Com 640 Spring 2015 Communication 640 George N. Dionisopoulos Seminar in Critical-Rhetorical Methods Office: Com 241 Spring 2015 24903 [email protected] Monday 7:00-9:40 Com 209 Office hours MW 12:30-1:50
"Words are not merely 'signs'; they are names whose 'attachment' to events, objects, persons, institutions, status groups, classes, and indeed any great or small collectivity, soon tends to determine what we do in regard to the bearer of the name." -- Hugh D. Duncan
The overall goal of this seminar is to give you a foundation in basic critical-rhetorical scholarship and methodology. To accomplish this we will examine the role that rhetoric plays in the construction and shaping of symbolic reality. This class is focused on deepening your understanding of the nomenclature of critical inquiry. Toward that end we will examine the scholarly practices which fall under the heading of rhetorical criticism: the “analysis, interpretation, and evaluation of persuasive uses of [symbols]” (Campbell & Burkholder, 1997, p. 2). Rhetorical criticism is not intended to tell us what an artifact means, but rather to illustrate some aspect of how it means: how might an engaged audience make sense of this communication. Thus we begin with what is present and obvious in a rhetorical artifact and the deconstruct it to make an argument about what is hidden and/or obscure – but meaningful and important – within a message.
Part of this class will introduce you to the “history” of rhetorical criticism, including how it came into being, how it matured and changed over the decades, and the various ways it is practiced today. Toward that end we will examine various methodological approaches that have been employed in the past, spanning a range of ideological assumptions about communication and the nature of “humanness”. We cannot cover the entire field, but we will read examples of rhetorical criticism that can help you to develop your own critical skills by illustrating how others have worked through many aspects of the process. It is also important to keep in mind that a method is a tool, and that different tools are designed to do different things. We want to understand how these tools work so that we can develop a refined ability to select from among them.
We will also pay particular attention to a variety of analytical skills that are important in critical inquiry; most specifically, the adoption of a “critical attitude” toward a rhetorical artifact. A great deal of this class will focus on introducing you to a range of basic terms and concepts that constitute a kind of vocabulary for criticism. Understanding and employing this vocabulary is an important step in learning to do rhetorical criticism.
TEXTBOOKS:
Hart, R. P. & Daughton, S, (2005). Modern rhetorical criticism Third Edition, Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Readings posted on Blackboard. Readings concern 1) theoretic grounding for critical 1
Com 640 Spring 2015 perspectives, 2) rhetorical criticisms, and 3) “Landmark” essays in rhetorical criticism. These categories will often overlap within particular essays and should not be considered to be mutually exclusive.
LEARNING OUTCOMES AND GOALS:
- To gain a sense of and be able to discuss various critical methods employed by scholars in our field - To gain a sense of and be able to discuss various trends in contemporary rhetorical criticism. - To develop and be able to articulate coherent definitions of “rhetoric,” “rhetor,” “rhetorical situation,” “rhetorical problem,” “rhetorical criticism,” as well as other terms useful to the field. - To be able to identify and explain the basic logic of critical inquiry - To read, evaluate and discuss a wide range of critical rhetorical projects - To be able to define and illustrate the main concepts of rhetorical criticism - To understand the manner in which rhetorical criticism is conducted and why it is a worthwhile endeavor. - To demonstrate an understanding of the process of critical investigation by completing a research paper. - To engage in a process of reviewing the work of your peers and offering meaningful feedback for revision. - To comprehend and discuss the role of rhetorical criticism as a communication research method. - To examine and be able to articulate concerns which face the academic writer
GETTING TO KNOW EACH OTHER:
Please make a Blog post about yourself under the Student Profile Tab on Blackboard. This profile should include: (a) a photo of you, (b) and some information you wish to share in order for us to get to know you better. Please post a photo in which your face is clearly visible – as opposed to a crowd-shot of the audience at an all-day rock festival with the explanation that you are in section 53, seat 12. This will help me to learn names. Follow the example that I posted under 'Professor' Profile' (tab on left side of Blackboard). I am excited to learn about you but remember that this is a PUBLIC profile and that the whole class will be reading it.
Deadline Date: March 4, 2015 (by 11:59 p.m., PST). There is a file is the course documents section of BlackBoard entitled and concerning “Tips for Submitting Profiles.” It has a link to an instructional video that can help walk you through the process.
GRADING AND ASSIGNMENTS
2
Com 640 Spring 2015 Your grade in this class will be based upon the total number of points accumulated during the semester. I will use the following criteria for assigning final grades:
A 90% B 80% A- 88.5 % C 70% B+ 87%
Discussion Leader = 50 points Descriptive analysis = 25 points Seminar participation = 25 points Proposal = 25 points Meta-Critical Analysis = 25 points Paper = 100 points Final examination = 100
Discussion Leader = 50 points
During one week of the semester you will do a formal “reaction paper” to the week’s reading. A reaction paper is your effort to “connect the dots” concerning what we have read. These papers should highlight what you think are the main points, and can and should bring in supplementary material, including rhetorical artifacts which can be used to illustrate some of the important critical principles discussed. Reaction papers should be two – three pages long (this limit is finite) and contain two or three provocative discussion questions that you can use to lead seminar discussion concerning the week’s reading. Focus these discussion questions toward what we learned from the essays, and how the argument of the essay was structured. Your reaction paper and the discussion questions are to be distributed via email to all members of the seminar by 5:00 p.m. on the day of your presentation. (This will give seminar members the opportunity to preview the reaction paper prior to the class). Late papers will deleteriously affect your grade for this assignment. Keep a copy of your essay to use as a “working paper” during the seminar. You will be required to lead at least an hour of the discussion and will be well within your rights to solicit from others their responses to the above-listed concerns. There are 50 points available for this effort and my evaluation will be based on your reaction paper, the quality of your discussion questions and your effort at leading the seminar.
Participation = 25 points
This class will employ a rhetorical perspective with heavy emphasis upon interaction. You are required to do all the reading and come to class prepared to discuss the material. Participation will be evaluated according to your contributions to class discussion, as well as your effort and attitude in any in-class exercises. Silent attentiveness is not participation. We need to hear your contributions to the dialogue in class. Part of this grade will be a consideration of the feedback you give fellow students concerning their own work. The key to meaningful participation is to keep in mind the above criteria (from the Weekly Blog Posting section) as you read. Another consideration part will be the Student Profile you post on BlackBoard.
Meta-Critical Analysis = 25 points 3
Com 640 Spring 2015
Part of the “critical attitude” is to learn to read criticism like a rhetorical scholar. Rhetorical criticism is a research method, the goal of which is to teach us something about communication. Six times during the semester – not including the week you function as discussion leader – you need to pick one article from the weekly reading and write and post to Turnitin a one- two page (hard limit – penalty incurred for going over page limits) analysis focusing on it. Possible readings for this assignment are designated in this syllabus by an asterisk (*) at the beginning of the listing. You cannot submit more than one of these each week. Meta-critical postings for the week’s readings are due at6 :00 p.m. the night of the seminar and will not be accepted late. .
This analysis should focus on what the article can teach us about communication. Be ready to talk about the “conclusion” or “claim” of the article as well as the argumentative/reasoning structure which supports it. What did you learn about “how discourse works in the world” – what did the author[s] say concerning the implications of this work in contributing to our understanding of the process[es] of human symbolic behavior? What is the “scholarly dialogue” the article claims to advance. (In point of fact, any study that explains only the artifact under examination is a pretty limited endeavor.) What is the most interesting or important point being made about human symbolic behavior? What do you believe was the key argument of the author[s]: To put it more bluntly – what is the “so what” of the article; how are you smarter about communication after reading the article than you were before you read it? You need to distill the substance of the article into a brief critical profile. In so doing, you are enacting the role of a “meta-critic”: deciding which of the original critic’s ideas are crucial, and how best to demonstrate and critique the claims being advanced. It is vitally important that you cite and reference evidentiary support from the article. Do not assert – illustrate! The goal of this assignment is to demonstrate that you have engaged the readings like a scholar
WRITING ASSIGNMENTS
A Word About Professionalism in Writing
I spend a great deal of time and effort in grading student papers so as to provide you with maximum feedback that can, in turn, help you to improve your writing. Because of this, it is most discouraging when the occasional student hands in a paper that has many errors in syntax, grammar, and/or spelling; most often, papers replete with these types of errors have been hastily written and proofread—or not proofread at all. For these reasons, my policy is as follows: If I determine that your paper has an excessive number of errors in syntax, grammar, and/or spelling, I will stop reading and return your paper to you, ungraded. At this point your paper will be considered one day late, incurring the penalty specified in the assignment. You will have 24 hours to correct the essay and resubmit it. Your essay will continue to be counted late after each 24 hour period has passed. If the revision still contains a significant number of mechanical errors I will stop reading it and the process will begin again.
