Swales seems to try to discover in this paper what a discourse community truly is.  Each community has their own rules such as what and how to speak.  These communities do not have physical boundaries and thus must be defined within the area they work in.  To better classify the discourse community, Swales has six characteristics that the community contains:

First, it has a broadly agreed set of common public goals which means that the group exists to achieve some purpose.  The members are all united in the communality of the goal even if their communication breaks down.  Second, it has mechanisms of intercommunication among its members.  Third, it uses its participatory mechanisms to provide information and feedback.  Fourth, it utilizes and hence possesses one or more genres in the communicative furtherance of its aims.  Fifth, in addition to owning genres, it has acquired some specific lexis.  Sixth, it has a threshold level of members with a suitable degree of relevant content and discoursal expertise.

In the beginning of this paper, Swales defines the differences between a speech community and a discourse community.  He states that “a speech community typically inherits its membership by birth, accident or adoption; a discourse community recruits its members by persuasion, training, or relevant qualification”.  I agree with his argument because many people are born into a specific group based on their surroundings, such a Latina being part of the Dominican community, however as time passes and her interests adapt, she could become a part of a discourse community.  In my own life, I was born into a Russian family living in Queens, and thus that was my speech community.  However, as I became more Americanized, I feel that I have joined more of Patriot discourse community.