COMM 8504:
Textual Criticism
Spring Semester, 2009
|
Instructor: |
Kirt H. Wilson |
|
Mailbox: |
250 Ford Hall |
|
Office Hours: |
Mon. 10:00-11:30 am; Tues.
12:30-2:00 pm, Wed. 10:00-11:30am |
|
Office: |
237 Ford Hall |
|
Office Phone: |
612.624.5235 |
|
Email: |
|
|
Web Page: |
During the 1980s and Ô90s, a
group of rhetorical critics, most of whom had an interest in history and public
discourse, turned away from "theory" and toward "the
text." In essays that
purported to be thick descriptions, textured interpretations and close textual
analyses, these critics argued that discursive practice, as embodied in
coherently bounded objects, should be the primary concern of rhetorical
critics. Emphasizing variously the
internal dynamics of single texts, the relationship between text and context,
and intertextuality, this criticism revitalized the
analysis of public address, but, simultaneously, it was attacked as thinly
veiled New Criticism, Neo-Aristotelianism, and
elitist/misogynist scholarship. Since the 1990s, close textual analysis as a
distinct mode of inquiry and an intellectual movement has waned; nevertheless,
the hermeneutic skills of textual analysis have come to dominate rhetorical
criticism.
This course investigates the
strengths and weaknesses of textual interpretation as a mode of inquiry in
rhetorical studies and beyond. It begins with the assumption that much of
contemporary scholarship has turned away from Òhigh theoryÓ to locate meaning
and even theory in grounded moments of discursive action. Although disagreement
continues regarding the place and importance of the Òtext,Ó rhetorical
criticism, especially in the Communication Studies discipline, is now
thoroughly textual rather than methodological or theoretical.
This class seeks to offer
something to those who care little for the disciplinary history or theoretical
perspective of textual analysis, as well. Through focused analytical
assignments, in-class workshops, and frequent feedback among the students and
with the instructor, this course attempts to enhance the hermeneutic skills of
its participants.
This course asks the following
fundamental questions: What is
textual criticism, what are its variations, and how does it differ from other
critical enterprises? What are the philosophical and methodological
underpinnings of textual analysis, and can they be applied to critical inquiry,
generally? How does a critic
produce and evaluate textual scholarship? What, moving forward, should be the
relationship between theory and critical interpretation?
Texts
Required
Roland Barthes, The Pleasure of the Text, trans. by
Richard Miller (New York: Hill and Wang, 1975).
Terry Eagleton, After
Theory (New York: Basic Books, 2003).
Norman Fairclough, Critical
Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language (New York: Longman,
1995).
Walter Jost and Michael J. Hyde, eds., Rhetoric and Hermeneutics in Our Time: A Reader (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1997).
Steven Mailloux, Rhetorical
Power (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1989).
Two course
packets, available at Paradigm Copies in the Dinky Dome.
Suggested
Richard Lanham, A Handlist of
Rhetorical Terms 2nd ed. (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991)
Please obtain these books from amazon.com or half.com.
Assignments and Grading Procedures
Seminar Discussion Questions (5%)
Twice during the semester, participants will be responsible
for reading that weekÕs material ahead of the class period. Twenty-four hours
prior to class, you will provide the instructor with between five and ten
discussion questions that focus on what you believe to be of particular
importance or puzzlement in the reading. During the class discussion, I ask
that you help me keep the class on track and discussion flowing. (I will not
ÒgradeÓ this assignment).
Short Critical Essays (50%)
Each participant in this seminar will choose a text for
analysis. Throughout the course of
the semester you will write five critical essays on this text using the
theoretical/methodological concept of that class period. For example, during week 4 we will be
reading about stylistics; therefore, your essay will consider the over-arching
style of your text. Essays should run between eight to ten pages in length.
Please note that the readings are meant as a guide to your criticism. You do
not have to follow the exact process described in that weekÕs reading, but you
probably should consider the ÒspiritÓ of the reading as you write your paper.
Each participant in the class will pair with someone
else. (There will be one group of
3). Over the course of the semester, you will read each other's short essays,
offer feedback, and act as a resource when the going gets rough.
Use each of these short papers as an opportunity to a) deepen
your understanding of the text you chose and b) consider the strengths and
weaknesses of the perspective you are employing.
Papers are due on:
á
February 12
á
February 24 (?)
á
March 12
á
April 9
á
April 21 (?)
Featured Text of the Week (10%)
Everyone will present a twenty to thirty minute summary of her
or his chosen object. That summary should include a description of:
á
The text's general historical context--what was going on, generally, at the
time of this project?