4
Com 640 Spring 2015 When you write you create an image of yourself on the paper. You want that image to be professional and accomplished. You owe it to yourself to produce work that reflects well on its author. All page limits on all assignments are hard and enforced.
Descriptive Analysis (25 points)
A “descriptive analysis” does not employ outside research, nor is in really a rhetorical criticism. It is an intense focus on the object of analysis. Campbell and Burkholder call it the first task a critic must perform in “preparing to write a piece of criticism” (p. 17), and Chapter Two of their book details seven different concerns you can use to “get intimate” with your artifact. Your essay should have a brief introduction including a preview statement and then go on to address these concerns. Each claim/insight you offer must have evidentiary support drawn explicitly from the artifact. You need to show me the evidence in your essay. Do not assert – illustrate! The text of this essay should be 3-6 pages long not including References and title page, using 12 point font and one inch margins. The descriptive analysis is due to turnitin by 7:00 on February 18, 2015. Late papers will 10% (3 points) for each calendar day late.
Proposal (25 points)
This is a proposal for your larger criticism and should be 4-6 pages not including References and title page, using 12 point font and one inch margins. When done correctly it can serve as the beginning of the larger essay. The proposal should be in three distinct and clearly labeled sections. The first is a brief presentation of the artifact and a discussion of its “rhetorical situation”. That is, you need to situate the artifact as a response to whatever exigency led to its creation. Why was this rhetorical artifact created, and what was the rhetorical problem[s] facing the rhetor? This section should provide whatever background is necessary for understanding your work, including the socio-political conditions in which the text was created and the specifics of the situation in which it was presented. This should take up NO MORE THAN two pages of the essay (about 500 words). The second section of the proposal discusses the artifact in relation to a particular method of rhetorical criticism. Here you are making an argument that seeks to justify studying this artifact in a particular way. This justification needs to address what a deeper understanding of this artifact can teach us about communication. This section of your proposal needs to demonstrate your knowledge of relevant literature concerning your proposed analysis of this artifact. That is, you need to situate the proposed analysis in an on-going scholarly conversation concerning some aspect of communication. You should support your claims with relevant source materials and cite them appropriately. This section of your proposal should two to three pages in length. The final section of your proposal is a brief presentation of the organizational structure of your final paper. Lay out clearly WHAT you will do, HOW you will do it, and WHY this is important. The Proposal is due to me via Turnitin.com by 7:00 p. m. on March 25 and late papers will lose 10% (3 points) for each calendar day late.
Rhetorical Criticism
5
Com 640 Spring 2015 The beginning of this essay can be drawn from the Prospectus. The essay needs to provide a description of the artifact situated within its “rhetorical situation”, and a discussion and justification of the critical methodology employed in your essay to deconstruct the artifact. The introduction section should end with an explicit statement of WHAT you will do, HOW you will do it, and WHY it is important. The bulk of the essay is the critical analysis. DO NOT TELL ME – SHOW ME. Illustrate your critical points with explicit examples drawn from the artifact.
The text of this essay – not including References and title page – should be 10-20 pages, using 12 point font and one inch margins. You will need to cite a minimum of 15 outside sources – not including the artifact. DO NOT CITE class lecture notes, dictionaries or encyclopedias. You can do this project with up to two other people but everyone gets the same grade. If you do co-author your essay, make certain that only one of you submits it and that all authors’ names are on the first page. Be certain to paginate your work.
Final essays will be turned in on May 6 to Turnitin.com. Late essays will be marked down 10 points for each day late and will not be accepted after noon on May 8.
Final Examination: The format of the final examination will be determined during the semester.
Things happen during the semester that are unavoidable. You can miss one class without penalty. If you miss more than one you will lose 15 points from your participation grade -- you need to be here and we need you to be here.
Meeting 1 – January 21 Brief overview
1. Discussion of course syllabus and grading "philosophy."
2. Some desultory rambling about the nature and function of rhetorical criticism and the construction, modeling and assessment of argument.
Meeting 2 – January 28
Introduction to and Perspectives on Critical Cultural Analysis
I. REQUIRED READING
A. Hart & Daughton, chapts 1-2 pp. 1-36.
6
Com 640 Spring 2015 B. Foss, chapts 1-2 pp. 3-20.
C. Zarefsky, (2008). Knowledge claims in rhetorical criticism, JoC, 58, 629-640.
D. Wander, (1972). “The Savage Child: The image of the Negro in the pro-slavery movement,” SSCJ, 37, 335-360.
II. In Class: Look up, familiarize yourself with and be ready to discuss the “case-study” method of research.
Meeting 3 – February 4
Beginnings of rhetorical criticism
A. Foss, pp. 21-29.
*B. Hill, (1972), Conventional wisdom – traditional form – The President’s message of November 3, 1969. Reprinted in Foss, pp. 30-50.
C. Hill, in Kuypers, The Art of Rhetorical Criticism, Chapter Five, The “Traditional” Perspective, pp. 56-84.
*D. Nichols, (1990). Lincoln’s First Inaugural, in Brock, B. L., Scott, R. L., & Chesbro, R. L. Methods of Rhetorical Criticism: A Twentieth-Century Perspective, third edition, pp. 32-63.
E. Campbell & Burkholder, Chapter Two Descriptive Analysis: The first stage of criticism, pp. 17- 48.
Meeting 4 – February 11 Situating Critical Analysis
I. REQUIRED READING
A. Hart & Daughton, (2005). Chapter 3 Analyzing Situations, 37-56.
B. Campbell & Burkholder, Historical-contextual analysis: The second stage of criticism, pp. 49- 72 7
Com 640 Spring 2015
C. Farrell & Young, (2005). The situational perspective. In Kuypers, The Art of Rhetorical Criticism, Chapter Four, 33-55.
D. Bitzer, (1968). The rhetorical situation. P&R, 1, 1-14.
*E. Pauley, (1990). Rhetoric and timeliness: An analysis of Lyndon B. Johnson’s Voting Rights Address,” WJC, 62, 26-53.
*G. Skow & Dionisopoulos, (1997). A struggle to contextualize photographic images: American print media and the “Burning Monk”. CQ, 45, 393-409.
II. Supplementary Reading -- Read one of the following and prepare a report on its contents,
1. Hart, (1986). Contemporary scholarship in public address: A research editorial," WJSC, 50, 283-295.
2. Hasian, (2000). Jurisprudence as performance: John Brown’s enactment of natural law at Harper’s Ferry, QJS, 86, 190-214
3. Branham & Pearce, (1987). A contract for civility: Edward Kennedy's Lynchburg Address, QJS, 73, 424-443.
4. Hasian, (2002). Nostalgic longings and imaginary Indias: Postcolonial analysis, collective memories and the impeachment trial of Warren Hastings, WJC, 66, 229-255.
5. Quimby, (1975). Agnew, the press and the rhetorical critic. WS, 39, 146-154.
6. Hogan, (1985). Public opinion and American foreign policy: The case of illusory support for the Panama Canal Treaties, QJS, 71, 302-317.
7. Goldzwig & Dionisopoulos, (1989). John F. Kennedy's civil rights discourse: The evolution from “principled bystander” to public advocate. CM, 56, 179-198.
8. Zarefsky, (1979). The Great Society as a rhetorical proposition. QJS, 65, 364-78.
9. Vatz, (1976). Public opinion and presidential ethos, WS, 40, 196-206.
10. Hogan, (1997). George Gallup and the rhetoric of scientific democracy. CM, 64, 161-179.
11. Hyde, (1993). Medicine, rhetoric and euthanasia: A case study in the workings of a postmodern discourse. QJS, 79, 201-224.
12. Sloop, (1994). Apology made to whoever pleases”: Cultural discipline and the grounds of interpretation,” CQ, 42, 345-362.
13. Logue & Miller, (1995). Rhetorical status: A study in its origins, functions and consequences, QJS, 81, 20-47.
14. Nomai & Dionisopoulos, (2002). Framing the Cubas narrative: The American Dream and the capitalist reality, CS, 53, 97-111.
