DRAFT DRAFT DRAFT (last updated January 5, 2017, still undergoing construction)
GRAD 6022:03: Critical Methods
Tu 5:30-8:20 Lang 346
Catherine H. Palczewski, Ph.D.
office hours, Lang 341:
- Tuesday: 3-4pm, 8:20-8:50pm
- Wednesday: 1-3pm
- Thursday: 2-3:30pm
- no office hours February 2; March 2, 30
If these times do not
work, feel free to call (319.273.2714) or email to make an appointment.
|Acknowledgments: This syllabus would not be possible without the assistance of faculty at UNI and other universities who have shared their ideas, assignments and syllabi, and I thank them for their help, particularly: Ryan McGeough, John Fritch, Leslie Harris, and Valeria Fabj.
Description: Introduction to the elements of critical, rhetorical, and performance methods, as well as alternative methods of textual criticism, and analysis and preparation of examples of textual criticism.
The purpose of this
seminar is to train you in the processes of rhetorical criticism.
A guiding assumption of this course is that rhetorical criticism is
not composed of a single method. Theories do not create a blueprint
that can be applied to any text. Instead, texts and theories interact
with one another as they enable us to better understand the
complexities of human communicative interaction. As the Critical
Questions textbook explains, theory and method are best understood as
"conceptual heuristics or vocabularies" that enable us to see and hear more clearly
the variety of things a text may be trying to communicate.
To develop a heuristic vocabulary, the class is divided into two parts:
introduction to Kenneth Burke and dramatism, both in the form of
primary writings and essays that apply dramatistic concepts. This
section enables you to see how scholars pull concepts from
theoretical writings and then deploy them in the process of
2) A review of key rhetorical theories and model critical
essays. This section introduces you to a range of critical
vocabularies that are central to rhetorical criticism.
The goal of this course is not to teach you a universal, or
universalizable, approach to the study of human communication. Human
communicative practices are as diverse as human beings. Instead, this
seminar hopes to teach you the craft of theory reading and critical
application. No act of criticism will be like any other act of
criticism. (In contrast, the steps one might go through in a survey
study do tend to be relatively similar). Instead, criticism is an inventional process.
1) Understand rhetorical criticism as an inventional
2) Develop a more precise vocabulary with which to describe the
functions and forms of rhetoric.
3) Summarize vast theoretical tracts in order to
develop a heuristic vocabulary with which to analyze texts.
4) Complete a thesis chapter or a presentation/publication
quality paper. (Accordingly, extensive time will be spent on the
research and writing process.)
Required texts: (available at
RRRC: Ott, Brian L., and Greg Dickinson, editors. The Routledge Reader in Rhetorical Criticism. Routledge, 2013.
OSS: Burke, Kenneth. On Symbols and Society. Edited by Joseph R.
Gusfield, U of Chicago P, 1989.
CRT: Lucaites, John Louis, Celeste Michelle Condit, and
Sally Caudill, editors. Contemporary Rhetorical Theory: A Reader. The Guilford P, 1999. First edition is prefered.
CQ: Nothstine, William L., Carole Blair, and Gary A.
Copeland. Critical Questions: Invention, Creativity, and the
Criticism of Discourse and Media. St. Martin's Press,
Style manual of your choice. Note: MLA has an 8th edition which makes substantial changes in citation format.
General information necessary for survival (really, you should read this): see this link. This site
includes my late policy, the university accommodation policy, as well
as paper format descriptions.
Assignments: The total worth of the assignments is 100 points. The individual point value of each assignment is noted in (parenthesis) immediately following the assignment title. Simply doing the base requirements of each assignment will earn you a "C" -- this means you have done acceptable work. To earn a "B" you must go beyond the assignment expectations or fulfill them in an above average way. To earn an "A" you must go far beyond the assignment expectations and fulfill the base expectations in an exceptional manner.
Page limits on all assignments will be rigorously enforced. You should spend time finding ways to write more concisely and clearly. If I find your paper long-winded, and you go over the page limit, I will quit reading. (If however, you are brilliant and keep me captivated, I may not notice). And, given the expectations of each of the assignments, you probably will need to use the number of pages required. If, however, you are exceptionally concise, then I may not notice if your paper falls short of the required pages.
A bibliography should be turned in with every assignment. It will not count toward your page limit. On the top of the page, indicate the style (APA or MLA) that you think you are using. Follow UNI thesis or research paper format for spacing.
Detailed descriptions of all assignments appear on this syllabus. You are free to ask questions in class about the assignments, or contact me outside of class by email or phone. But, please be aware, I will NOT answer any general questions about an assignment's expectations in the week before it is due (most assignments are due on Tuesday, which means you have until the Tuesday before it is due to ask questions). I recognize that students procrastinate, so, consider this an inducement to begin work early. This means if you have a question, you need to be prepared to ask it in the class session during the week before the paper is due. I will not answer questions after that time.
