Source: ENGL 1301 Rhetoric and Composition I (UTA), "They Say / I Say" textbook
Tags: discourse community, rhetorical analysis, ethos, pathos, logos, rhetoric, composition, naysayer, they say I say, academic writing, DCA
Difficulty: Introductory | Prerequisites: None (first-year composition course)
This is the first major paper in ENGL 1301 and it asks you to analyse a discourse community you belong to using three rhetorical lenses: ethos, pathos, and logos. The underlying goal of the course is to demystify academic discourse by showing you that you have already done something similar when you joined non-academic communities. If you understand how rhetoric works in a community you know well, you can apply that understanding when entering your academic field. The paper also introduces the "they say / I say" framework from the course textbook, which structures academic argumentation around responding to an existing conversation.
A discourse community is a group that shares specialised ways of communicating. Your job in this paper is to pick one you belong to, then show (with vivid examples) how you used ethos, pathos, and logos to become an insider. You also need to frame the paper using the "they say / I say" structure and respond to a hypothetical naysayer who doubts your membership.
Discourse community
A group of people who share common interests, goals, values, assumptions, and knowledge of a topic, and who communicate using specialised vocabulary, speech genres, and discursive patterns that would be unfamiliar to outsiders. In simple terms, it is any group where the way members talk to each other would confuse someone who is not part of it.
Discursive patterns
The specialised vocabulary, speech genres, and communication styles unique to a particular discourse community. Think of it as the "insider language" and unwritten rules for how members interact.
Ethos
A rhetorical appeal based on the speaker or writer's credibility, character, and trustworthiness. In a discourse community context, ethos means demonstrating your insider knowledge, your adoption of community values, and your commitment to the group's wellbeing. In simple terms, ethos is about proving you are credible and trustworthy within the community.
Pathos
A rhetorical appeal that targets the audience's emotions. Within a discourse community, pathos involves appealing to shared values, stirring fellow members' imaginations, and eliciting the emotional responses you intend. Think of it as the emotional connection you build with other members through communication.
Logos
A rhetorical appeal based on logic, reasoning, and evidence ("the argument itself"). In a discourse community, logos means reasoning and presenting evidence in ways that only a fellow insider would fully understand or find persuasive. In simple terms, logos is the community-specific logic that backs up your claims.
Rhetorical situation
The context surrounding a piece of communication: who is speaking, who is the audience, what is the purpose, and what are the circumstances. For this paper, the rhetorical situation is you (the writer) addressing your classmates and instructor about your experience in a discourse community.
"They say / I say" framework
A structure for academic argumentation drawn from the course textbook. "They say" = the existing conversation or context you are responding to. "I say" = your own thesis or claim in response. The framework also includes answering "so what?" (why it matters) and "who cares?" (why the audience should be interested).
Naysayer
A hypothetical critic who challenges your claim. In this paper, the naysayer says something like: "You are not really a member of this community." Your job is to concede what is fair, then rebut the challenge with evidence of your insider status. Think of it as practising how to handle objections in academic writing.
Thesis statement ("I say")
Your central claim for the paper: that you successfully joined your discourse community because you mastered its ethos, pathos, and logos appeals.
A discourse community is defined by how its members communicate, not merely by shared membership in a group.
Examples: Dallas Cowboys fans, military veterans, gamers, sorority/fraternity members, followers of a fiction writer, contributors to a specific subreddit or Facebook group.
Belonging to a group does not automatically make you part of its discourse community. Making the football team, getting promoted, or reading every book in a series does not qualify on its own.
You only belong to a discourse community when you communicate with other members in community-specific ways that would be foreign to outsiders.
As a first-year student, you are entering the discourse community of your academic major. The assignment's point is that this process mirrors how you have already joined other communities.
The paper requires you to analyse your communication examples through all three lenses. Each section should contain two or three vivid examples plus a detailed analytical breakdown.
Ethos (credibility and character)
Focuses on you as the speaker or writer.
Look for examples that showed off your insider knowledge and credibility.