8
Com 640 Spring 2015 15. Philipsen, (1986). Mayor Daley’s council speech: A cultural analysis. QJS, 72, 247-260.
16. Vatz, (1973). The myth of the rhetorical situation. P&R, 6, 154-161.
III. In Class: Come to class prepared to discuss the following:
1) What are your insights into the nature of critical analysis. What is this endeavor and why do we do it? What kinds of knowledge claims does it make and how do these claims differ from other kinds of inquiry?
2) Why is it important to consider critically the situation for an artifact? What is the best way to define this situation?
3) What is the “issue” between Bitzer and Vatz and who do you think has the more defensible position?
Reaction Paper ______
Meeting 5 -- February 18 Descriptive Analysis due to Turnitin by 7:00
Analyzing Ideas
I. REQUIRED READING
A. Hart & Daughton, chapter 4, pp. 57-74.
B. McGee, (1975). In search of “The People”: A rhetorical alternative. QJS, 61, 235-249.
*C. Charland, (1987). Constitutive rhetoric: The case of the Peuple Quebecois, QJS, 73, 9
Com 640 Spring 2015 133-150.
*D. Goehring & Dionisopoulos, (2013). Identification by antithesis: The Turner Diaries as constitutive rhetoric. Southern Communication Journal, 78, 369-386.
*E. Leff & Utley, (2004). Instrumental and constitutive rhetoric in Martin Luther King Jr.’s “Letter from Birmingham Jail.” RPA, 7, 37-52.
II. Supplementary Reading – Read one of the following and prepare a report on its contents,
1. Parry-Giles, (1994). Rhetorical experimentation and the Cold War, 1947-1953: The development of an internationalist approach to propaganda. QJS, 80, 448-467.
2. Depoe, (1991). Space and the 1960 presidential campaign: Kennedy, Nixon, and “Public Time." WJC, 55, 215-233.
3. Ritter, (1985). Drama and legal rhetoric: The perjury trials of Alger Hiss, WJSC, 49, 83-102.
4. Vatz & Windt, (1974). "The defeats of Judges Haynsworth and Carswell: Rejection of Supreme Court nominees," QJS, 477-488.
5. Dowling & Marraro, (1986). Grenada and the Great Communicator: A study in democratic ethics, WJSC, 50, 350-367.
6. Cherwitz & Zagacki, (1986). Consummatory versus justificatory crisis rhetoric, WJSC, 50, 307-324.
7. Zagaki, (1992). The rhetoric of American decline: Paul Kennedy, conservatives and the solvency debate. WJC, 56, 372-393.
8. Benoit, (2001). Framing through temporal metaphor: The “bridges” of Bob Dole and Bill Clinton in their 1996 acceptance addresses, CS, 52, 70-84.
9. Mukherjee, (2000). Now you see it, now you don’t: Naming privacy, framing policy, CSMC, 17, 469-492.
10. Mechling & Mechling, (1992). Hot pacifism and Cold War: The American Friends Service Committee’s Witness for Peace in 1950s America. QJS, 78, 173-196.
11. Zarefsky, Miller-Tutzauer & Tutzauer, (1984). Reagan's safety net for the truly needy: The rhetorical uses of definition. CS, 35, 113-119.
12. Wilson, (1999). Toward a discursive theory of racial identity: The Souls of Black Folk as a response to nineteenth-century biological determinism. WJC, 63, 193-215.
13. Bass, (1985). The appeal to efficiency as narrative closure: Lyndon Johnson and the Dominican crisis," SSCJ, 50, 103-120.
Reaction Paper ______
10
Com 640 Spring 2015
Meeting 6 – February 25
Reactions Regarding Rhetorical Rationality -- Analyzing Argument
I. REQUIRED READING
A. Hart & Daughton, Chapter 5 pp. 79-99.
B. Brockriede (1974). Rhetorical criticism as argument, QJS, 60, 165-174.
*C. Hart, (1971). The rhetoric of the true believer. SM, 38, 249-261
*D. Corcoran, (1986). KAL 007 and the Evil Empire: Mediated disaster and forms of rationalization," CSMC, 3, 297-316.
*E. Zarefsky, (2007). Making the case for war: Colin Powell at the United Nations. RPA, 10, 275-302.
II. Supplementary Reading -- Read one of the following and prepare a report on its contents,
1. McGee, (1999). The argument from definition revisited: Race and definition in the Progressive Era,” A&A, 35, 141-158.
2. Young & Launer, (1988). KAL 007 and the Superpowers: An international argument. QJS, 74, 271-295.
3. Sanger, (1995). Slave resistance and rhetorical self-definition: Spirituals as a strategy,” WJC, 59, 177-192.
4. Walls, (2004). You ain’t just whistling Dixie: How Carol Moseley-Braun used rhetorical status to change Jesse Helms’ tune. WJC, 68, 343-364. 5. Myers, (1999). Political argumentation and the composite audience: A case study,” QJS, 85, 55-71.
6. Simons, (1994). Going meta: Definition and political applications, QJS, 80, 468-481.
7. Einhorn, (1981). Basic assumptions in the Virginia Ratification Debate: Patrick Henry vs, James Madison on the nature of man and reason. SSCJ, 46, 327-340.
8. Jasinski, (1992). Rhetoric and judgment in the constitutional ratification debate of 1787-1788: An exploration of the relationship between theory and critical practice, QJS, 78, 197-218.
9. Titsworth, (1999). An ideological basis for definition in public argument: A case study of the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act, A&A, 35, 171-184.
10. Goldzwig & Dionisopoulos, (1995). Legitimating liberal credentials for the presidency: John F. Kennedy and the Strategy of Peace. SCJ, 60, 312-331.
11. Butler, (2003). Somalia and the imperial savage: Continuities in the rhetoric of war. WJC, 66, 1-24. 11
Com 640 Spring 2015
12. Broda-Bahm, (1999), Finding protection in definitions: The quest for environmental security. A&A, 35, 159-170.
13. Schiappa, (1993), Arguing about definitions,” Argumentation, 7, 403-417.
14. Crable & Vibbert, (1983). Mobil's epideictic advocacy: “Observations” of Prometheus-Bound, CM, 50, 380-394.
15. Kuypers, (2000). From science, moral poetics; Dr. James Dobson’s response to the Fetal Tissue Research Initiative. QJS, 86, 146-167.
16. Sarch, (1997). Those dirty ads! Birth control advertising in the 1920s and 1930s. CSMC, 14, 31-48.
17. Dionisopoulos, (2010). “To open a door and look inside”: Dead Man Walking as a prima facie case. WJC, 74, 292-308.
III. In Class
1) Irritating Advertisement Exercise: This is an exercise in critical tolerance. Bring in a print ad that bothers you for some reason (i.e. sexist, elitist, sophomoric, too subtle or obvious, too liberal, too conservative). Be prepared to describe the advertisement focusing on the features of the message you find objectionable. Assess the purpose of the advertisement. Is it positive or negative (both)? What are the major claims and the data? What is the warrant? What can you surmise about the audience for whom this ad was designed? Are you excluded from or a member of this target group? Can you “track the logic” of the persuasion in this ad? That is, can you show how the message is presumably intended to work on an audience, and speculate about why you are immune to its appeal?
Reaction Paper ______
Meeting 7 – March 4 Narrative Criticism
A. Foss, Chapter 9 pp. 307-319.
B. Rowland, (2005). The Narrative Perspective. Kuypers, , The Art of Rhetorical Criticism, Chapter Eight, pp. 131-161.
*B. Osborn & Bakke, (1998). The melodramas of Memphis: Contending narratives during the sanitation strike of 1968. SCJ, 220-234.
*C. Gring-Pemble, (2001), Are we going to now govern by anecdote?: Rhetorical constructions of welfare recipients in congressional hearings, debates, and legislation, 1992-1996.” QJS, 87, 341-365.
12
Com 640 Spring 2015 *D. Lewis, (1987). Telling America’s story: Narrative form and the Reagan presidency,” QJS, 73, 280-302
*E. Dionisopoulos, (2009). Incident on the Bay Hap River and the guns of August: The Swift boat drama and counter-narrative in the 2004 election. CQ, 57, 487-511.