Two tracks of paper assignments are possible: Track 1) criticism
focused and Track 2) method focused. The first option is meant to
produce a stand alone paper, suitable for submission to a conference
or for publication. The second option is meant to produce something
that would be suitable for a "method/literature review" chapter for a
thesis. When using rhetorical criticism as a method, a significant
part of the literature review focuses on developing the rhetorical concepts
into a heuristic vocabulary. Both options should produce a
final product between 20-25 pages. Students may pick which track they
would like to follow for assignments 1-5, but all students are
required to complete assignments 6-8.
TurnItIn requirement: For all written assignments, students are required to use TurnItIn in order to check they are not plagiarizing. Thus, for an assignment to be considered "turned in", students must have submitted an electronic version to TurnItIn before the assignment's due date and time, and also turn in a paper copy to the professor at the assigned due date and time. I have activated the TurnItIn website in such a way that you are allowed to submit drafts of your paper and receive originality reports. These reports should be used to assist you in making sure you are attributing authorship in an ethical way. The only originality report I will see is the final report on the version of the paper you turn into me. Students can access the TurnItIn website for each assignment via the class's eLearning site. TheTurnItIn link for each assignment is located in the folder labeled turnitin. Please understand: using TurnItIn is only the first step in making sure your are abiding by citation guidelines and providing fair attribution. TurnItIn is only one way to check the originality of your work, and just because your work passes the TurnItIn check does not guarantee you have not plagiarized. You are responsible for using style manuals to make sure your citation format is correct and consistent. Given this process, there will be ZERO TOLERANCE for any citation or paraphrase errors that result in you plagiarizing (presenting others' words as your own). Even a minor infraction will result in a zero on the assignment and a permanent letter placed in your file. A major infraction will result in an F for the class.
|Paper part 1
|Paper part 2
|Paper part 3
|Paper part 4
|Paper 5: final paper
||Draft due April 18 for peer editing. Final paper due May 2, 5:00pm
|6: Peer editing
||January 31, February 21, March 14, April 4, April 25
||May 2, 5:00pm
The major assignment is a research paper. Two tracks are available: a standalone textual criticism or an essay that could become a method chapter in a thesis.
|Track 1: Textual Criticism
||Track 2: Method
Track 1: Textual Criticism: All assignments assume you are
studying a fixed, single text produced and delivered by an
identifiable rhetor (or group of rhetors) that has a strong, if not central, verbal component. However, if you would like to analyze some other
type of communicative act, please feel free to talk to me. Most of
the theories discussed in class assume a verbal text. However,
similar techniques can be applied to more ephemeral, visual, or
The assignments outlined below constitute a "progressive paper."
This means each paper you complete is folded into the next paper
after receiving editing from me as well as from your peers.
The first paper becomes the introduction for the 2nd, the 2nd becomes
the first part for the 3rd and 4th, and the 2nd, 3rd and 4th papers
are combined to become the foundation for the final paper, to which
you will add an additional level of criticism as well as a
conclusion. Page limits include the folded-in papers. You will need
to learn appropriate citation format (APA or MLA), and will be
expected to complete extensive revision and editing of your work as
the paper progresses. If a paper has numerous typographical,
citation, or grammatical errors, I will return it ungraded and the "late clock" will start ticking.
I also suggest, if this project is to become part of your thesis,
that you use thesis format for all assignments, meaning wider left
margin, no right justification, single spaced block quotations, and
appropriate sub-headings. If you do not yet have a thesis pamphlet,
one may found online. A slight page limit
modification will be made in these instances (basically, one extra
page for every 5 required).
|Track 2: Method: Nothstine, Blair and Copeland make clear
that criticism often involves an inventional process. Thus, when we
talk about criticism using a method, we typically are talking about
the weaving together of insights from multiple locations to develop a
vocabulary that helps explore a text. Thus, the point of this
assignment track is to: identify and summarize primary documents that
provide the foundation for a vocabulary, conduct an exhaustive
literature review of others who have used this method and summarize
the themes present in these writings, and identify where your
approach adds to existing understandings of method.
Paper 1) Text Selection: (5) [5 pages]. Write a 5
page justification for studying your text. The justification should
- an introduction that situates the topic within a
- background on when, where and to whom the text was
- a description of the rhetor,
- a description of the text,
- a description of reactions to the text (this may include an
assessment of the text's effects),
- an explanation on why the text is rhetorically interesting,
- a preview paragraph that outlines your preliminary arguments
(this paragraph will transform into your thesis paragraph).
