There has been much debate about what truly defines a discourse community, and several scholars such as John Swales, Elizabeth Wardle, and James Porter have given their two cents on the subject. The majority of scholars, such as the ones previously mentioned can agree that there is some form of hierarchy in a discourse community. If you analyze what Swales, Wardle, Porter, and other scholars have conveyed on the subject. You may notice that they have all neglected to mention how these superior members are gaining authority. In theory it, is quite possible for biases to be present during this process as scholars conveniently neglect to mention this when they describe what they believe to be a discourse community, and furthermore the biases may vary from gender, ethnicity, and other constituents pertaining to a person’s background. If biases are present when pertaining to the hierarchy of a discourse community this may shed a little light on how a novice might become an adept member of a discourse community, …show more content…
What I believe Swales is trying to convey is that there needs to be a mix of novices, and experts in a discourse community. There also should be members who hold more power when compared to other members who might be inexperienced in the community. In Swales’ article “The Concept of Discourse Community” he goes on to convey six defining characteristics a discourse community possesses, however Swales’ article is similar to other scholars as he does not breakdown what gives the more powerful members authority other than stating that they have more experience. If you explore James Porter’s article “Intertextuality and the Discourse Community” you can discern a unique example of a discourse community’s hierarchy that gives fair insight on possible