field is there to win, and the smallest mistake can quickly transform into a goal for the opposition, which is not one of the goals of the team.

            To stop mistakes from happening, a senior member of the discourse community is chosen to act as the captain on and off the field. Having a captain is a necessity of a soccer team. With no team captain, there is no leadership on the field. The captain can be compared to a conductor of an orchestra. He knows how the team performs best and can execute the goals of the team well. He manages the team and makes them work to the best of their abilities. To differentiate between the captain and a player, a keen eye is necessary. During a match, the captain will be wearing either an arm band or a leg band that says captain so everyone knows who is in control. Seeing the difference between a coach and a player is normally easy. Coaches tend to be a lot older than the age group that is competing. They have acquired the most knowledge and experience and can teach the team how to reach their goals and minimize mistakes. Between the coaches and captains, newcomers to the discourse community have mentors to learn the necessary lexis and knowledge of the community from.

From my interviews, I found out about some specific lexis within the team. If a player was directly to the left or right of another player on the field and wanted a pass, he could simply shout out “square” and the ball carrier would know there was somebody ninety degrees to his left or right who was open and looking for a pass. Instead of simply yelling “left” or “right”, “square” is used so only people in that  discourse community know what is being asked. In soccer, the key to winning is being able to anticipate the opposition’s next move. Thus, if a player just called out “left” or “right”, the next move of that team is known. Another example of lexis in a soccer team is when a person calls for a “through ball”. This means a player is asking the person in possession to pass the ball not directly to him, but in front of him so the player has the ability to run into space and then receive the ball, instead of having to dribble through a defender to reach the same space. Lexis carries over from games into practices and meetings and begins to take its rightful place in the vocabulary of the player. Once the lexis is known, it makes communication easier and faster for the team and can positively alter the outcome of games by simply eliminating little mistakes which could turn into costly errors.

Besides using specific lexis to communicate with each other, players and coaches use e-mail, phone calls, texts, and even letters to communicate times of tournaments, games, scrimmages, practices, and meetings to every person within the discourse community. Modern technology aids communication between coaches and players a lot. Before cellular phones, people could only be contacted at their place of residency, but with modern phones, people can be reached almost anywhere at any time. This technology makes it very easy to communicate and transmit information within the discourse community. If a member of the discourse community did not know a specific piece of information, it is likely that member’s fault.

After spending some time watching soccer games, interviewing players, and dissecting the game, I think a soccer team is a great example of a discourse community. It is obvious that the team has common public goals. They include scoring on their opponents, but not letting their opponents do the same to them. They have specific lexis that is used on and off the field like “square” and “through ball” to help communication between the team. This lexis is important because it helps hide the intentions of the team and leaves the opposition guessing. There are constantly new players joining the team and people leaving the team, so captains and coaches have the responsibility of teaching the new players the lexis and knowledge of the team. Finally, members of the discourse community communicate using modern technology like cell phones, e-mail, texting, and other forms of communication. After researching a soccer team and performing multiple interviews, it is clear a soccer team fits Swales definition of a discourse community.

Wrapping Up Discourse

After finishing reading the articles on discourse and discourse communities, one thing is clear; discourse is a topic to argue over. Between Swales, Gee, and Mirabelli, discourse is covered pretty thoroughly. From the readings, it is clear Gee, Swales, and Mirabelli all take a slightly different stand on discourse and its meaning. Discourse is the group in which a person belongs to. In my case, my discourse would be college students working to get their degree. While Gee stated in the article that if a person was not born into the discourse community, then there would be no way for that person to be fully accepted into it. I disagree with Gee on this statement because I have proven him wrong in my own life. Just because a person is part of a discourse, doesn’t mean they don’t have the opportunity to join another. As people grow up, they have the opportunity to change discourses multiple times during their life due to subtle changes within the person.