Show your adoption of community values and your commitment to the good of the community.
The reader needs two things: (1) a vivid description of what happened, and (2) a detailed explanation of how and why these examples function as ethos appeals within that community.
Target length: at least one to two pages.
Pathos (emotional appeal)
Focuses on the audience's emotional response.
Look for examples where you successfully appealed to community-specific values of fellow members.
You stirred their imaginations and elicited the emotional responses you intended.
You may reuse the same examples from the ethos section, analysed through a different lens.
Provide vivid description plus explanation of how and why these function as pathos appeals.
Target length: at least one to two pages.
Logos (logic and evidence)
Focuses on "the argument itself."
Look for examples where you reasoned and used evidence in ways only a fellow insider would fully understand.
These represent typical forms of community-specific reasoning and evidence.
Vivid descriptions plus explanation of how and why they function as logos appeals.
Target length: at least one to two pages.
The paper's introduction must accomplish three things:
"They say": Summarise the conversation about rhetoric and discourse communities that the class has been having. This is not a view you agree or disagree with; it is simply the context you are entering.
"I say": Your thesis statement claiming that you successfully joined your discourse community because you mastered its ethos, pathos, and logos appeals.
"So what?" and "Who cares?": Explain why your classmates and instructor should keep reading, and why your experiences tell them something interesting about rhetoric and discourse communities.
Imagine a critic who says: "You are a wannabe; you are not really a member of this community."
You may concede that you are not the ultimate insider.
You must insist that you are an insider, with evidence.
The central question to answer: why is your level of discourse proficiency in this community sufficient to qualify you as an insider?
Target length: at least half a page to a full page.
"Any group I belong to is a discourse community." It is not. A discourse community is defined by shared discursive patterns, not shared membership. You must communicate in community-specific ways to qualify.
"I can just describe my examples without analysing them." The assignment explicitly requires both: a vivid description of what happened and a detailed breakdown of how and why each example functions as a rhetorical appeal. Description alone will not earn a passing grade.
"Ethos, pathos, and logos are separate things that do not overlap." The assignment encourages you to reuse the same examples across all three lenses. A single communication act can contain ethos, pathos, and logos appeals simultaneously. Analysing them under different lenses is the point.
"The naysayer section is optional or unimportant." It is a required component. The grading criteria at every level (C through A) specifically mention the naysayer response. Skipping it risks a D or F.
⚠️ The paper must include discrete sections for ethos, pathos, logos, and the naysayer response. Missing any one of these means the assignment is incomplete.
⚠️ The introduction must use the "they say / I say" structure: summarise the class conversation, state your thesis, and answer "so what?" and "who cares?"
⚠️ Each rhetorical section needs both vivid description and detailed analytical breakdown. One without the other is insufficient.
⚠️ Format: no longer than five pages, double-spaced, 12-point Times New Roman, one-inch margins.
C ("Fair" / Average)
Introduction with "they say," "I say," "so what?" and "who cares?"
Thesis claiming successful community membership through ethos, pathos, and logos
Examples analysed in all three rhetorical modes
Naysayer response included
Demonstrates understanding of rhetorical concepts from class
Responds to peer and instructor feedback on the first submission
Writing is clear enough not to impede understanding
B ("Good" / Above Average)
Meets all C criteria, plus:
More complete "they say" summary and more developed "so what?" / "who cares?" answers
Particularly well-chosen, clearly described examples
Deeper exploration of rhetorical significance
Full naysayer objection with a strong rebuttal
Thorough revision responding comprehensively to feedback
Strong command of word choice, voice, and style
A ("Excellent")
Meets all C and B criteria, plus:
"They say" summary conveys deep understanding of rhetoric and discourse communities
"So what?" and "who cares?" answered with great depth and keen insight
Numerous examples per rhetorical mode, fully illustrating how discourse works in the community
Vivid descriptions with enough analytical depth for outsiders to appreciate the rhetorical significance
Deep engagement with the naysayer, necessary concessions, and a compelling rebuttal
D or F
A D means the writer shows general understanding but has not fulfilled all requirements or has not responded to instructor comments on the first submission.