II. Supplementary Reading -- Read one of the following and prepare a report on its contents,
1. Fisher, (1984). Narration as a human communication paradigm: The case of public moral argument. CM, 51, 1-22.
2. Fisher, (1985). The narrative paradigm: An elaboration. CM, 52, 347-367.
3. Rowland, (1989). On limiting the narrative paradigm: Three case studies, CM, 56, 39-54.
4. Bennett & Edelman, (1985). Toward a new political narrative. JoC, 35, 156-171.
5. Carpenter, (1986). Admiral Mahan, “narrative fidelity,” and the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor. QJS, 290-305
6. Sefcovic & Condit, (2001). Narrative and social change: A case study of the Wagner Act of 1935. CS, 284-301.
7. Gold, (1988). Ronald Reagan and the oral tradition. CSSJ, 39, 159-176
8. McGee & Nelson, (1985). Narrative reason in public argument," JoC, 35, 139-155.
9. Hollihan & Riley, (1987). The rhetorical power of a compelling Story: A critique of a “Toughlove” parental Support Group. CQ, 35, 13-25.
Reaction Paper ______Meeting 8 -- March 11 Proposal Due Form and Structure
I. REQUIRED READING
A. Hart & Daughton, Chapter 6, pp. 101-123
B. Benoit, (2005). Generic rhetorical criticism. In Kuypers, , The Art of Rhetorical Criticism, Chapter Six, 85-106.
*C. Bostdorff, (2003). George W. Bush’s Post-September 11 rhetoric of covenant renewal: Upholding the faith of the greatest generation. QJS, 89, 293-319.
*D. Murphy, (1990). “A Time of Shame and Sorrow:” Robert F. Kennedy and the American jeremiad. QJS, 76, 401-414. 13
Com 640 Spring 2015
*E. Hanson & Dionisopoulos (2012). Eulogy rhetoric as a political coping mechanism. The aftermath of Proposition 8. WJC, 76, 24-43.
II. Supplementary Reading -- Read one of the following and prepare a report on its contents,
1. Ware & Linkugel, "On Rhetorical Genre: An Organizing Perspective," In Scott and Brock, 403-419.
2. Fisher, (1980). Genre: Concepts and applications in rhetorical criticism," WJSC, 44, 288-299.
3. Windt, (1972), The diatribe: Last resort for protest. QJS, 58, 1-14.
4. Ritter, (1980). American political rhetoric and the jeremiad tradition: Presidential nomination acceptance addresses, 1960-1976," CSSJ, 31, 153-171.
5. Kruse, (1981). Apologia in team sport. QJS, 67, 270-283.
6. Kruse, (1981). The scope of apologetic discourse: Establishing generic parameters," SSCJ, 46, 278-291.
7. Jamieson, (1973). Generic constraints and the rhetorical situation," P&R, 6, 162-170.
8. Jamieson, (1975). Antecedent genre as rhetorical constraint," QJS, 61, 406-415.
9. Ryan, (1982). Kategoria and apologia: On their rhetorical criticism as a speech set," QJS, 68, 254-261.
10. Brummett, (1984). Premillennial apocalyptic as a rhetorical genre. CSSJ, 35, 84-93.
11. Jablonski, (1979). Richard Nixon's Irish wake: A case of generic transference. CSSJ, 30, 164-173.
12. Blair, (1984). From “All the President's Men” to every man for himself: The strategies of post-Watergate apologia. CSSJ, 35, 250-259.
13. Johannesen, (1985). The jeremiad and Jenkin Lloyd Jones, CM, 52, 156-172.
14. Snow, (1985). Martin Luther King's “Letter from Birmingham Jail” as Pauline epistle. QJS, 71, 318-334.
15. Carlson, (1985). John Quincy Adams’ “Amistad Address”: Eloquence in a generic hybrid. WJSC, 49, 14-26.
16. Strine & Pacanowsky, (1985). How to read interpretive accounts of organizational life: Narrative bases of textual authority. SSCJ, 59, 283-297.
17. King, (1985). Transforming scandal into tragedy: A rhetoric of political apology. QJS, 71, 289-301.
18. Gold, (1978). Political apologia: The ritual of self-defense," CM, 306-316.
19. Martin, (1976). A generic exploration: Staged withdrawal, the rhetoric of resignation," CSSJ, 27, 247-257.
20. Gregg, (1984). Apologia and character, CSSJ, 35, 269-272.
14
Com 640 Spring 2015 21. Harrell, Ware & Linkugel, (1975). Failure of apology in American politics: Nixon on Watergate, CM, 62, 245-261.
22. Goldzwig, (1987). A rhetoric of public theology: The religious rhetor and public policy. SSCJ, 52, 128-150. 23. Miller, (1984). Genre as social action. QJS, 70, 151-167.
24. VandeBerg, (1989). Dramedy: Moonlighting as an emergent generic hybrid. CS, 40, 13-2
25. Campbell & Jamieson, "Inaugurating the Presidency," in Brock, Scott & Chesebro, pp. 343-360.
26. Foss, (1983). John Lennon and the advisory functions of eulogies, CSSJ, 34, 187-194.
27. Jamieson & Campbell, (1982). Rhetorical hybrids: Fusions of generic elements. QJS, 68, 146-157.
28. Murphy, (1979). Comic strategies and the American covenant. CS, 40, 266-279.
29. O'Leary & McFarland, (1989). The political use of mythic discourse: Prophetic interpretation in Pat Robertson's presidential campaign. QJS, 75, 433-454.
30. Appel, (1996). Burlesque drama as a rhetorical genre: The hudibrastic ridicule of William F. Buckley, Jr. WJC, 60, 269-284.
31. Huxman & Bruce, (1995). Toward a dynamic generic framework of apologia: A case study of Dow Chemical, Vietnam, and the napalm controversy, CS, 46, 57-72.
32. Darsey, (1991). From “Gay is Good” to the scourge of AIDS: The evolution of Gay Liberation Rhetoric. CS, 42, 43-66.
33. Asante & Atwater, (1986).The rhetorical condition as symbolic structure in discourse. CM, 34, 170-177.
34. Lucas, (1986). Generic criticism and historical context: The case of George Washington’s First Inaugural Address, SSCJ, 51, 354-370.
35. Vartabedian, (1985). Nixon’s Vietnam rhetoric: A case study of apologia as generic paradox. CSSJ, 50, 366-381.
36. Simons, (2000). A dilemma-centered analysis of Clinton’s August 17th apologia: Implications for rhetorical theory and method. QJS, 86, 438-453.
37. Kramer & Olson, (2002). The strategic potential of sequencing apologia stases: President Clinton’s self-defense in the Monica Lewinsky scandal. WJC, 66, 347-368.
38. Gunn & Beard, (2000). On the apocalyptic sublime. SCJ, 65, 269-286.
39. Gunn, (2004). The rhetoric of exorcism: George W. Bush and the return of political demonology. WJC, 68, 1-23.
40. Appel, (1987). The perfected drama of Reverend Jerry Falwell. CQ, 35, 26-38.
41. Stoda & Dionisopoulos, (2000). Jeremiad at Harvard: Solzhenitsyn and “The World Split Apart”. WJC, 64. 28- 52.
III. In Class: 15
Com 640 Spring 2015
1) In what ways are genres confining or restrictive? In what ways do they allow the speaker to be creative and imaginative? What can they tell us about a specific culture or about communication within that culture? Can you think of instances in which rhetorical expectations (form) have been violated? What are the potential advantages and disadvantages of violating form? How can a speaker or a critic judge this calculated risk? Try to use specific examples of identifiable genres in considering your answer.
2) What kind of power do we give names? What sorts of expectations do they contain about tone, structure, content, etc? Genres, like other shorthand ways of processing data, are necessary in that they allow us to be more efficient in assessing new information -- but do they also encourage us to be unnecessarily close-minded at times? Can you think of examples?
Reaction Paper ______
Meeting 9 – March 18
Texts and Messages
I. REQUIRED READING
A. Hart & Daughton, Chapter 7 pp. 125-175.
B. Foss, Chapter 8, pp. 267-276.
C. Burkholder & Henry (2005). Criticism of metaphor. In Kuypers, , The Art of Rhetorical Criticism, Chapter Seven, pp. 107-130.
*C. Ivie, (1980). Images of savagery in American justifications for war, CM, 47, 279-294.
*D. Perry, (1983). Rhetorical functions of the infestation metaphor in Hitler’s rhetoric. CSSJ, 34, 229-235.
