Discourse Community Analysis: The Dearborn Heights Community Organization
John Swales, a professor of linguistics with a Ph.D. from Cambridge University, plays a big role in clarifying the very much debated topic of a discourse community. Swales, who is also the co-director of the Michigan Corpus of Academic Spoken English at the University of
Michigan, gives his insight on the controversial meaning of this topic in his book, “Genre
Analysis.” In this book, rather than a straight forward definition, Swales lists what he thinks are six characteristics that each community or group must satisfy in order to claim the title of a discourse community. The Dearborn Heights Community Organization, also known as the
DHCO, is an example of a community that fulfills each of the six characteristics appointed by
Swales. In order to further understand the vague concept of a discourse community, these six characteristics will be listed and analyzed, and specific examples from the DHCO will be provided for each corresponding characteristic.
The first of these six characteristics is that a discourse community has “a broadly agreed set of common public goals” (Swales 471). Whether these goals are formally written or simply recognized mentally by all members of the community, they are public and evident. Each member in the community is aware of the goal, or goals, and strives towards achieving it. Zaineb
A. Hussain, the director of public relations for the DHCO, states that the organization’s goals include, “promoting social, political, and public engagement within the community, as well as developing and utilizing connections in order to satisfy the concerns of the community.” The organization’s most current focus is their networking. According to Hussain, it is imperative that they expand their connections and involvement in order to gain more political leeway and continue their past success (Hussain).

The second characteristic is that a discourse community has “mechanisms of intercommunication among its members.” (Swales 471). These mechanisms will vary greatly, depending on the specific group, but nonetheless, all discourse communities must have a source, or sources, for their members to keep in touch and discuss relevant goals and topics. Hussain also notes that the organization’s most efficient mechanisms of intercommunication are “social media, such as Facebook, Twitter, texting, and e-mailing.” The DHCO has also intertwined these more outreaching mechanisms with ones that are not as prevalent, but just as efficient. For example, the organization holds business meetings and casual gatherings, which do not always result in attendance of a majority of the members due to timing conflictions. Through the use of these more convenient methods such as social networking, members who are not able to attend these meetings and gatherings are still more than able to keep up with any information or plans they might have missed out on.
Thirdly, a discourse community uses these participatory mechanisms “primarily to provide information and feedback” (Swales 472). Essentially, the third characteristic implies that if members of a group or community do not partake in the essence of the second characteristic, then the discourse community they claim to be a part of basically ceases to exist. Hussain also detailed that participation from members “thrives in attendance of school board meetings and social events in the community, where members represent the organization.” As the DHCO invests much of their time in persuading the Crestwood High School Board of Education to make advances towards areas of concern within school improvement, school board meetings are a crucial example of Swales’ third characteristic. Members of the DHCO interact at these school board meetings, discussing progressions and also innovating their less successful tactics.

Next, a discourse community “utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims” (Swales 472). In this context however, the word “genre” has a slightly different meaning. As opposed to the typical definition of genre, which unanimously pertains to music, movies, books, etc., it is defined as the written and spoken means by which people in a discourse community achieve their goals. In simpler terms, a discourse community must use genres to keep up with its developing expectations or goals. Some very common genres used throughout many different types of discourse communities include open ended discussions, lectures, e-mails, and social networking postings, among many others. These all qualify as genres because in either a written (or typed) form, or a spoken form, they provide the basis for spreading knowledge of, and accomplishing, pre-existing and emerging goals.
Rasheed Beydoun, the director of strategy and development, articulates that the organization is
“quite successful in utilizing the conventional means of text messaging and phone calls.” He also goes on to elaborate, concerning his position specifically, “most of the time I prefer to use chat based programs to bounce ideas off of one another.”
The fifth characteristic of a discourse community is that the community has “acquired some specific lexis” (Swales 473). This can also be considered as a sort of insider’s vocabulary or dialect. In order to fit this characteristic, a community must progressively incline towards a specialized terminology. Very recurring types of lexes used throughout discourse communities are community specific abbreviations and acronyms, the “DHCO” in the case of the Dearborn
Heights Community Organization. Also, considering that the majority of the members of the organization are of Middle Eastern decent, it is very typical that members use Arabic phrases habitually to communicate (Beydoun). Aside from being of Middle Eastern decent, a significant amount of the members are not natives of this country, and so English is their second language.

Consequently, Beydoun states that members are “often found using English and Arabic interchangeably.”
Last but not least, Swales’ sixth characteristic of a discourse community is that it must have a “threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise” (Swales 473). In layman’s terms, membership within the community is continuously changing, and the community prospers off of a reasonable ratio between novices and experts.
The DHCO fits this characteristic because it has a hierarchy within its membership, including everything from president and vice-president, to secretary and treasurer, to the average and incoming members. This sort of chain of command is imperative because it limits confusion by a strong display of leadership, and also by a clear establishment that all members have a certain role with a correlating degree of responsibility. This organization and order in the discourse community is vital to its overall success. Hassan Bazzi, president of the DHCO, notes that he uses his “experience, connections, and credibility to build the prestige of the organization through tactics such as event sponsoring and public speaking.” A group of people who fully satisfy each of the six characteristics set forth by John Swales, as the Dearborn Heights
Community Organization does, will therefore qualify as a discourse community.
Considering all of the hard work they’ve put in, all of the challenges they’ve overcome, and all of the progress they’ve made, it is only right that the Dearborn Heights Community
Organization is mentioned when considering the concept of a discourse community. When this topic is brought up, a sense of belonging accompanies every community, group, or organization brought up along with it. To discredit all of the success and advancement of the DHCO by failing to label them as a qualified discourse community is not only demeaning, but it is also just simply wrong. It is vital that after closely examining and reviewing the numerous specific examples

previously provided in the case of the DHCO that it is recognized and titled, by Swales’ criteria, as officially being a discourse community.
To label a group, a community, or an organization as a “discourse community” is without question a positive for a group of people. This title logically comes with an optimistic evaluation for a number of reasons concerning the psychological effects it has on the members. These effects include the bliss each member attains which derives from the sense of belonging, as well as the motivational impact it has on each member’s work ethic. To further understand and verify this evaluation, these effects will be analyzed and elaborated on.
It is human nature to yearn for an acceptance from the general public. When an individual or a group puts forth an effort, their satisfaction thrives off of positive results and recognition. It goes without saying that for an individual to endeavor on to new challenges and receive criticism and negative feedback, they will certainly be discouraged. Considering this, it is simple to realize that when an individual gains acceptance from the public, they develop a sense of belonging, positively impacting their confidence. For these reasons, the positive psychological effects of a sense of belonging are critical to the title of a discourse community being an inherently good thing.
Secondly, the title of a discourse community is a positive thing because of the motivational impact it has on a member’s work ethic. For an individual to set their mind to something and then accomplish it naturally inspires more drive and more determination in the individual. Consequently, for members of a group or community to start a movement and then receive recognition and praise for it will make them want to further their accomplishments. A very valid example of this comes from within the DHCO. As the group was first started, membership was very limited. However, overcoming discouragement and criticism, these few

members set standards, accomplished goals, and then raised these standards. As success came, motivation was furthered and members were attracted. This is proof of the motivational impact that can arrive from the positive title of a discourse community.

Works Cited
Bazzi, Hassan. Personal Interview. Sept 11. 2013.
Beydoun, Rasheed. Personal Interview. Sept 11. 2013.
Hussain, Zaineb A. Personal Interview. Sept 11. 2013.
Swales, John. “The Concept of Discourse Community.” Writing about Writing.
Ed.
Wardle, Elizabeth, and Doug Downs. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2011. 466-480: Print.