Note: This is NOT an outline for the paper, but a list of topics to be covered. I suggest you find a text that is approximately 10-20 pages long.
Bring enough clean copies of your text to class so that all class
members can have their own copy. Due January 24:
|Paper 1 (5) [5 pages]: The overview and
bibliography: This paper should introduce the reader to rhetorical
concepts that help explain the functioning of a text. It should
provide a cursory summary of the primary theory text (i.e., for the pentad, you would summarize Burke's Grammar of Motives), as well as examples of
where the concept has been used by others. The bibliography attached
to this paper should be exhaustive (in fact, this should be where you
spend the bulk of your time). I do not expect you to have read
everything, but I do want to see evidence that you have spent
significant time doing bibliographic work. CMMC, Project
Muse, books and book chapters, dissertations, etc. should all be searched. Due: January 24.
|Paper 2) Descriptive analysis of the text: (10) [10
pages]. Conduct a detailed criticism of the text using the descriptive analysis
methods outlined during the first class period. This paper expands upon the
short description of the text provided in subpoints B, C and D from
above. To prepare to write this paper, your should first complete the descriptive analysis outline. Link to descriptive analysis outline. Attach the outline of answers to questions concerning the
rhetorical situation and an outline of the seven elements of the
speech to your paper. Remember, your answers to these questions form the background
work to writing the paper. The outline of answers should NOT be the
outline of the paper. When completing the outline, think of it as a way to organize your data. As you answer each question, provide data from the text to support your claim. So, if you say a rhetor assumed a particular persona, provide quotations from the text or rich descriptions of the visual to support your conclusion. Note: when describing the audience as part of the textual analysis, remember audience here refers to the second persona, not the demographics of the physical audience. For the rhetorical situation component, use the outline to organize all the research you have done about the rhetor, the audience, and the subject. Again, you should be providing quotations from sources to support the claims advanced in the answers to these questions. Once you have figured out what choices a rhetor has made about subject, persona, tone, etc., then ask: Why? Why was this choice made? Your description of the rhetorical situation should help you figure out the answer. In addition, in the process of answering all the questions, you may also see themes, trends, interesting elements of the text. Each of the seven elements will not figure equally into your analysis (for some texts, tone is most important, for others evidence). Use the outline to help you figure out what is most interesting in a text. If you cannot figure out why something was done, but find it interesting, then you are on the right track -- giving yourself direction on how to focus your lit review. The purpose of this paper is to make sure you are intimately familiar with your text and to determine those places where you do not have the vocabulary yet to complete a detailed analysis. Keep in mind, the function of this paper is to come to a complete understanding of the text in context. You are not expected to apply your critical vocabulary in this paper. Instead, this paper is preparation to be able to do that. The general structure of the paper should be: 3-4 page intro (ending with a preview/preliminary thesis paragraph), and then 6-7 pages of detailed descriptive analysis (as guided by the attached outline). Due:
||Paper 2 (10) [10 pages]: The primary theory text: This
paper should provide a detailed summary of the concepts as they
appear in the primary theory text. Careful selection of quotations
should occur. However, remember to write through the quotation; do
not just toss a passage out there, but talk about what it means and how it
might be deployed in criticism. Due: February 14.
|Paper 3) Literature review: (10) [15 pages]. This
paper should provide a summary of the theoretical concepts to be used
in your analysis, as well as a review of others' exploration and
application of the theory. This section also should include a summary
of others' analyses of your text (if any) and lay out how your
analysis expands upon or differs from theirs. When folding in the
previous papers, my guess is that you will organize the paper as
follows: intro, literature review, descriptive analysis. Feel free to
use readings not yet discussed in class if they are appropriate to
your text. You will be expected to conduct additional research on the
theory and, in all cases, rely on primary texts for significant
quotations. I want to read YOUR summary of the theory. (Footnotes
indicating others agree with your analysis are fine, but do not
substitute them for your own work). A comprehensive literature review
of communication books and journals is expected. For a general
discussion of what a literature review should do, follow this link to
literature review guidelines. Due: March 7. Link to general literature review guidelines
||Paper 3 (10) [15 pages]: The applications: This
paper should add a section that reviews others' writing on/use of the
concept outlined in paper 2. Due: March 7.
|Paper 4) Developed criticism: (15) [20 pages]. This
paper should take the heuristic vocabulary developed in paper 3 to
rewrite the initial analysis you did in paper 2. Develop and expand upon (or
change) your initial insights given the new terministic screens
offered by your reading of theory. March 28
||Paper 4 (15) [20 pages]: Situating the theory in
the larger literature on rhetoric and reorganizing the mess, try one.