II. Supplementary Reading -- Read one of the following and prepare a report on its contents,
16
Com 640 Spring 2015
1. Jensen, (1977). British voices on the eve of the American Revolution: Trapped by the family Metaphor. QJS, 63, 43-50.
2. Ivie, (1987). Metaphor and the rhetorical invention of Cold War idealists. CM, 165-182.
3. Osborn, (1967). Archetypal metaphor in rhetoric: The light-dark family. QJS, 53, 115-126.
4. Osborn, (1977). The evolution of the archetypal sea: Rhetoric and poetic. QJS, 63, 347-363.
5. Farrell & Goodnight, (1981). Accidental rhetoric: The root metaphors of Three Mile Island. CM, 48, 271-300.
6. Ivie, (1986). Literalizing the metaphor of Soviet savagery: President Truman’s plain style. SSCJ, 54, 91-105.
7. Ivie, (1984). Speaking “Common Sense” about the Soviet threat: Reagan’s rhetorical stance. WJC, 48, 39-50.
8. Graves, (1983). Functions of key metaphors in early Quaker sermons, 1671-1700," QJS, 59, 364-378.
9. Stelzner, (1971). The quest story and Nixon's November 3, 1969 Address. QJS, 57, 163-172.
10. Bineham, (1991). Some ethical implications of team sports metaphors in politics," CR 4, 35-42.
11. Jamieson, (1980). The metaphoric cluster in the rhetoric of Pope Paul IV and Edmund G. Brown, Jr. QJS, 66, 51-72.
12. Fisher, (1970). A motive view of communication. QJS, 56, 131-139.
13. Stelzner, (1977). Ford's war on inflation: A metaphor that did not cross. CM, 44, 284-297.
14. Bostdorff, (1991). Vice-presidential comedy and the traditional female role: An examination of the rhetorical characteristics of the vice presidency. WJSC, 55, 1-27.
15. Altenberg & Cathcart, (1982). Jimmy Carter on human rights: A thematic analysis. CSSJ, 33, 446-457.
16. Zagacki & King, (1989). Reagan, romance and technology: A critique of “Star Wars”. CS, 40, 1-12.
17. Hankins, (1983). Archetypal alloy: Reagan's rhetorical image. CSSJ, 34, 33-43.
18. Butler, (2002). Somalia and the imperial savage: Continuities in the rhetoric of war. WJC, 66, 1-24.
19. Daughton, (1993). Metaphorical Transcendence: Images of the Holy War in Franklin Roosevelt’s First Inaugural. QJS, 79, 427-446.
III. In class
1) What can the critic learn from studying style that s/he cannot learn by examining the argumentative structure of a message (for example, using the Toulmin method)? What kind of messages would lend themselves more to a stylistic analysis? Why?
2) Bring to class some discourse that can be analyzed for its metaphorical content.
17
Com 640 Spring 2015
Reaction Paper ______
Meeting Ten – March 25 Prospectus Due to Turnitin by 7:00
Framing and the Continuation of Texts and Messages
I. REQUIRED READING
A. Hart & Daughton, Chapter 8 pp. 151-175.
B. Kuypers, Framing Analysis. In Kuypers, Chapter Ten, pp. 186-211.
*C. Wedbee, (2001). Perspective by incongruity in Norman Thomas’s “Some Wrong Roads to Peace”. WJC, 65, 45-64.
*D. Perez & Dionisopoulos, (1995). Presidential silence, C. Everett Koop, and the Surgeon General’s Report on AIDS, CS, 46, 18-33.
*E. Henry, (1988). The rhetorical dynamics of Mario Cuomo's 1984 Keynote Address: Situation, speaker, metaphor," SSCJ (1988): 105-120.
*F. Smith & Dionisopoulos, (2008). The Abu Ghraib images: “Breaks” in a dichotomous frame. 18
Com 640 Spring 2015 Western Journal of Communication, 72, 308-328.
II. Supplementary Reading -- Read one of the following and prepare a report on its contents,
1. Entman, (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm,” JoC, 43 (4), 6-27.
2. Browne, (1988), Edmund Burke’s Letter to a Noble Lord: A textual Study in political philosophy and Rhetorical Action. CM, 44, 215-229.
3. Browne, (1996). Textual style and radical critique in William Lloyd Garrison’s Thoughts on African Colonization. CS, 47, 177-190.
4. Browne, (1996). Encountering Angelina Grimke: Violence, identity and radical community. QJS, 82, 55-73.
5. Hasian, (2002). Holocaust denial debates: The symbolic significance of Irving v. Penguin & Lipstadt. CS, 129- 150.
6. Leff, (1988). Dimensions of temporality in Lincoln’s Second Inaugural. CR, 1, 26-31.
7. Leff, (1992). Things made by words: Reflections on rhetorical criticism. QJS, 78, 223-231.
8. Leff & Mohrmann, (1974). Lincoln at Cooper Union; A rhetorical analysis of the text. QJS, 60, 346-358.
9. Leff & Sachs, (1990). Words the most like things: Iconicity and the rhetorical text. WJSC, 54, 252-273.
10. Slagell, (1991). Anatomy of a masterpiece: A close textual analysis of Abraham Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address. CS, 155-171.
11. Stelzner, (1966). “War Message,” December 8, 1941: An approach to language. CM, 33, 419-437.
12. Daughton, (1993). Metaphoric transcendence: Images of the holy war in Franklin Roosevelt’s First Inaugural, QJS, 79, 427-446.
13. Black, (1994). Gettyburg and silence. QJS, 80, 21-36.
14. Lancioni, (1996). The rhetoric of the frame revisioning archival photographs in The Civil War. WJC, 60,
III. In class
1) Bring to class an example of how a particular issue was “framed” and how that frame affected how it was perceived.
2) What are some of the ultimate terms in the United States today? How have some of these terms changed over time? What does the use of Ultimate Terms tell the critic about the users of such terms? What kind of situational factors would lead to -- or mitigate against -- the use of Ultimate Terms, Are terms like “progress,” “progressive” and “education” still God Terms?
2) Bring to class some examples of jargon. If you speak a particular form of jargon share that with us. What do these examples indicate about the people that use them?
19
Com 640 Spring 2015
Reaction Paper ______
Meeting Eleven -- April 8 Cultural Analysis
I. REQUIRED READING
A. Hart & Daughton, Chapter 10-11, pp. 211-258
*B. Martin & Oshagan, (1997), Disciplining the workforce: The news media frame a General Motors plant closing,” CR2, 24, 669-697.
*C. Corcoran. (1983). The bear in the back yard: Myth, ideology, and victimage ritual in Soviet funerals, CM, 50, 305-320.
*D. Dionisopoulos & Goldzwig. (1992). “The Meaning of Vietnam”: Political rhetoric as revisionist cultural history. QJS, 78, 61-79.
II. Supplementary Reading -- Read one of the following and prepare a report on its contents,
1. Trujillo & Ekdom, (1985). Sportswriting and American cultural values: The 1984 Chicago Cubs, CSMC, 2, 262-281.
2. Morris, (2002). Pink herring & the fourth persona: J. Edgar Hoover’s sex crime panic. QJS, 88, 228-244.
3. Fisher, (1973). Reaffirmation and subversion of the American Dream. QJS, 57, 160-167. 20
Com 640 Spring 2015
4. Thompson, (1979). Barbara Jordan's keynote address: The juxtaposition of contradictory values, SSCJ, 44, 223-232.
5. Gustainis, (1989). John F. Kennedy and the Green Berets: The rhetorical use of the hero myth," CS, 40, 41-53.
6. McGuire, (1977). Mythic rhetoric in Main Kampf: A structuralist critique," QJS, 63, 1-13.
7. Zarefsky, (1983). Civil rights and civil conflict: Presidential communication in crisis," CSSJ, 34, 59-66.
8. Rasmussen & Downey (1991). Dialectical disorientation in Vietnam War films: Subversion of the mythology of war. QJS, 77, 176-195.
9. Goldzwig, (1985). James Watt's subversion of values: An analysis of rhetorical failure. SSCJ, 50, 305-326.
10. Burkholder, (1989). Kansas populism, woman suffrage, and the agrarian myth: A case study in the limits of mythic transcendence. CS, 40, 292-307.