á
The text's specific historical context--what was the rationale, reason or
exigency that explains the existence of this text?
á
The text's stylistic context--what norms of eloquence and rules of decorum
influenced this text?
á
The text's productive context--what institutions, economies and/or norms of
production influenced its production and distribution?
á
The text's critical or interpretive context—what have others said
about this object?
The only written material you must produce and distribute for
this presentation is a bibliography. (I will not ÒgradeÓ this assignment).
Final Research Essay (20%)
When we meet during the final exam period, every member of the
seminar will turn in a final research project that enacts a form of textual
analysis on the object you chose to study in the short critical essays. The key to this assignment is to choose
a single interpretive narrative that unpacks the richness of your text without
complicating the text with too many perspectives. You will not want to
include everything youÕve written about this text. Rather, your final essay should be
informed by all of your work this semester, but it should not be determined by
it. I would anticipate an essay
approximately 25 pages in length.
A draft (only a draft) of that essay is due to your writing partner on
May 9 and the final draft is due to me on the day of our final exam.
Participation (15%)
Class participation will comprise 15% of everyoneÕs final
grade. Since this admittedly
subjective evaluation often causes concern, I will try to provide you with a mid-term review. This review will reveal your
standing and how you might improve.
Please note that an A at mid-term does not guarantee an A at semester's
end.
Please Note: To receive a passing grade you must
complete every assignment for this course. Furthermore, I will allow incompletes only for extraordinary circumstances. If you feel that you require an
incomplete, come and speak with me.
If we concur, we will construct a schedule of expectations that we both
will sign.
In this course, A signifies
achievement that is outstanding relative to the course requirements. B
signifies achievement that meets the course requirements. C signifies achievement that is worthy
of credit, although it fails to meet the course requirements. F signifies that the work was not
worthy of credit or not completed.
A+ = 100%-97% A =
96%-94% A-
= 93%-90%
B+ = 89%-87% B
= 86%-84% B-
= 83%-80%
C+ = 79%-77% C
= 76%-74% C-
= 73%-70%
I
will be maintaining a course web page at http://www.comm.umn.edu/~kwilson/8504.html. In addition to the web pages, class
participants are subscribed to an email list called "8504." This list will allow me to send
announcements, changes to the schedule, reading questions, etc. You also are welcome to use this list
to inform the class about activities, events or opportunities that relate to
our discussions.
The
list is open only to students in the course; however, its content is not
moderated. So long as participants
are respectful of each other's opinions, I will allow the conversation to go in
whatever direction you desire. To
send email to the list simply address that email to: 8504@comm.umn.edu. When you press send your email will be
forwarded to everyone on the
list. Let me repeat that, if you send a message to the 8504 list YOUR MESSAGE WILL BE
SENT TO THE ENTIRE CLASS. If you
want to send a message just to me, then you will need to use the wilso092@umn.edu
address.
The U of M has a policy to
provide, on a flexible and individualized basis, reasonable accommodations to
students who have disabilities that may affect their ability to participate or
complete assignments. Students with disabilities are encouraged to contact me
to discuss their individual needs for accommodations.
To plagiarize is to Òpresent as new and original an idea or
product derived from an existing source.Ó I expect that you have read and
understood that section of the CLA Bulletin that outlines your responsibilities
regarding academic conduct. Any cases of academic misconduct will result in an
F for the course.
COMM
8504: Textual Analysis and Criticism
Class
Schedule
I will, of course, inform you of changes to the schedule. The most up-to-date copy of our schedule is available at http://www.comm.umn.edu/~kwilson/8504schedule.html.
|
Week 1: |
Introduction |
|
|
Week 2: |
The Promises and Perils of
Theory Terry Eagleton, After Theory
(New York: Basic Books, 2003). James Wood, ÒTextual Harassment,Ó The
New Republic 7 June 2004, 28-35. |
|
|
Week 3: |
Before There Was Time: The New Criticism Movement Art Berman, ÒThe New Criticism,Ó in From the New Criticism to Deconstruction.
(Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1988), 26-59. John R. Willingham, ÒThe New Criticism: Then and
Now,Ó in Contemporary Literary Theory,
edited by George Douglas Atkins and Laura Morrow (Amherst: University of
Massachusetts Press, 1989), 24-41. W.K. Wimsatt, Jr. and Monroe C. Beardsley, The Verbal Icon: Studies in the Meaning of
Poetry (Lexington, University of Kentucky Press, 1954), 3-39, 221-265. Cleanth Brooks, ÒIn Search of the New Criticism,Ó American Scholar 53 (1983-1984):
41-53. |
|
|
Week 4: Paper 1 |
Analyzing Style Morton W. Bloomfield, ÒStylistics and the Theory of
Literature,Ó New Literary History 7
(1976): 271-311. Robert Crawshaw, ÒThe Boundaries of Style and
Stylistics: Beyond the Form/Content Debate,Ó The Modern Language Review 91 (1996): 273-80. Austin Warren, ÒThe Style of Sir Thomas Browne,Ó The Kenyon Review 13 (1951): 674-87. Richard Lanham, Style: An Anti-Textbook (New Haven:
Yale University Press, 1974), chapters 2 and 3. |
|
|
Week 5: |
The New
Criticism Movement in Communication Studies Rod Hart, "Theory-building and Rhetorical
Criticism: An Informal Statement of Opinion," Central States Speech Journal 27 (1976): 70-77. Barnet Baskerville, "Must We All Be 'Rhetorical
Critics'?" Quarterly Journal of
Speech 63 (1977): 107-116. Rod Hart, "Contemporary Scholarship in Public
Address: A Research Editorial," in Western
Journal of Speech Communication 50 (1986): 283-295. G.P. Mohrmann, ÒElegy in a Critical Grave-Yard,Ó Western Journal of Speech Communication
44 (1980): 265-275. Michael Leff, "Interpretation and the Art of
the Rhetorical Critic," Western
Journal of Speech Communication 44 (1980): 337-349. Michael Leff, and Andrew Sachs, "Words the Most
Like Things: Iconicity and the Rhetorical Text," Western Journal of Speech Communication 54 (1990):252-273. Michael Leff, "Things Made by Words:
Reflections on Textual Criticism," Quarterly
Journal of Speech 78 (1992): 223-231. Michael Calvin
McGee, "Text, Context, and the Fragmentation of Contemporary
Culture," Western Journal of
Speech Communication 54 (1990):274-289. James Jasinski,
ÒClose Reading,Ó in Sourcebook on
Rhetoric: Key Concepts in Contemporary Rhetorical Studies (Thousand Oaks,
CA: Sage Publications, 2001), 91-97. |
|
|
Week 6: Paper 2 |
Time in Textual Contexts Wesley A. Kort, Modern Fiction and Human Time: A Study in
Narrative and Belief (Tampa, FL: U Presses of Florida, 1985), 3-21,
61-70, 107-116, 155-165. Hans Meyerhoff, Time in Literature (Berkeley: U of California Press, 1968), 1-35. Paul Ricoeur, ÒTime and Narrative,Ó in Time and Narrative, trans. Kathleen
McLaughlin and David Pellauer, vol. 1 (Chicago: U
of Chicago Press, 1983), 52-87. OR A Trope Through the Textual Woods: Simile,
Synecdoche, and Metonymy Arthur Quinn, Figures of Speech: 60 Ways to Turn a
Phrase (Salt Lake City: Gibbs M. Smith, Inc. 1982), 5-17, 49-59. Stephen J.
Brown, ÒSimile,Ó ÒPersonification,Ó and ÒMetonymy and Synecdoche,Ó in The World of Imagery: Metaphor and Kindred
Imagery (London: Kegan Paul, Trench, Trubner & Co., 1927), 118-162. Raymond W.
Gibbs, Jr., ÒMetonymy,Ó in The Poetics
of Mind: Figurative Thought, Language, and Understanding, (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1994), 319-358. Wayne C.
Booth, A Rhetoric of Irony
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), 1-44. |
|
|
Week 7: |
From the Text to the Concept Celeste Condit, "Rhetorical
Criticism and Audiences: The Extremes of McGee and Leff,"
Western Journal of Communication 54
(1990): 330-345. J. Robert Cox, "On
'Interpreting' Public Discourse in Post-Modernity," Western Journal of Speech Communication 54 (1990): 317-329. Bonnie Dow, ÒCriticism and Authority in the Artistic Mode,Ó Western Journal of Communication 65
(2001): 337-348. Leah Ceccarelli,
ÒPolysemy: Multiple Meanings in Rhetorical
Criticism,Ó Quarterly Journal of Speech
84 (1998): 395-415. Michael Leff,
ÒLincoln at Cooper Union: Neo-Classical Criticism Revisited,Ó Western Journal of Communication 65
(2001): 232-248 Stephen Browne, ÒContext in Critical
Theory and Practice,Ó Western Journal of Communication 65 (2001): 330-335. Robert Hariman, ÒAfterword: Relocating the Art
of Public Address,Ó in Rhetoric and
Political Culture in Nineteenth-Century America, Thomas W. Benson, ed.
