Steinbeck 1 John Steinbeck Matthew Nunes English 3080J December, 2012 Coffee, Language, and Interdependence From the

subtle, unspoken commands exchanged by basketball players and big game hunters, to the persuasive, prepared speeches lawyers recite to their juriesthe complexity of human language and interaction is captivating, and some of the most nuanced communication occurs within what certain academics call discourse communities. Also referred to as communities of practice, discourse communities (whose members share goals, ambitions, etc.) often use varied and specialized forms of communication to better execute common objectives. This specialized communication ranges from utilizing exclusive lexis (vocabulary) and genres (types of text, such as brochures, essays, and wedding invitations), to implementing specific channels or participatory mechanisms, to support an efficient exchange of new ideas and feedback between members (Swales). Most often, academics limit their research on discourse communities to university departments or other similar, literature-heavy communities of practiceareas where researchers tend to feel the most comfortable, and already have some experience or station. For instance, John Swales wrote about his involvement with the Hong Kong Study Circle, a stampcollecting hobby group; Elizabeth Wardle examined the failed attempts of a newcomer seeking the acceptance of the humanities department of a large, Midwestern university; and Ann Johns reflected on the different social costs of remaining in a graduate-level sociology program. The problem with limiting research to just a few specific areas (i.e. maintaining a narrow scope) is

Steinbeck 2 that it makes it less possible to gain a full, genuine understanding of the varied ways discourse communities survive, grow, and accomplish their goals. In other words, researching the same sort of communities of practice over and over holds us back from learning everything we can about what makes these communities tick, and, by extension, also limits what we might learn about the nature of human interaction and language in general. Fortunately, a few researchers, such as Tony Mirabelli, have broken the mold by studying discourse communities outside the traditional academic comfort zone. In his article Learning to Serve, Mirabelli shows how discourse communities, or to use his term, social networks, are not always dependent on, or restricted to, written genres. Mirabelli focuses on a social network of waiters and waitresses who work in an environment (an Italian family diner) where verbal communication takes precedence over the varieties of printed communication Swales, Wardle, and Johns studied. Through researching an entirely different type of community, Mirabelli reveals other ways people communicate within a discourse community, shifting the focus from academia and white-collar communities to an area (the service industry) where little research has been done, and the level of sophistication and skill involved is frequently underestimated (compared to other discourse communities). By examining what it takes to successfully serve in a busy restaurant, Mirabelli challenges common misconceptions about waiting and waitressing, concluding thatcontrary to popular beliefserving is complex, demanding, and requires nuanced linguistic skill, as well as a deep understanding of several complementary factors (such as the menu and the kitchen, both specific to each restaurant). One of the most interesting things Mirabelli does in Learning to Serve is examine how the relationship servers have with their patrons has a fundamental effect back on the service discourse community (the waiters and waitresses), going into some detail about the emotional

Steinbeck 3 labor which the discourse requires (what Ann Johns would label as one cost of affiliation). However, other than pointing out how their relationship is influential in some way through examining a handful of indirect consequences, Mirabelli never takes a deeper, more meaningful look at the implications of reliance and interaction between communities and outside influences (e.g. servers and their patrons). In fact, so far, studies have primarily examined discourse communities as though they exist in a vacuum, and little to no research has been done on the effect the outside world has on them. How do communities affect one anotheror along the same lineshow are discourse communities influenced by external factors and authorities? Do some discourse communities depend on other communities for survival? Can two communities be interdependent, and in what ways are they interdependent? That is to say, how does the interdependence work? What role does language play, and to what degree is the lexis shared? I decided to concentrate on a discourse community similar to the one Mirabelli studied, but different enough to (hopefully) avoid redundancy. Serving in coffeeshops and cafs has become one of the most popular service occupations in the country, and like waiting tables, is also regularly and unfairly written off as simple, low-knowledge and low-skill level work. I chose to center my study on baristas (servers in coffeeshops) in part because I wanted to do the same justice by them as Mirabelli was able to do by waiters and waitresses in his article, and also because their (baristas) particular discourse community has not yet spent much time under the microscope. Mostly, however, I chose to focus on coffeeshops because of my own ties to the community, and because they are uniquely, heavily dependent on a special kind of customer the regular patronand the relationship between baristas and their regulars seemed like a perfect place to start analyzing concepts of community interdependence (i.e. finding answers to all those questions raised in the previous paragraph).