11. Dionisopoulos, (1988). A case study in print media and heroic myth: Lee Iacocca 1978-1985. SSCJ, 53, 227-243
12. Moore, (1991). A rhetorical criticism of political myth: From Goldwater legend to Reagan mystique. CS, 42, 295-308. 13. Dionisopoulos, Gallagher, Goldzwig, & Zarefsky, (1992). Martin Luther King, the American Dream and Vietnam: A collision of rhetorical trajectories, WJSC, 56, 91-107.
14. Peterson & Horton, (1995). Rooted in the soil: How understanding the perspectives of landowners can enhance the management of environmental disputes. QJS, 81, 139-166.
15. Zagacki, (1996), The priestly rhetoric of neoconservatism. WJC, 60, 168-187.
16. Darsey, (1995). Joe McCarthy’s fantastic moment. CM, 62, 65-86.
17. Hall, (2002). The invention of “Quantifiably Safe Rhetoric”: Richard Wirthlin and Ronald Reagan’s instrumental use of public opinion research in presidential discourse. WJC, 66, 319-346.
18. Murphy, (1992). Domesticating dissent: The Kennedy’s and the Freedom Rides. CM, 59, 61-78
19. Prosise, (1998). The collective memory of the atomic bombings misrecognized as objective history: The case of the public opposition to the National Air and Space Museum’s atom bomb exhibit. WJC, 62, 316-347.
20. Perry-Giles & Perry-Giles, (2000). Collective memory, political nostalgia, and the rhetorical presidency, Bill Clinton’s commemoration of the March on Washington, August, 28, 1998. QJS, 417-437.
21. Mitchell, (2000). Placebo defense: Operation desert mirage? The rhetoric of Patriot Missile accuracy in the 1991 Persian Gulf War. QJS, 86, 121-145.
22. Wiant, (2002). Exploiting factional discourse: Wedge issues in contemporary American political campaigns. SCJ, 67, 276-289.
23. Murphy, (2004). The language of liberal consensus: John F. Kennedy, technical reason, and the “New Economics” at Yale University. QJS, 90, 133-162.
21
Com 640 Spring 2015
24. Boyd, (2004). Organizational rhetoric doomed to fail: R. J. Reynolds and the principle of the oxymoron. WJC, 6, 45-71.
25. Snee, (2001). Clinton and Vietnam: A case for amnestic rhetoric. CQ, 49, 189-202.
26. Goldzwig & Dionisopoulos, (1986). Explaining it to ourselves: The phases of national mourning in space tragedy. CSSJ, 37, 180-192.
III. In Class 1) Some rhetors consistently opt for certain roles over others,.What implication does this hold for: ability to adapt within a situation? integrity? honesty?
2) Think of an example of a message that appeals to contradictory values simultaneously.
3) Hart says that myths describe concrete events in an abstract way. Does that mean that any generalization could be a myth? (Why or why not?) Since most metaphors make abstract concepts concrete, does that mean that myth and metaphor are mutually exclusive? (Why or why not?)
Reaction Paper ______Meeting Twelve -- April 15 Media Analysis -- (With some non-discursive stuff thrown in)
I. REQUIRED READING
A. Hart & Daughton, Chapter 9, pp. 177-210.
*B. Wyman & Dionisopoulos, (2000). Transcending the virgin/whore dichotomy: Telling Mina’s story in Bram Stoker’s Dracula. WSC, 23, 209-237.
*C. DeLuca & Peeples, (2002). From public sphere to public screen: Democracy, activism and the “violence’ of Seattle. CSMC, 19, 125-251.
*D. Entman. (1991). Framing U.S, coverage of international news: Contrasts in narratives of the KAL and Iran Air Incidents, JoC, 41 (4), 6-27.
E. Dionisopoulos, (2004). John Wayne, The Green Berets, and the Containment Doctrine. In Sullivan, P. A. & Goldzwig, S. R. (Eds.), New Approaches to Rhetoric (pp. 173-198). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
II. Supplementary Reading -- Read one of the following and prepare a report on its contents,
1. Mumby & Spitzack, (1983), Ideology and television news": A metaphoric analysis of political stories, CSSJ, 34, 162-171.
2. German, (1990). Frank Capra's Why We Fight series and the American audience. WJSC, 54, 237-248.
22
Com 640 Spring 2015
3. Reese & Buckalew, (1995). The militarism of local television: The routine framing of the Persian Gulf War. CSMC, 12, 40-59.
4. Bormann, Koester & Bennett, (1978). Political cartoons and salient rhetorical fantasies: An empirical analysis of the '76 presidential campaign. CM. 45, 317-329.
5. Medhurst & DeSousa, (1981). Political cartoons as rhetorical form: A taxonomy of graphic discourse. CM, 48, 197-236.
6. Jones & Dionisopoulos, (2004). Scripting a tragedy: The “Isaac and Ishmael” episode of The West Wing. PC, 2 (1), 21-40.
7. Foss & Littlejohn, (1986). The Day After: Rhetorical vision in an ironic frame. CSMC, 3, 317-336.
8. Pauley, (1999). Documentary desegregation: A rhetorical analysis of crisis: Behind a Presidential Commitment. SCJ, 123-142.
9. Harms & Dickens, (1996). Postmodern media studies: Analysis or symptom? CSMC, 13, 210 -227.
10. Brookey, (1996). A Community Like Philadelphia. WJC, 60, 40-56.
11. Bird. (1996). CJ’s revenge: Media, folklore, and the cultural construction of AIDS, CSMC, 13, 44-58.
12. Meister, (1996). Drama and tragedy in contemporary folk music: Nanci Griffith’s “It’s a Hard Life Wherever You Go”. CS, 47, 62-71.
13. Foss, (1986). Ambiguity as persuasion: The Vietnam Veterans Memorial. CQ, 34, 326-340.
14. Brummett, (1980). Towards a theory of silence as a political strategy. QJS, 61, 289-303.
15. Olson, (1983). Portraits in praise of a people: A rhetorical analysis of Norman Rockwell's icons in Franklin D. Roosevelt's “Four Freedoms” Campaign. QJS, 69, 15-24.
16. Gonzalez & Makay, (1983). Rhetorical ascription and the gospel according to Dylan. QJS, 69, 1-14.
17. Perry-Giles & Perry-Giles, (2002). The West Wing’s prime-time presidentiality: Mimesis and catharsis in a postmodern romance, QJS, 88, 209-227
18. Harriman & Lucaites, (2002). Performing civic identity: The iconic photograph of the flag raising on Iwo Jima. QJS, 88, 363-392
19. Tucker & Shah, (1992). Race and the transformation of culture: The making of the television miniseries Roots. CSMC, 9, 325-336.
20. Parry-Giles, (1996). “Camouflaged” propaganda: The Truman and Eisenhower administrations’ covert manipulation of news. WJC, 60, 146-167.
21. Brown, (1990). The persuasive appeal of mediated terrorism: The case of the TWA Flight 847 hijacking. WJSC, 54, 219-236.
23
Com 640 Spring 2015 22. Watkins, (2001). Framing protest: News media frames of the Million Man March. CSMC, 18, 83-101.
23. Wyman & Dionisopoulos, (1999). Primal urges and civilized sensibilities: The rhetoric of gendered archetypes, seduction, and resistance in Bram Stokers Dracula. Journal of Film & Television, 27, 32-8.
24. Stroud, (2001). Technology and mythic narrative: The Matrix as technological hero-quest. WJC, 65, 416-441.
25. Porter, Larson, Harthcock & Nellis, (2002). Re(de)fining narrative events: Examining television narrative structure. Journal of Popular Film and Television, 30, 23-30.
III. In Class – Think of this chapter as the beginning of your changing from a consumer of media to one whose attitude is more critical. Becoming a media critic is more than watching television. You must train yourself to attend to mediated messages with the eyes and ears of a critic. Pick a commercial on television and watch it several times, Watch it without the sound and then listen to it with no picture. Count the number of shots and look at the angles employed. Try to gain an understanding of how the commercial is put together and what values constitute its main appeal. Be prepared to share your insights with us.
Reaction Paper ______Meeting Thirteen -- April 22 Burkean Criticism
I. REQUIRED READING
A. Hart & Daughton, Chapter 12, pp. 259-281.
B. Anderson, King, & McClure, Kenneth Burke’s Dramatic Form Criticism. In Kuypers, Chapter Nine, pp. 162-185.
*C. Brummett. (1979). A pentadic analysis of ideologies in two gay rights controversies, CSSJ, 30, 250-261.