An F indicates misunderstanding of the assignment, little understanding of rhetorical concepts, or ignoring technical requirements (topic, length, format).
True or False: Joining a sports team automatically makes you part of that team's discourse community.
Answer: False. You must communicate in community-specific ways, not just belong to the group.
Fill in the blank: Ethos focuses on the ______, pathos focuses on the ______, and logos focuses on ______.
Answer: speaker/writer's credibility; audience's emotional response; the argument itself (logic and evidence).
True or False: You must use completely different examples for each rhetorical lens (ethos, pathos, logos).
Answer: False. The assignment explicitly permits reusing the same examples, analysed under different rhetorical modes.
Fill in the blank: The "they say" in your introduction should summarise ______.
Answer: The class conversation about rhetoric and discourse communities.
True or False: The naysayer section is optional if your other sections are strong enough.
Answer: False. The naysayer response is a required component at every grade level.
Q: Define "discourse community" and explain what distinguishes it from any other group.
A: A discourse community is a group that shares common interests, goals, values, and, crucially, specialised discursive patterns (vocabulary, speech genres, ways of communicating). What sets it apart from a mere group is that members communicate with each other in ways that would be unfamiliar or foreign to outsiders. Membership alone does not qualify; active participation in those communication practices does.
Q: A student writes a DCA paper that vividly describes three examples but does not explain how they function as rhetorical appeals. What is missing?
A: The analytical breakdown. The assignment requires two components per example: (1) a vivid description of what happened, and (2) a detailed explanation of how and why the example functions as an ethos, pathos, or logos appeal within that specific community. Description without analysis is incomplete.
Q: What is the purpose of the naysayer section, and how should you structure your response?
A: The naysayer section practises handling objections in academic writing. You imagine a critic who says you are not a real member of the community. You should concede what is reasonable (e.g. you may not be the ultimate insider) and then rebut with evidence of your discourse proficiency, explaining why your level of insider knowledge and communication skill qualifies you as a legitimate member.
Q: Explain the three components of the "they say / I say" introduction for this paper.
A: "They say" = a summary of the class conversation about rhetoric and discourse communities (the context). "I say" = your thesis, claiming you successfully joined your discourse community by mastering its ethos, pathos, and logos appeals. Then answer "so what?" and "who cares?" by explaining why your experiences reveal something interesting about rhetoric and discourse communities, and why your classmates and instructor should keep reading.
Q: How does ethos in a discourse community differ from ethos in a general public speech?
A: In a general speech, ethos might come from credentials, reputation, or formal authority. In a discourse community, ethos is demonstrated through insider knowledge, adoption of community-specific values, use of specialised vocabulary, and visible commitment to the community's wellbeing. The credibility markers are internal to the group rather than universally recognised.
This material connects directly to the "They Say / I Say" textbook chapters: Ch. 1 ("they say"), Ch. 4 ("I say"), Ch. 6 (naysayers), Ch. 7 ("so what?" and "who cares?"), and Ch. 9 (academic style). If you are behind on the reading, those chapters provide the argumentative structures this paper requires.
The concept of discourse communities reappears throughout composition and rhetoric courses. Understanding how rhetoric works within a community you know prepares you for analysing rhetoric in academic disciplines, professional fields, and public discourse more broadly.
The ethos-pathos-logos triad is foundational to rhetorical analysis in any context. Mastering it here prepares you for later assignments that require rhetorical analysis of texts, speeches, or media.
Discourse community, discourse community analysis, DCA, ENGL 1301, rhetoric and composition, rhetorical analysis, ethos pathos logos, rhetorical appeals, rhetorical situation, they say I say, TSIS, naysayer, academic argumentation, insider language, specialised vocabulary, speech genres, discursive patterns, community-specific communication, credibility, emotional appeal, logical reasoning, first-year composition, freshman English, UTA, Purdue, persuasion, audience awareness