Swales believed there were 6 different aspects to discourses, but I only agree with 4 such aspects. I believe by choosing our discourses, we are aligning ourselves with others who share the same beliefs and interests as us. Discourse brings people together who previously did not know each other through the sheer power of shared interests. I agree with Mirabelli and his thoughts about communication through a discourse. Inside the discourse, there are certain terms that people get to know what they mean, but outsiders would have no clue what the meaning was. By using specialized language, discourses are harder to join and make it so only people who strongly wish to join have the ability to do so. By studying discourse, much can be learned about how people communicate and learn new information. This knowledge of discourse would benefit anyone studying reading and writing because they would be better at recognizing communication from the texts.

The FINAL Rhetorical Reading Paper

        Although most English majors and academic scholars know or have heard about literacy sponsors, the rest of the world is left wondering who and what a literacy sponsor is and what duties they perform. Deborah Brandt, a professor of English at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has written multiple books and articles about literacy and is the scholar responsible for the creation of literacy sponsorship. Using research gathered while writing her book Literacy in American Lives, Brandt concluded literacy is sponsored by people, institutions, and life circumstances which all allow or prevent uneducated people from becoming literate. Formulated using these conclusions, Brandt’s article “Sponsors of Literacy” was written and later published in an academic journal from 1998 titled “College Composition and Communication”. In the twenty page article, Brandt defines literacy sponsors as “any agents, local or distant, concrete or abstract, who enable, support, teach, model, as well as recruit, regulate, suppress, or withhold literacy -- and gain advantage by it in some way,” (336).

            Deborah Brandt defines literacy sponsors in her article “Sponsors of Literacy”, but it may be confusing to some readers. In general, literacy sponsors may be viewed as the medium uneducated people must pass through to reach literacy. Sponsors can either help or inhibit the learner and gain an advantage from it in some way, whether it is money, power, or relations with said person. To understand the definition of a sponsor of literacy, it helps to remember the circumstances in which literacy was taught. If a child grows up wealthy in a large city, literacy sponsors will be plentiful, but only a fraction of those sponsors would be available to a poor child who grew up outside suburbia. Standardized testing has generally proven the rich child raised in the city would become more literate than the poor country child. Brandt later stated “affluent people from high-caste racial groups have multiple and redundant contacts with powerful literacy sponsors as a routine part of their economic and political privileges. Poor people and those from low-caste racial groups have less consistent, less politically secured access to literacy sponsors--especially to the ones that can grease their way to academic and economic success,” (337). Not only do wealth and location affect literacy, though. Characteristics such as race, religion, politics, and family views all the way down to subtle issues such as bus routes and sports teams can alter the literacy sponsorship of a person.

            Another point Brandt addresses is the growing need for literacy and training in the English language. From her research, Brandt came across a person who witnessed the growth first hand. Dwayne Lowery was the first person who gave concrete proof of the shift in literacy. During his days as a union representative, he handled grievances and contract negotiations for his company, until he was forced to pursue an early retirement after being replaced by a young, college graduate with a master’s degree. His job experience is proof for every person who is considering skipping college and proceeding straight into the workforce to be careful, because a higher dependence on reading and writing skills is taking effect in America. This is due to literacy sponsors fighting for control of literacy. When a single sponsor has command of the literacy of a group of people, they have complete control over the people. Literacy in today’s society is distinct because as certain issues arise, specifically trained people must combat specialized forms of escalating pressure. An example would be lawsuits. A normal civilian would not be able to understand legal terms, but a lawyer could communicate in the most effective way possible to come to an agreement with the opposing side. From this example, it is clear an exemplary education is helpful to succeed in the workforce. Nowadays, it is rare if a person with a high-income salary did not have any college degree. As competition for jobs gets higher, literacy becomes a deciding factor in determining the right candidate.