Here is where you experiment with interweaving the primary documents
with the secondary sources/applications. The organization should be
thematic (see lit review guidelines). And, you ought to be making
connections to broad understandings of criticism. Clearly articulate
your understanding of the function of language, of the public, of
rhetoric, etc. Is your method situational or positional? Do you
believe language constructs, structures, or reflects reality? What
role does language play in relation to social change? Is language
more important that materiality? March 28
|Paper 5) Final paper: (25) [25 pages]. Using the
work done in earlier papers, write a final criticism of your text.
The final paper should include additional research and may include
additional arguments. Peer edit draft due: April 18. Final draft due: May 2.YOU ALSO MUST SEND YOUR PAPERS AS AN EMAIL ATTACHMENT TO CATE AT email@example.com. Your papers will not be considered "turned in" until you send them as an email attachment and until you also turn in all the peer edits done of your paper.
||Paper 5: Final paper (25) [20-25 pages]. This paper
should demonstrate extreme attention to organizational detail. It
should make an argument about how language functions, and why the
particular element you have identified is worth studying. Peer edit draft due: April 18 Final draft due: May 2. YOU ALSO MUST SEND YOUR PAPERS AS AN EMAIL ATTACHMENT TO CATE AT firstname.lastname@example.org. Your papers will not be considered "turned in" until you send them as an email attachment and until you also turn in all the peer edits done of your paper.
The remainder of the assignments apply to
6) Peer editing: (10) We will use peer editing as a way to
improve the papers. When peer editing, you are expected to provide
both stylistic and substantive suggestions. You also are expected to proofread the bibliography. Use the sample editing
marks provided on the 1st day of class. Throughout the semester, you
will have 5 opportunities to edit each others' work.
Bring two (2) copies to class: one to turn in to me, and another
to share with a peer editor. For each paper, your peer editor will
change so that you may get as much diverse advice as possible.
Peer editors should return the paper on these dates (edits for paper 1 due February 4,
paper 2 due February 25 , paper 3 due March 25, paper 4 due in class April 1, paper 5 due April 29). Peer editors can make a
copy of the edited paper to turn into me on the same day they
return it to the author. Remember to sign the paper you edit so
you can get credit for the work.
Writing only "good job" will earn your zero (0) credit for that peer edit.
Editing guidelines: In order to receive the minimum passing credit for editing, you are expected to provide the following each time you edit:
1. Substantive edits: You are expected to provide a minimum of three (3) substantive suggestions. In order to make a good substantive suggestion, it usually requires at least a paragraph of writing. Given the length of these edits, you may want to type them. These suggestions can include:
a. Additional arguments to be made. You can point to additional evidence that supports their argument, or that modifies their argument in some way.
b. Additional citation on the history of the topic. You can provide the citation for a relevant essay or book, and explain the contribution it makes.
c. Additional variables or concepts that develop the thesis/research questions. You can provide a quotation and page number from the class texts, and explain what is revealed by using the concepts from the texts.
d. Additional scholarly citations. You can provide citations for articles from scholarly journals and books. You should summarize the concept from the scholar, and then explain it.
e. Major organizational changes. You can suggest a major reordering of the paper. This is more than moving the order of two paragraphs. Instead, it would constitute an alternative way to develop the argument.
f. Major differences in interpretation. You may disagree with some interpretive move the author makes. If so, make a case for an alternative interpretation, providing evidence.
2. Stylistic edits: You are expected to make a minimum of ten (10) style edits. They can include:
a. bibliographic citation corrections
b. internal citation corrections
c. typographical error corrections
d. grammar corrections
e. spelling corrections
f. sentence rewordings
7) Presentation: (5). During the final exam period
(May 2, 5pm), we will
have a formal presentation of all the papers. These presentations
will be modeled after conference presentations of papers. Students
will have 12 minutes to present their papers. Depending on class
size, the length of the presentation may be changed. The presentation
should provide sufficient background on the text and outline the core
argument made in the paper. The student should also provide evidence
to support the main argument. Bring TWO copies of your presentation outline to class (one for you and one for me on which to take notes).
More helpful hints:
A) Do NOT simply read your paper for your presentation.
The presentation should be formal and professional, but not
scripted. I suggest you speak from a detailed outline (remember to
include quotations from the text in the outline to illustrate the
points you want to make). Please bring two copies of the outline:
one to speak from and one for me. DO practice the presentation to
make sure your outline fits within the time limits. Time limits
will be enforced.
B) Presume the audience is not familiar with your paper, but is
educated about rhetorical criticism. Thus, your presentation
should include: a description of the speech, a description of
historical context, and illustrative quotations from the text.