*D. Tonn, Endress, & Diamond. (1993). Hunting and heritage on trial in Maine: A dramatistic debate over tragedy, tradition, and territory. QJS, 79, 165-181.
*E. Wilkie, (1981). The scapegoating of Bruno Richard Hauptman: The rhetorical process in prejudicial publicity. CSSJ, 32, 100-110.
II. Supplementary Reading -- Read one of the following and prepare a report on its contents,
1. Bostdorff, (1987). Making light of James Watt: A Burkean approach to the form and attitude of political cartoons," QJS, 73, 43-59.
2. Ivie, (1974). Presidential motives for war. QJS, 60, 337-345.
3. Hamlin & Nichols, (1973). The interest value of rhetorical strategies derived from Kenneth Burke's pentad. WS,
24
Com 640 Spring 2015 37, 97-102.
4. Nelson, (1983). Using the Burkean pentad in the education of the basic speech student. CE, 32, 63-68.
5. Fisher, (1974), A Burkean analysis of the rhetorical dimensions of a multiple murder and suicide. QJS, 60, 175-189.
6. Ling, (1970). A pentadic analysis of Senator Edward Kennedy’s “Address to the People of Massachusetts” July 25, 1969, CSSJ, 21, 81-86.
7. Brummett, (1984). Burkean comedy and tragedy, illustrated in reactions to the arrest of John Delorean," CSSJ, 35, 217-227.
8. Olson, (1989). The controversy over President Reagan's visit to Bitburg: Strategies of definition and redefinition. QJS, 75, 129-151.
9. Cheney, (1983). The rhetoric of identification and the study of organizational communication. QJS, 69, 143-158.
10. Brummett, (1982). Burkean transcendence and ultimate terms in rhetoric by and about James Watt. CSSJ, 33, 547-556.
11. Solomon. (1985). The rhetoric of dehumanization: An analysis of medical reports of the Tuskegee Syphilis Project. WJC, 233-247.
12. Lake, (1984). Order and disorder in anti-abortion rhetoric: A logological view. QJS, 70, 425-443.
13. Brummett, (1979). Gary Gilmore, power, and the rhetoric of symbolic forms. WJSC, 43, 3-13.
14. Brummett, (1984). Burke's representative anecdote as a method in media criticism. CSMC, 1, 161-176.
15. Blankenship, Fine & Davis. (1983). The 1980 Republican Primary debates: The transformation of actor to scene. QJS, 69, 25-36.
16. Buehler, (1998). Permanence and change in Theodore Roosevelt’s Conservation Jeremiad. WJC, 439-458.
17. Berthold, (1976). Kenneth Burke's cluster-agon method: Its development and an application. CS, 27, 302-309.
18. Birdsell, (1987). Ronald Reagan on Lebanon and Grenada: Flexibility and interpretation in the application of Kenneth Burke's Pentad. QJS, 73, 267-279.
19. Proctor. (1987). The rescue mission: Assigning guilt to a chaotic scene. WJSC, 51, 245-255. 20. Moore. (1992). "The Quayle Quagmire”: Political campaigns in the poetic form of Burlesque. WJSC, 56, 108-124.
21. Brummett. (1981). Gastronomic references, synecdoche, and political images. QJS, 67, 138-145.
22. Prosise & Johnson, (2004). Law enforcement and crime on Cops and World’s Wildest Police Videos: Anecdotal form and the justification of racial profiling. WJC, 68, 72-91.
23. Lewis, (2002). Religious rhetoric and the comic frame in The Simpsons. Journal of Media and Religion, 1, 153- 165.
25
Com 640 Spring 2015
24. Toker, (2002), Debating “What Out to Be”: The comic frame and public moral argument. WJC, 68, 53-83.
25. Griffin, (2000). “Movement as motive”: Self-definition and social advocacy in social movement autobiographies. WJC, 64, 148-164.
26. Mahan-Hayes & Aden, (2003). Kenneth Burke’s “attitude” at the crossroads of rhetorical and cultural studies: A proposal and case study illustration. WJC, 67, 32-55.
27. Appel, (2003). Rush to judgment: Burlesque and hierarchal alchemy in the rhetoric of America’s foremost political talk show host. SCJ, 68, 217-230.
28. Williamson, (2002). Racism, tolerance, and perfected redemption: A rhetorical critique of the dragging trial. SCJ, 67, 245-258.
29. Renegar & Dionisopoulos, (2011). The dream of a cyberpunk future? Entelechy, dialectical tension, and the comic corrective in William Gibson’s Neuromancer. SCJ, 76, 323-341. 30. Burke, (1973). The rhetoric of Hitler's “Battle,” in The Philosophy of Literary Form: Studies in Symbolic Action 3rd ed.; Berkeley: University of California Press, 191-220.
III. In Class
1) How does language simultaneously reflect, select, and deflect reality? How do terministic screens, and such selection, reflection, and deflection, function to create and destroy community? What are the implications of this for the “doing” of criticism, and for the types of insights we can gain into communication? Provide examples,
2) Consider the Burkean idea of scapegoating. How does it work to create and destroy identification simultaneously? Is it still used? Provide examples
3) What are some examples of familiar “hierarchical structures?” What levels of mystery attend them?
Reaction Paper ______
Meeting Fourteen – April 29
Ideological (Continental) and Feminist Criticism
I. REQUIRED READING
A. Hart and Daughton, Chapter 13 and 14 pp. 283-334
B. Foss, pp. 209-245.
*C. Gibson, (2007). Judicial rhetoric and women's "place": The United States Supreme Court's Darwinian defense of separate spheres. WJC, 71, 159-175.
*D. Trujillo, (1991). Hegemonic masculinity on the mound: Media representations of Nolan
26
Com 640 Spring 2015 Ryan and American sports culture. CSMC, 8, 290-308.
II. Supplemental Reading -- Read one of the following and prepare a report on its contents.
1. Campbell, (1973). The rhetoric of women's liberation: An oxymoron. QJS, 59, 74-86.
2. Wander, (1984). The third persona: An ideological turn in rhetorical theory. CSSJ, 35, 197-216.
3. Murphy, (1992). Domesticating dissent: The Kennedys and the Freedom Rides. CM, 59, 61-78.
4. Gillespie, (1978). Feminist theatre: A rhetorical phenomenon. QJS, 64, 284-294.
5. Bineham, (1993). Theological hegemony and oppositional interpretative codes: The case of evangelical Christian feminism. WJC, 57, 515-529.
6. Foss & Griffen, (1992). A feminist perspective on rhetorical theory: Toward a classification of boundaries," WJC, 56, 330-349.
7. Johnson, (1986). Coming to terms with women's language. QJS, 72, 318-329.
8. Japp, (1985). Esther or Isaiah?: The abolitionist-feminist rhetoric of Angelina Grimke. QJS, 71, 335-348.
9. Spitzack & Carter, (1987). Women in communication studies: A typology for revision. QJS, 73. 401-423.
10. Solomon, (1979). The “Positive Woman's” journey: A mythic analysis of the rhetoric of Stop ERA. QJS, 65, 262-274.
11. Griffin, (1996). The essential roots of the public sphere: A feminist critique. WJC, 60, 21-39.
12. Vande Berg, (1993). China Beach, prime time war in the postfeminist age: An example of patriarchy in a different voice. WJC, 57, 349-366.
13. Carlson, (1994). Defining womanhood: Lucretia Coffin Mott and the transformation of femininity. WJC, 58, 85- 97.
14. Dow, (1992). Femininity and Feminism in Murphy Brown. SCJ, 57, 143-155.
15. Sheckels, (1994). Mukulski vs, Chavez for the Senate from Maryland in 1986 and the “Rules” for attack politics. CQ, 42, 311-326
16. Griffin, (1994). Rhetoricalizing alienation: Mary Wollstonecraft and the rhetorical construction of women’s oppression, QJS, 80, 293-312.
17. Jorgensen-Earp, (1990). The lady, the whore, and the spinster: The rhetorical use of Victorian images of women. WJSC, 54, 82-98.
18. Dow & Tonn, (1993). Feminine style and political judgment in the rhetoric of Ann Richards. QJS, 79, 286-302.
19. Wander, (1984). The rhetoric of American foreign policy. QJS, 70, 339-361
20. Condit, (1994). Hegemony in a mass-mediated society: Concordance about reproductive technologies. CSMC, 27
Com 640 Spring 2015 11, 205-230.