Steinbeck 4 Location The Brown Buffalo Caf, the shop where I conducted my research and used as a model for similar establishments (and, by extension, similar discourse communities of baristas), is an independently owned coffeehouse located in downtown Rome, Ohio. Since opening in late September of last year (2011), the shop has been met with boatloads of success, winning local acclaimas well as colorful cast of regularsfor serving some of the finest, highest quality joe in town (for those who care, the Brown Buffalo brews from an organic, fair-trade roaster in Columbus, Ohio). The Brown Buffalo features the standard full espresso bar (mochas, caff lattes, cappuccinos, etc.), a variety of other hot and cold coffee drinks such as chai tea lattes, gourmet hot chocolate, teas, homemade baked goods, as well as long list of off menu items carried over from the previous shops menu (before changing owners in September, the business was known as Romes Coffee, and while not nearly as successful as the Brown Buffalo, performed essentially the same function: baristas, espresso bar for the grownups, hot chocolate for the kids, etc.). Research Methods To write this report, I used two main sources. The hope was that by drawing from different perspectives, I would be able to compile an accurate, detailed, and interesting body of evidence, which would ideally translate to an equally accurate, detailed, and interesting research paper. First and foremost, I borrowed from my own personal, direct experience as a barista. I worked at the Brown Buffalo from the beginning of January 2012 (a few months after the shop first opened for business), up through until the end of August of the same year. It was my first time working in a coffeeshop, and over the course of those eight months, I learned to be an effective barista, a reasonably successful member of the specific Brown Buffalo discourse

Steinbeck 5 community, and became intimately familiar with the nuances of the work, the coffee, the patrons, etc. After an initial training period, I worked opening, mid, and closing shifts on week days and weekends, which gave me a well rounded, rich experience to mine from (that is, for a discourse community ethnography). My other major source for this paper was an interview I conducted with Rachel, the head barista at the Brown Buffalo who trained me when I was first hired there. Rachel started working in coffeeshops as a teenager growing up in Seattle, Washington, worked on and off as a barista for the eighteen years since, and had picked up her job at the Brown Buffalo when it opened in September. Needless to say, she knew what she was talking about when I interviewed her (in discourse community ethnography terms, she was an expert), and the interview proved to be an invaluable resource. In fact, everything mentioned in this research paper came from either my own direct participation working in the shop those eight months, or from the interview with Rachel I conducted and recorded over the telephone (excerpts from the interview appear throughout the report quoted in italics). Results Besides being able to make drinks, Id say the most important thing is just being friendly. People come in and theyre tired, sometimes they dont have anyone else to talk to really, and the last thing they want is someone glaring at them. I think laughing at their jokes, even just listening to them talk about whatever, goes a long way. I asked Rachel, right off the bat, what she thought was the most important attribute for a barista to have if they wanted to be successful at the coffeeshop, meaning with other employees, with customers, and as a barista in general (instead of trying to breakdown the term discourse community, which took me personally several research articles to comprehend, I phrased questions that would still get at the

Steinbeck 6 answers I was looking for without actually relying on ethnographic jargon). I think just being polite, and smiling, you know, I think thats really important. And thats what I think people expect. Rachel seemed to be referring to what Mirabelli called emotional labor. To quote from his article, to be a good waitress or waiter generally requires being able to perform friendliness under any number of circumstances (551). Mirabelli associated emotional labor primarily with monetary gain (tips). From her statement, Rachel appears to take the concept a little further by focusing at the role emotion plays in the relationship between server and patron: baristas need to appear upbeat and approachable to foster a positive connection with customers, which customers look forward to and even grow somewhat reliant on. In addition to practicing their own emotional balancing act, baristas have to be able to read their customers moods (ranging anywhere from having rough day or in a hurry, to wants to chitchat) as well as recognize customers (especially new customers) level of familiarity with coffee. Its usually not that hard for me to tell the difference between people who go to coffeeshops all the time and the people who dont really understand the menu, and you know, arent so comfortable To be a good at this job you really need to be good at picking up on that kind of thing. To maintain a mutually beneficial exchange, baristas need to pick up on, and be able to work with, a diverse range of customer literacies (to borrow another term commonly used by other ethnographers), each dependent on the customers preexisting knowledge, beliefs and preferences concerning coffee. Put another way, baristas have to be fluent in the standard coffeeshop vocabulary, and be able to tie that vocabulary in with the knowledge (or first impression) they have of a particular customer. For instance, a barista should know when to explain items in laymans terms, or recognize when one customer requests a dry cappuccino, they (the customer) might define dry somewhat differently from the way other

Steinbeck 7 customers do (quite a few coffee connoisseurs maintain remarkably strong and meticulous preconceptions). In summation, baristas not only need to store specific definitions in their lexicon (tailored to the numerous regulars who come in each day), they also need to be able to work with those who may lack the necessary vocabulary altogether. To make matters more complex, the list of general definitions baristas have to work with is long, varied, and constantly in flux, especially regarding the dictionary of drinks (seasonal drinks, trends, etc.). The Brown Buffalo features three large chalkboards nailed to the wall behind the main counter space (baristas have their back to it while they work), each board supporting a long list of drinks (the first chalkboard features drinks made using coffee, the second, drinks made using espresso, and the third, coffee alternatives, such as chai tea lattes). However, this modest list of twenty or so items is only the tip of the iceberg. For instance, to thrive at the Brown Buffalo, baristas need to be knowledgeable with a list of older, off menu items carried over from the former owners menu. Romes Coffee (the previous shop at the same location) had been well known for serving a large number of popular house specialsexclusive variations of coffeehouse staples made with alternant ingredients (such as white chocolate), each sporting their own unique, and usually goofy, name (such as the Scooby Dooby, the White Lightening, and the Steal Your Face, which was a potent mocha latte made with eight shots of espresso, steamed half-and-half, vanilla, and white chocolate, andneedless to saywas very popular with the local caffeine addicts). The lexicon is also heavily impacted by factors outside the cozy interior of the shop. Youre right [we depend on information outside the shop to be successful]. Like how we dont technically serve macchiatos, but we still need to know how to make them. Really well, actually,