Your presentation does NOT need to include detailed definitions of
common rhetorical terms (i.e. rhetorical situation, persona,
metaphor). However, do provide sufficient theoretical explanation
of more complicated concepts so that the audience can follow your
C) Do not try to present all the arguments in your paper. You
will not be able to cover everything in just 8 minutes. Instead,
give a brief overview of all your arguments, and then pick one or
two on which to focus the presentation.
8) Discussion: (20) Graduate seminars at their best are open and free flowing discussions, where you engage each others' hearts and minds. The professor should serve as a muse or a guide, but not a drill sergeant. For a seminar to be a location of invention, and not just regurgitation, you must come ready to talk, to think, to rethink and to engage. Otherwise, seminars can devolve into just being an instance where the professor tells you what to think. Being a good participant does not mean that you always have the answer; it can also mean that you know when to ask the right questions and when to recognize that the answers have already been offered by the class but need to be synthesized. Discussion is a central component of this class insofar as each person's analysis of the readings can be enhanced by others' insights. For a detailed description of the criteria used in the assessment of
discussion, see my discussion link.
TO BE A GOOD PARTICIPANT IN DISCUSSION YOU MUST HAVE COMPLETED ALL THE READINGS.
In order to be a full participant in discussion, you MUST have completed the assigned reading. I will open every class asking if there are questions, but beyond that, I will not review the readings. Instead, I will assume you have completed the reading, taken notes, and are ready to apply and analyze the readings. AnaLouise Keating (Teaching Transformation, 2007, p. 196) provides the following description of "graduate level academic practices" in regards to reading for class:
(1) I expect you to complete all readings by the date listed on the syllabus;
(2) I expect you to read the material thoughtfully and in an engaged manner;
(3) I expect you to read all endnotes and footnotes;
(4) I expect you to read (not skim) all of the required readings--even those you find "boring" or difficult;
(5) I expect you to reread those texts that you have previously read;
(6) I expect you to seek out definitions for words and terminology you don't know . . . try the following websites:
http://www.cios.org/ [added by Cate]
For those who are uncertain about their
ability to participate consistently, I suggest you do the following. For each week, I would like you to prepare a discussion log,
no more than 1 single space typed page for each half, due the next
class period. The log should have 2 halves:
A. Pre-class: a description of how you prepared to
contribute to discussion (key concepts outlined, examples
developed, questions formulated.);
B. Post-class: A self-assessment of your contribution to class
using the five elements outlined in the discussion link. You
should attach a grade to your participation for the class period
You do NOT need to use all the space. Think of the first half as
preparation for discussion, and the second half as a chance to make
an argument about 1) how well you did, and/or 2) how you can
Syllabus: (This syllabus is subject
to change, although that rarely happens.) If changes happen, they
will be in hot pink. The citation format used in this syllabus is MLA.
||supplemental readings (old MLA format)
|Week 1: January 10: Method,
Shmethod: Or, how to talk about non-linear, inventional methods
RRRC pp. 1-13
CRT intro pp. 1-18
CQ ch. 1-3
Zach Wahls speech on eLearning. video
|Week 2: January 17: Close reading: Or, attention to detail is always important
Lucaites, John. "The Irony of 'Equality' in Black Abolitionist Discourse: The Case of Frederick Douglass's 'What, to the Slave, is the Fourth of July?'"Rhetoric and Political Culture in Nineteenth-Century America, edited by Thomas W. Benson, Michigan State UP, 1997, pp. 47-70. on eLearning
RRRC Ray ch. 49
Reagan's "Challenger" speech text video
|Stuckey, Chapter 3 "Writing the Challenger Address" link and Stuckey, Chapter 4 "The Memory of Challenger" link
Week 3: January 24: Introduction to Burke: Or, dramatism as a heuristic vocabulary
OSS Intro by Gusfield then read in this order: chs. 8, 1, 19, 2, 6, 13
|Paper 1 due January 24
||Condit, Celeste Michelle. "Post-Burke: Transcending the Sub-stance
of Dramatism." Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 78, 1992, pp.