21. Lessl, (1985). Science and the sacred cosmos: The ideological rhetoric of Carl Sagan. QJS, 71, 175-187.
22. Cooper, (1988). Rhetorical criticism and Foucault’s philosophy of discursive events. CSSJ, 39, 1-17
23. McGee, (1980), The “ideograph”: A link between rhetoric and ideology. QJS, 66, 1-16.
24. McGee, (1980). The origins of “liberty”: A feminization of power," CM, 47, 23-45.
25. Zompetti, (1997). Toward a Gramscian critical rhetoric. WJC, 61, 66-86.
26. Butch, (1992). Class and gender in four decades of television situation comedy: Plus ca Change . . . CSMC, 9, 387-399. 27. Nakayama, (1994). Show/down time: “Race,” gender, sexuality, and popular culture. CSMC, 11, 162-179.
28. Marvin, (1991). Theorizing the flagbody: Symbolic dimensions of the flag desecration debate, or, why the Bill of Rights does not fly in the ballpark. CSMC, 8, 119-138.
29. Rohlfing, (1996). “Don’t Say Nothin’ Bad About My Baby”: A re-evaluation of women’s roles in the Brill Building era of early rock n’ roll. CSMC, 13, 93-114.
30. Aden, (1995). Nostalgic communication as temporal escape: “When it was a Game’s re-construction of a baseball/work community. WJC, 59, 20-38.
31. Sowards & Renegar. (2004). The rhetorical functions of consciousness-raising in third wave feminism. CS, 55, 535-552
32. Guerrero & Dionisopoulos, (1990). Enthymematic solutions to the Lockshin defection story: A case study in the repair of a problematic narrative. CS, 41, 299-310.
33. Pearson, (2007). The trouble with Aileen Wuornos, feminism's “First Serial Killer”. CCCS, 4, 256-275.
34. Jasinki, (2007). Constituting antebellum African American identity: Resistance, violence, and masculinity in Henry Highland Garnet’s (1843) ‘‘Address to the Slaves’’. QJS, 93, 27-57.
Reaction Paper ______
Meeting Fifteen – May 6 Rhetorical Criticism Due
Final Exam Period – May 13
Abbreviation Key:
A&A -- Argumentation and Advocacy PC -- Popular Communication JoC -- Journal of Communication 28
Com 640 Spring 2015 CE -- Communication Education QJS -- Quarterly Journal of Speech CS -- Communication Studies CM -- Communication Monographs SCJ -- Southern Communication Journal CR2- Communication Research CQ -- Communication Quarterly WJC -- Western Journal of Communication CR -- Communication Reports CSMC -- Critical Studies in Mass Communication
THE ACADEMIC DISHONESTY POLICY OF THE SCHOOL OF COMMUNICATION
In any case in which an instructor identifies evidence for charging a student with violation of academic conduct standards or plagiarism, the presumption will be with that instructor’s determination. The instructor(s) will confer with the School Director to confirm the evidence. Once confirmed, the student will be informed and presented with the evidence. Some conditions and terms below clarify the School policy and procedure.
Proper source attribution: Proper attribution occurs by specifying the source of content or ideas. This is done by (a) providing quotation marks around text, when directly quoted, and (b) clearly designating the source of the text or information relied upon in an assignment.
Intellectual contents: Intellectual contents include all forms of ‘text’ produced by another person or persons. It includes: writings, course syllabi, course lectures and recordings of lectures, visual information such as models, videos, lyrics, software, etc.
Secondary citations: Secondary citation is not strictly a form of plagiarism, but in blatant forms, it can present similar ethical challenges. A secondary citation is citing source A, which in turn cites source B, but it is source B’s ideas or content that provide the basis for the claims the student intends to make in the assignment. For example, assume that there is an article by Jones (2006) in the student’s hands, in which there is a discussion or quotation of an article by Smith (1998). Assume further that what Smith seems to be saying is very important to the student’s analysis. In such a situation, the student should always try to locate the original Smith source. In general, if an idea is important enough to discuss in an assignment, it is important enough to locate and cite the original source for that idea. There are several reasons for these policies: (a) Authors sometimes commit citation errors, which might be replicated without knowing it; (b) Authors sometimes make interpretation errors, which might be ignorantly reinforced (c) Therefore, reliability of scholarly activity is made more difficult to assure and enforce; (d) By relying on only a few sources of review, the learning process is short-circuited, and the student’s own research competencies are diminished, which are integral to any liberal education; (e) By masking the actual sources of ideas, readers must second guess which sources come from which citations, making the readers’ own research more difficult; (f) By masking the origin of the information, the actual source of ideas is misrepresented. Some suggestions that assist with this principle: • When the ideas Jones discusses are clearly attributed to, or unique to, Smith, then find the Smith source and citation.
29
Com 640 Spring 2015 • When the ideas Jones is discussing are historically associated more with Smith than with Jones, then find the Smith source and citation. • In contrast, Jones is sometimes merely using Smith to back up what Jones is saying and believes, and is independently qualified to claim, whether or not Smith would have also said it; in such a case, citing Jones is sufficient. • Never simply copy a series of citations at the end of a statement by Jones, and reproduce the reference list without actually going to look up what those references report—the only guarantee that claims are valid is for a student to read the original sources of those claims.
Self-plagiarism: Students often practice some form of ‘double-dipping,’ in which they write on a given topic across more than one course assignment. In general, there is nothing wrong with double-dipping topics or sources, but there is a problem with double-dipping exact and redundant text. It is common for scholars to write on the same topic across many publication outlets; this is part of developing expertise and the reputation of being a scholar on a topic. Scholars, however, are not permitted to repeat exact text across papers or publications except when noted and attributed, as this wastes precious intellectual space with repetition and does a disservice to the particular source of original presentation by ‘diluting’ the value of the original presentation. Any time that a writer simply ‘cuts-and-pastes’ exact text from former papers into a new paper without proper attribution, it is a form of self-plagiarism. Consequently, a given paper should never be turned in to multiple classes. Entire paragraphs, or even sentences, should not be repeated word- for-word across course assignments. Each new writing assignment is precisely that, a new writing assignment, requiring new composition on the student’s part.
Specific exemplary infractions and consequences:
• Course failure: Reproducing a whole paper, paragraph, or large portions of unattributed materials without proper attribution, whether represented by: (a) multiple sentences, images, or portions of images; or (b) by percentage of assignment length, will result in assignment of an “F” in the course in which the infraction occurred, and a report to the Center for Student Rights and Responsibilities (CSRR2). • Assignment failure: Reproducing a sentence or sentence fragment with no quotation marks, but with source citation, or subsets of visual images without source attribution, will minimally result in an “F” on the assignment, and may result in greater penalty, including a report to the CSRR, depending factors noted below. • Exacerbating conditions--Amount: Evidence of infraction, even if fragmentary, is increased with a greater: (a) number of infractions; (b) distribution of infractions across an assignment; or (c) proportion of the assignment consisting of infractions. • Exacerbating conditions--Intent: Evidence of foreknowledge and intent to deceive magnifies the seriousness of the offense and the grounds for official response. Plagiarism, whether ‘by accident’ or ‘by ignorance,’ still qualifies as plagiarism—it is all students’ responsibility to make sure their assignments are not committing the offense. • Exceptions: Any exceptions to these policies will be considered on a case-by-case basis, and only under exceptional circumstances.
Additional Stipulations for Graduate Students & GTAs: If, following a review with a Communication graduate student, a faculty member and School Director determine academic dishonesty has occurred, the evidence will be submitted to the Center of Student Rights and Responsibilities (CSRR). The report 30
Com 640 Spring 2015 “identifies the student who was found responsible, the general nature of the offense, the action taken, and a recommendation as to whether or not additional action should be considered by the campus judicial affairs office” (CSRR Website1). The student will be permitted to continue as a student in the Communication graduate program and as a Teaching Associate (if so assigned), until such time as CSRR due process has taken its course. If CSRR rules in favor of the student, the student’s status in the program will continue. If due process rules against the student, then the student will immediately be dropped from all classes in the Communication graduate program and any Teaching Associate position in the School will be terminated. Graduate students may voluntarily withdraw from classes and Teaching Associate duties when charges are brought forward. The School’s Director must be notified in writing. Students who voluntarily withdraw, notify the director in a timely manner, and who are subsequently found not guilty of plagiarism may be reinstated without prejudice at the start of the next semester.
1 http://csrr.sdsu.edu/academics1.html 31