The phrase “discourse community” is now frequently used in academic English to describe a collection of concepts that are related to one another and are made up of elements that fall under the category of discourse networks. Swales’ exposition reveals several characteristics. It is anticipated that the idea of a discourse community will bring a wide range of people into one discourse community. 

It is of the highest caliber to say that “a discourse community has an extensively concurred defined of common public objectives.” These goals may have been mentioned explicitly in documents or implied but not stated. The objectives are public because ordinary people may participate in discourses for covert thought processes or to forge personal connections or professional advancement.

The Oxford English Dictionary states, “Intercommunication between members of a discourse community is present. The cycles of support and cooperation may be impacted by various networks, including social gatherings, broadcast communications, mail, pamphlets, and talks. The next component states, “A discourse community uses its participatory systems to convey information and criticism to its members.” It asserts that just because someone is a group member does not imply that they are a member if they do not participate in and support the community. This quality is meant to make things easier to do, make things more successful overall, or even make things more profitable.”

A discourse community “uses and subsequently has at least one class in the open promoting of its targets,” according to the fourth standard. The discourse community has outlined several discourse assumptions.

It will likely raise questions about the discourse community’s openness to receive new classes.

The third component states that “a discourse community has acquired an extraordinary lexis as well as having sorts.” This might entail coming up with inventive uses for lexical terms that are well-known to the larger discourse community. The most common way that the innate dynamic is acknowledged is through community growth.

The final trademark states, “A discourse community has an adequate number of members who have an adequate degree of significant material and disbursal expertise.” Community members occasionally change and will continue to change. There are more amateurs than professionals in their field, so it’s still unclear whether they can survive. The summary of my understanding of a discourse community is presented above, but I am still unsure of its exact nature or how to apply it in a discourse environment.