|Week 4: January 31: Metaphor and Irony: Or, why tropes really matter
OSS ch. 15
Osborn, Michael. "Archetypal Metaphor in Rhetoric: The Light-Dark Family." Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 53, no. 2, 1967, pp. 115-126. on eLearning
Kuusisto, Riika. "Heroic Tale, Game, and Business Deal? Western Metaphors in Action in Kosovo." Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 88, no. 1, 2002, pp. 50-68. on eLearning
Olson, Kathryn M., and Clark D. Olson. "Beyond Strategy: A Reader-Centered Analysis of Irony's Dual Persuasive Uses." Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 90, no. 1, Feb. 2004, pp. 24-52. on eLearning
|Peer edit of paper 1 returned to author
|Week 5: February 7: Analyzing stories: Or, how the pentad explains differing stories about the same event
OSS chs. 7, 9, 10
Tonn, Mari Boor, Valrie A. Endress, and John N. Diamond. "Hunting and Heritage on Trial: A Dramatistic Debate over Tragedy, Tradition, and Territory." Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 79, 1993, pp. 165-181. on eLearning
CRT Fisher pp. 265-287
||Meisenbach, Rebecca J., Robyn V. Remke, Patrice M. Buzzanell, and Meina Liu. "'They Allowed: Pentadic Mapping of Women's Maternity Leave Discourse as Organizationa Rhetoric". Communication Monographs 75.1 (March 2008).): 1-24. link
| Week 6: February 14: The comic frame and
scapegoating: Or, how to describe different worldviews and their implications, Or, equipment for humane living
OSS chs. 16, 20, 21,
Stuckey, Mary. "Arguing Sideways: The 1491s' I'm an Indian Too. In Disturbing Argument, ed. Catherine H. Palczewski. New York: Taylor & Francis, in press. on eLearning
Ott, Brian L., and Eric Aoki. "The Politics of Negotiating Public Tragedy: Media Framing of the Matthew Shepard Murder." Rhetoric & Public Affairs, vol. 5, no. 2, Fall 2002, pp. 483-505. on e Learning
|Paper 2 due February 14
Condit, Celeste. "Framing Kenneth Burke: Sad Tragedy or Comic
Dance?" Quarterly Journal of Speech 80 (February 1994):
Dow, Bonnie J. "AIDS, Perspective by Incongruity, and Gay Identity
in Larry Kramer's '1,112 and Counting'." Communication Studies 45 (Fall-Winter 1994): 225-240.
Palczewski, Catherine H. "Comic Heroism and the Scope of Fire." LINK
Christiansen, Adrienne E. and Jeremy J. Hanson. "Comedy as Cure
for Tragedy: ACT UP and the Rhetoric of AIDS." Quarterly Journal
of Speech 82 (May 1996): 157-170.
|Week 7: February 21: Identification: Or, how to describe rhetoric in a way different from persuasion and Terministic
Catharsis: Or, how to explain when a word's meaning changes
OSS chs. 4, 11, 12, 14, 17
Palczewski, Catherine Helen. "Contesting Pornography: Terministic Catharsis and Definitional Argument." Argumentation and Advocacy, vol. 38, no. 1, Summer 2001, pp. 1-17. on eLearning
Borrowman, Shane, and Marcia Kmetz. "Divided We Stand: Beyond Burkean Identification." Rhetoric Review, vol. 30, no. 2, 2011, pp. 275-292. on eLearning
|Peer edit of paper 2 returned to author
|Week 8: February 28: The rhetorical
situation: Or, talking about text and context's interaction and the fact that rhetoric is addressed . . . to someone, someplace, sometime
CRT Part 3 Bitzer, Vatz, Biesecker
Branham, Robert J., and Barnett Pearce. "Between Text and Context: Toward a Rhetoric of Contextual Reconstruction." Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 71, no. 1, February 1985, pp. 19-36. on eLearning
|Week 9: March 7: Situations as spheres: spheres of argument, publics, counterpublics, and public screens
CRT Goodnight pp. 251-264
RRRC Farrell & Goodnight ch. 18
Fraser, Nancy. "Rethinking the Public Sphere." Habermas and the public sphere, edited by Craig Calhoun, MIT Press, 1992, pp. 109-142. on eLearning;
Brouwer, Daniel. (2006). Communication as . . . Counterpublic. In Gregory Shepherd, Jeffrey St. John, and Ted Striphas (Eds.), Communication as . . . (pp. 195-208). Thousand Oaks: Sage. on eLearning
RRRC DeLuca & Peeples ch. 25
|Paper 3 due March 7
Fabj, Valeria and Matthew J. Sobnosky. "AIDS Activism and the Rejuvenation of the Public Sphere." Argumentation and Advocacy, vol. 31, Spring 1995, pp. 163-184.
Pfister, Damien. "The Logos of the Blogosphere." Argumentation and Advocacy, vol. 47, no. 3, Winter 2011, pp. 141-162.
Habermas, Jürgen. "The Public Sphere." Jürgen
Habermas on Society and Politics: A Reader. Ed. Steven Seidman.
Boston: Beacon Press, 1989. 231-236.
Habermas, Jürgen. "Further Reflections on the Public Sphere."Habermas and the Public Sphere. Ed. Craig Calhoun.
