While there were many reasons the class as a whole seemed to have a general distaste for Swales’ article among the most prominent were:
It was difficult to digest as a common reader
Lengthy with unclear purpose (many people were unaware that a book club was even being referenced.
It uses words that are not familiar
In rewatching the videos there were three three things I came to understand
- The writers relationship to the issue is that as a linguist, he understands rhetoric and the criteria for how discourse communities function
- The readers relationship to the issue is that rhetorical content poses a difficulty in understanding and because it is a foundational component is discourse
- The gap that becomes easily identifiable is allowing the reader to understand discourse is difficult to understand because it only exists in a perfect world
This article hopes to bridge that gap by pointing out each of the elements of rhetoric that must exist for a discourse community to be present and realizing it is unrealistic, specifically because people are imdividuals before they are a member of their particular community allowing for variance.
It is my belief still that this article is intended for those with tenure on a similar track as swales within the study of linguistic communities.
The danger then becomes for people who aren’t academics within the field can misintepret whether discourse actually exists rather than recognizing it as a flawed system.
Dive Into Discourse 