Steinbeck 8 people constantly order those. As Rachel observed, even though the Brown Buffalos menu does not feature latte macchiatos (a light, milky drink made by pouring limited espresso, typically only one shot, over frothed milk) anywhere officiallyeven in the off-menu recipe book carried over from Romes Coffeethe Brown Buffalos staff still need to be intimately familiar with the drink. In addition to latte macchiatos and a handful of other common coffeeshop drinks not, for whatever reason, explicitly acknowledged at the Brown Buffalo, baristas have to maintain an extensive mental, or immaterial, menu of drinks featured by other local, competing shops (including alternant names for similar drinks, as well as other shops own variety of house specials). For instance, Deans Cappuccinos (another local caf), proudly serves a drink made with espresso, chai tea, chocolate, and steamed milk, that they call a Chocolate Buddha. Because the drink is popular, baristas at the Brown Buffalo need to know the drink well enough to recreate it on demand when someone requests one (despite its vaguely offensive name). Furthermore, to be effective, this immaterial menu has to also contain a growing number of special (copyrighted) terms used only by the Starbucks chain of cafs (such as Frappuccino). Conclusion The reason baristas juggle so mucha vocabulary of coffeeshop jargon (dry and wet cappuccinos), patron tailored terminology, a ridiculous dictionary of drinks, and an complex immaterial menuis because of their close relationship with, and their dependence on, their clientele. Different customers, from coffeeshop rookies to connoisseurs and regulars, demand certain qualities and abilities in a barista, and from the evidence, it seems safe to say that ultimately most, if not all, of the qualities and abilities associated with barista work are a direct result of those customer demands. To put it another way, the range of literacies present in the

Steinbeck 9 outside community (the customers) pushes baristas to become fluent in an otherwise needlessly extensive lexis: deep understanding of both the menu of the particular shop they work in, as well as a much larger, immaterial menu consisting of all of the customary drinks expected in coffeeshops and their alternant names, popular drinks offered in other local and competing shops, and special terms used by Starbucks. Even though they might not comprise a discourse community per se, regulars still represent a community which baristas have to interact with, influence, and be influenced by to survive (baristas cannot expect to be successful without meeting their needs and expectations). For the most part, both parties share the same lexis (i.e., the same vocabulary), with two major differences. The first difference has to do with semantics: patrons have a single definition (and ensuing expectation) for each term, while baristas attach a diverse range of meanings to accommodate their customers. The second, similar difference has to do with how much of the lexis is used by each party: while customers operate with only a selection of the total terms (jargon, drink names, etc.), baristas need to be familiar with the entire lexicon. The original goal of this paper was to examine the discourse community of baristas by focusing on one particular shop, the Brown Buffalo Caf, where I worked for nearly a year before moving to Athens. I hoped that by focusing on my old shop, I would be able to paint a descent (and hopefully interesting) picture of the community, its intricacies, as well as get at some probing questions about the nature of discourse communities. Do discourse communities depend on outside factors? Do those outside factors help define them? From exploring the way language is used within the discourse community of baristas, it appears thatat least in this one particular casecommunities of practice are significantly influenced by outside parties. For baristas, the influence comes prominently from their costumers (especially their regulars), and

Steinbeck 10 also, to a lesser degree, from other, contending establishments (which influence their lexis). Obviously, more research on this topic needs be done, because certainly no community exists in a vacuum.

Works Cited Johns, Ann M. Discourse Communities and Communities of Practice: Membership, Conflict, and Diversity. Writing About Writing: A College Reader. Ed. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston: Bedford, 2011. 498-519. Print. Mirabelli, Tony. Learning to Serve: The Language and Literacy of Food Serve Workers. Writing About Writing: A College Reader. Ed. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston: Bedford, 2011. 538-56. Print. "Phone Interview with Rachel." Telephone interview. Nov.-Dec. 2012. Swales, John. The Concept of Discourse Community. Writing About Writing: A College Reader. Ed. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston: Bedford, 2011. 466-80. Print. Wardle, Elizabeth. Identity, Authority, and Learning to Write in New Workplaces. Writing About Writing: A College Reader. Ed. Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. Boston: Bedford, 2011. 520-37. Print.