Cambridge: MIT Press, 1992. 421-461.
Asen, Robert. "Seeking the 'Counter' in Counterpublics." Communication Theory 10 (2000): 424-446.
|Week 10: March 14: Spring Break (cate returns edits)
|Week 11: March 21:
Audiences (2nd, 3rd, and 4th personae): Or, how to articulate the nature of rhetoric as addressed and audiences as constituted
CRT Black p. 331/RRRC ch. 38
CRT Wander p. 357/RRRC ch. 39
RRRC Morris ch. 40
RRRC Charland ch. 28
|Peer edit of paper 3 returned to author
|Week 12: March 28: Diffused and unstable texts: Or, studying "texts" in a postmodern world
CRT Brummett pp. 153-175
RRRC McGee ch. 15/CRT McGee pp. 65-78
CRT McGee pp. 425-440
CRT McGee pp. 341-356
RRRC Ceccarelli ch. 42
CRT Condit pp. 494-511/RRRC Condit ch. 41
|Paper 4 due March 28
Cloud, Dana L. "'To Veil the Threat of Terror': Afghan Women and the <Clash of Civilizations> in the Imagery of the U.S. War on Terrorism." Quarterly Journal of Speech 90.3 (August 2004): 285 - 306 .
Condit, Celeste Michelle, and John Louis Lucaites. "The Rhetoric
of Equality and the Expatriation of African-Americans, 1776-1826." Communication Studies 42 (Spring 1991): 1-21.
Edwards, Janis L., and Carol K. Winkler. "Representative Form and
the Visual Ideograph: The Iwo Jima Image in Editorial Cartoons." Quarterly Journal of Speech 83 (August 1997): 289-310.
Delgado, Fernando Pedro. "Chicano Movement Rhetoric: An
Ideographic Interpretation." Communication Quarterly 43 (Fall
|Week 13: April 4: A Taste of Multi-modal Rhetorics: Or, analying the multi-modal elements of complex rhetorical texts
RRRC Dickinson, Ott & Aoki ch. 22
RRRC Gallagher ch. 23
RRRC Rushing ch. 21
RRRC Nakayama ch. 24
RRRC Watts & Orbe ch. 43
|Peer edit of paper 4 returned to author
|Week 14: April 11: Vernacular and Outlaw Rhetorics: Or, how do we decide what to study, anyway?
CRT McKerrow pp. 441-463
RRRC Ono & Sloop ch. 33
RRRC Hauser ch. 44
RRRC Ono & Sloop ch. 45
||"So in a sense we first of all have to 'break and enter' into discourse before we can speak truth to power. We have to break the constraints on political representation in order to expose its violence and oppose its exclusions. As long as "security" continues to justify the banning and dispersion of protests, assemblies and encampments, security serves to decimate democratic rights and democracy itself. Only mobilisation on a large scale, what we might call an embodied and transnational form of courage, will succeed in defeating xenophobic nationalism and the various alibis that today threaten democracy." Judith Butler Verso interview
|Week 15: April 18: Oppositional Rhetorics: Or, why we should do the work to study texts that are not preserved in dominant archives.
RRRC Flores ch. 47
RRRC Lake ch. 46
CRT Shome pp. 591-608
CRT Blair, Baxter & Brown pp. 563-591
|Drafts of final papers should be exchanged
for peer editing on April 18, to be done outside of class.
|Week 16: April 25: tba -- Rhetorical field methods or Framing (depending on student interest)
RRRC Pezzullo ch. 12
Middleton et al. on field methods on eLearning (if you have already read this, read Endres et al. on "In Situ Rhetoric" and Middleton et al. on "Contemplating the participatory turn")
Read Dunn OR Light OR McHendry OR McKinnon et al. OR Hess
CRT Epilogue pp. 609-614
|Peer edit of final paper returned to author
|Week 17: May 2 (Tuesday) 5:00-6:50pm
Final paper due
Presentations of final paper
Resources for visual rhetoric: Langer, Susanne K. Philosophy in a New Key. 3rd ed.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957. 79-102.
Biesecker, Barbara A. "Remembering World War II: The Rhetoric and
Politics of National Commemoration at the turn of the 21st Century." Quarterly Journal of Speech 88 (November 2002): 393-409.
DeLuca, Kevin Michael. "Unruly Arguments: The Body Rhetoric of
Earthfirst!, Act Up, and Queer Nation." Argumentation and
Advocacy 36 (Summer 1999): 9-21.