            After reading Brandt’s article, a few key things can be pulled from it. First, the article was printed in a respectable publication that is generally used by college professors and some college students. This builds the credibility of Brandt’s article because all articles placed into the publication must be correct and have research to back up the findings. Because the article was published in the College Composition and Communication, Brandt’s article would most likely be used as textual support for professors arguing about literacy and the history of literacy in a person’s lifetime. From the article, a couple main points can be picked out. Primarily, sponsors of literacy shape the literacy of others and have a profound effect on reading and writing. They determine which parts of reading and writing seem important to the writer, and have an impact upon the actual writing and reading skills of individuals.

From this article, Brandt is hoping to show the general public how to become better readers and writers. When a person can look back through their own history of literacy and figure out who their sponsors of literacy were, they are better at evaluating their own writing because they have the ability to trace their thoughts and correct mistakes. The goal of the article is to define sponsors of literacy and get people thinking about their own literacy sponsors. When people read the article, they are thrust into an old world filled with bad memories of evil English teachers and failed papers that have haunted them for years. Once thinking about their sponsors of literacy, people can view the progression of their reading and writing skills and directly relate it to a specific sponsor’s role in their education. After the reader is thinking about sponsors and has identified who he/she believes is a sponsor, the reader can better analyze how they have grown as a reader and writer and why they have the trends in reading and writing they do. Looking back at past sponsors is beneficial because it helps clarify the source of certain habits, good and bad.

            This article was written to make college professors and students think about their literacy history and to help professors teach the concept of sponsors of literacy to a class, much like this Writ 101 class does. When people think about their history, they can make connections with their old and new writing and reading skills and see how progression has taken place throughout the years. Brandt wrote this article for another specific reason; she wants to place more emphasis on where literacy comes from and hope to improve people’s reading and writing habits by allowing people to find respectable sponsors to aid in the development as a writer.

From Brandt’s article, a sponsor of literacy is defined and although the definition is most likely intended for college professors and students, a useful meaning can be pulled from the somewhat confusing definition. In general, a sponsor is seen as the medium in which people must pass through to become literate. These sponsors directly influence reading and writing trends, and are the reason people write how they do. Deborah Brandt’s article “Sponsors of Literacy” explains literacy sponsors in a way which is beneficial to students and professors when talking about literacy and where it came from. It is clear from Brandt researching and writing an article about literacy sponsors that literacy is becoming a huge part of our society, and she wants the public to be ready for a society where literacy equals power.

Reading Rhetorically

          Although most English majors and academic scholars know or have heard about literary sponsors, the rest of the world is left wondering who and what a literary sponsor is and what duties they perform. Deborah Brandt, a professor of English at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, has written multiple books and articles about literacy and is the scholar responsible for the creation of literary sponsorship. Using research gathered while writing her book Literacy in American Lives, Brandt concluded literacy is sponsored by people, institutions, and life circumstances which all allow or prevent uneducated people from becoming literate. Formulated using these conclusions, Brandt’s article “Sponsors of Literacy” was written and later published in an academic journal from 1998 titled “College Composition and Communication”. In the twenty page article, Brandt defines literary sponsors as “any agents, local or distant, concrete or abstract, who enable, support, teach, model, as well as recruit, regulate, suppress, or withhold literacy -- and gain advantage by it in some way,” (336).

            Deborah Brandt defines literary sponsors in her article “Sponsors of Literacy”, but it may be confusing to some readers. In general, literary sponsors may be viewed as the medium uneducated people must pass through to reach literacy. Sponsors can either help or inhibit the learner and gain an advantage from it in some way, whether it is money, power, or relations with said person. To understand the definition of a literary sponsor, it helps to remember the circumstances in which literacy was taught. If a child grows up wealthy in a large city, literary sponsors will be plentiful, but only a fraction of those sponsors would be available to a poor child who grew up outside suburbia. Standardized testing has generally proven the rich child raised in the city would become more literate than the poor country child. Brandt later stated “affluent people from high-caste racial groups have multiple and redundant contacts with powerful literacy sponsors as a routine part of their economic and political privileges. Poor people and those from low-caste racial groups have less consistent, less politically secured access to literacy sponsors--especially to the ones that can grease their way to academic and economic success,” (337). Not only do wealth and location affect literacy, though. Characteristics such as race, religion, politics, and family views all the way down to subtle issues such as bus routes and sports teams can alter the literary sponsorship of a person.