Fabj, Valeria. "Motherhood as Political Voice: The Rhetoric of the
Mothers of Plaza de Mayo." Communication Studies 44 (Spring
Resources for performance:
Conquergood, Dwight. "Review Essay: Ethnography, Rhetoric, and
Performance." Quarterly Journal of Speech 78 (February 1992):
Hopkins, Mary Frances. "The Performance Turn--and Toss." Quarterly Journal of Speech 81 (May 1995): 228-236.
Lockford, Lesa. "Social Drama in the Spectacle of Femininity: The
Performance of Weight Loss in the Weight Watcher's Program." Women's Studies in Communication 19 (Fall 1996): 291-312.
Butler, Judith. "Critically Queer." Bodies that Matter. New
York: Routledge, 1993. 223-242.
Hasian, Marouf, Jr. "Jurisprudence as Performance: John Brown's
Enactment of Natural Law at Harper's Ferry." Quarterly Journal of
Speech 86 (May 2000): 190-214.
Capo, Kay Ellen and Darlene M. Hantzis. "(En)Gendered (and
Engendering) Subjects: Writing, Reading, Performing, and Theorizing
Feminist Criticism." Text and Performance Quarterly 11 (1991):
Resources on feminist criticism:
Madison, D. Soyini. "'That Was My Occupation': Oral Narrative,
Performance, and Black Feminist Thought." Text and Performance
Quarterly 13 (July 1993): 213-232.
Miller, Lynn C. "'Polymorphous Perversity' in Women's Performance
Art: The Case of Holly Hughes." Text and Performance Quarterly< 15 (1995): 44-58.
Condit, Celeste Michelle. "Opposites in an Oppositional Practice:
Rhetorical Criticism and Feminism." Transforming Visions.
Ed. Sheryl Perlmutter Bowen and Nancy Wyatt. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton
Press, Inc., 1993. 205-230.
Condit, Celeste M. "Gender Diversity: A Theory of Communication
for the Postmodern Era." Communication: Views from the Helm for
the 21st Century. Ed. Judith Trent. Boston: Allyn & Bacon,
Foss, Sonja K. and Cindy L. Griffin. "Beyond Persuasion: A
Proposal for an Invitational Rhetoric." Communication
Monographs 62 (March 1995): 2-18.
Dow, Bonnie J. "Feminism, Difference(s), and Rhetorical Studies." Communication Studies 46 (Spring-Summer 1995): 106-117.
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. Man Cannot Speak for Her, vol. 1.
New York: Praeger, 1989. 1-16.
Biesecker, Barbara. "Coming to Terms with Recent Attempts to Write
Women into the History of Rhetoric." Philosophy & Rhetoric 25 (1992): 140-161.
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. "Biesecker Cannot Speak for Her Either." Philosophy & Rhetoric 26 (1993): 153-159.
Biesecker, Barbara. "Negotiating Our Tradition: Reflecting Again
(Without Apologies) on the Feminization of Rhetoric." Philosophy
& Rhetoric 26 (1993): 236-241.
Campbell, Karlyn Kohrs. "The Discursive Performance of Femininity:
Hating Hillary." Rhetoric and Public Affairs 1 (Spring 1998),
Dow, Bonnie J., and Mari Boor Tonn. "'Feminine style' and
Political Judgment in the Rhetoric of Ann Richards." Quarterly
Journal of Speech 79 (August 1993): 286-302.
Palczewski, Catherine Helen. “The 1919 Prison Special: Constituting White Women's Citizenship.” Quarterly Journal of Speech, vol. 102, no.2, May 2016, pp. 107-132.
Resources on afrocentric criticism:
Benson, Thomas W. "Rhetoric and Autobiography: The Case of Malcolm
X." Quarterly Journal of Speech 60.1 (February 1974):
James, Lawrence B. "The Influence of Black Orality on Contemporary
Black Poetry and its Implications for Performance." Southern
Speech Communication Journal 45 (Spring 1980): 249-267.
What is good criticism?:
Selections from a collection of essays published in Communication Studies, 54.3 (Fall 2003) -- available on Expanded Academic ASAP. You are required to read 3 of the following.
1. Sandra J. Berkowitz, "Originality..."
2. Barry Brummett, "Double binds ..."
3. Joshua Gunn, "Publishing peccadilloes ..."
4. Steven B. Hunt, "An essay ..."
5. Catherine Helen Palczewski,"What is "good criticism"?..."
EVERYONE must read:
1. Mike Allen. "Special section: ..."
2. John W. Jordan, Kathryn M. Olson, Steven R. Goldzwig. "Continuing the conversation ..."
Good criticism need not agree
RRC Hill 3p138/4p148, Campbell 2p200
Newman, Robert P. "Under the Veneer: Nixon's Vietnam Speech of November 3, 1969." Quarterly Journal of Speech 56.2 (April 1970): 168-178.