            Another point Brandt addresses is the growing need for literacy and training in the English language. From her research, Brandt came across a person who witnessed the growth first hand. Dwayne Lowery was the first person who gave concrete proof of the shift in literacy. During his days as a union representative, he handled grievances and contract negotiations for his company, until he was forced to pursue an early retirement after being replaced by a young, college graduate with a master’s degree. His job experience is proof for every person who is considering skipping college and proceeding straight into the workforce to be careful, because a higher dependence on reading and writing skills is taking effect in America. This is due to literacy sponsors fighting for control of literacy. When a single sponsor has command of the literacy of a group of people, they have complete control over the people. Literacy in today’s society is distinct because as certain issues arise, specifically trained people must combat specialized forms of escalating pressure. An example would be lawsuits. A normal civilian would not be able to understand legal terms, but a lawyer could communicate in the most effective way possible to come to an agreement with the opposing side. From this example, it is clear an exemplary education is helpful to succeed in the workforce. Nowadays, it is rare if a person with a high-income salary did not have any college degree. As competition for jobs gets higher, literacy becomes a deciding factor in determining the right candidate.

            After reading Brandt’s article, a few key things can be pulled from it. First, the article was printed in a respectable publication that is generally used by college professors and some college students. This builds the credibility of Brandt’s article because all articles placed into the publication must be correct and have research to back up the findings. Because the article was published in the College Composition and Communication, Brandt’s article would most likely be used as textual support for professors arguing about literacy and the history of literacy in a person’s lifetime. From the article, a couple main points can be picked out. Primarily, sponsors of literacy shape the literacy of others and have a profound effect on reading and writing. They determine which parts of reading and writing seem important to the writer, and have an impact upon the actual writing and reading skills of individuals.

From this article, Brandt is hoping to show the general public how to become better readers and writers. When a person can look back through their own history of literacy and figure out who their sponsors of literacy were, they are better at evaluating their own writing because they have the ability to trace their thoughts and correct mistakes. The goal of the article is to define sponsors of literacy and get people thinking about their own literacy sponsors. When people read the article, they are thrust into an old world filled with bad memories of evil English teachers and failed papers that have haunted them for years. Once thinking about their sponsors of literacy, people can view the progression of their reading and writing skills and directly relate it to a specific sponsor’s role in their education. After the reader is thinking about sponsors and has identified who he/she believes is a sponsor, the reader can better analyze how they have grown as a reader and writer and why they have the trends in reading and writing they do. Looking back at past sponsors is beneficial because it helps clarify the source of certain habits, good and bad.

            This article was written to make college professors and students think about their literacy history and to help professors teach the concept of sponsors of literacy to a class, much like this Writ 101 class does. When people think about their history, they can make connections with their old and new writing and reading skills and see how progression has taken place throughout the years. Brandt wrote this article for another specific reason; she wants to place more emphasis on where literacy comes from and hope to improve people’s reading and writing habits by allowing people to find respectable sponsors to aid in the development as a writer.

From Brandt’s article, a sponsor of literacy is defined and although the definition is most likely intended for college professors and students, a useful meaning can be pulled from the somewhat confusing definition. In general, a sponsor is seen as the medium in which people must pass through to become literate. These sponsors directly influence reading and writing trends, and are the reason people write how they do. Deborah Brandt’s article “Sponsors of Literacy” explains literacy sponsors in a way which is beneficial to students and professors when talking about literacy and where it came from. It is clear from Brandt researching and writing an article about literacy sponsors that literacy is becoming a huge part of our society, and she wants the public to be ready for a society where literacy equals power.