(East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1997), 163-183. James Jasinski,
ÒThe Status of Theory and Method in Rhetorical Criticism,Ó Western Journal of Communication 65 (2001):
249-270. Carole Blair, Julie R. Brown, and Leslie A. Baxter,
ÒDisciplining the Feminine,Ó Quarterly
Journal of Speech 80 (1994): 383-409.
|
|
|
Week 8: Paper 3 |
Metaphor and Meaning I. A. Richards, The Philosophy of Rhetoric (London:
Oxford University Press, 1936), 92-120. Max Black,
ÒMetaphor,Ó 63—82. George Lakoff
and Mark Johnson, Metaphors We Live By
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 69-125. David
Douglass, ÒResearch on Metaphor in Communication Studies: 1960-1999,Ó An
essay presented at the Western States Communication Association, Sacramento,
CA, February, 2000. |
|
|
Week 9: |
Rhetoric and Hermeneutics, Part I Walter Jost and Michael J. Hyde, eds., Rhetoric and Hermeneutics in Our Time: A
Reader (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1997). Jost and Hyde, "Introduction," 1-44. Gadamer, "Rhetoric and Hermeneutics,"
45-59. Ricoeur, "Rhetoric-Poetics-Hermeneutics,"
60-72. Burns, ÒOn the Tragedy of Hermeneutical Experience,Ó
73-89. Altieri, "Toward a Hermeneutics Responsive,"
90-107. Palmer, "What Hermeneutic Can Offer
Rhetoric," 108-131. Gadamer, ÒRhetoric, Hermeneutics, and
Ideology-Critique,Ó 313-334. Rehg, ÒReason and Rhetoric in HabermasÕs Theory of
Argumentation,Ó 358-377. |
|
|
Week 10: |
Rhetoric and Hermeneutics, Part II Walter Jost and
Michael J. Hyde, eds., Rhetoric and
Hermeneutics in Our Time: A Reader (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press,
1997). Mailloux,
"Articulation and Understanding: The Pragmatic Intimacy Between Rhetoric
and Hermeneutics," 378-394. Garver,
"Rhetoric, Hermeneutics, and Prudence in the Interpretation of the
Constitution," 171-195. Olmstead, ÒThe
Uses of Rhetoric,Ó 235-253. Tracy,
ÒCharity, Obscurity, Clarity,Ó 254-274. Marshall,
ÒRhetoric, Hermeneutics, and the Interpretation of Scripture,Ó 275-289. Scult, ÒHermesÕ
Rhetorical Problem,Ó 290-309. Leff,
"Hermeneutical Rhetoric," 196-214. |
|
|
Week 11: Paper 4 |
Genres both Real and Imagined Karlyn Kohrs
Campbell and Kathleen Hall Jamieson, ÒForm and Genre in Rhetorical Criticism:
An Introduction,Ó in Form and Genre
Shaping Rhetorical Action (Falls Church: Speech Communication
Association, 1978), 9-32. Thomas Conley, ÒThe Linnaean Blues:
Thoughts on the Genre Approach,Ó in Form,
Genre, and the Study of Political Discourse (Columbia, SC: U of South
Carolina Press, 1986), 59-78. George Aichele,
Jr. ÒGenre and Reality,Ó in The Limits
of Story (Philadelphia, Fortress Press, 1985), 77-102. OR Space and Geography in
Textual Contexts Henri Lefebvre, The Production of
Space, trans. Donald Nicholson-Smith (Oxford: Blackwell, 1991), 1-67. Michel de Certeau, ÒSpatial Stories,Ó in The
Practice of Everyday Life, trans. Steven Rendall
(Berkeley: U of California Press, 1984), 115-130. |
|
|
Week 12: |
Critical Discourse Analysis Norman Fairclough, Critical Discourse Analysis: The Critical Study of Language (New
York: Longman, 1995). |
|
|
Weeks 13 Paper 5 |
Syntax, Structure, and Form Geoffrey Leech and Michael Short,ÒThe Rhetoric of
Text,Ó in Style in Fiction, (London:
Longman, 1981), 209—256. Richard Weaver, The
Ethics of Rhetoric (Hermagoras Press, 1985), chapter 5. OR ItÕs a
Narrative World Roland
Barthes, ÒIntroduction to the Structural Analysis of Narratives,Ó in Image Music Text, trans. Stephen Heath
(New York: Hill and Wang: 1977), 79-124. Wallace Martin, Recent
Theories of Narrative (Ithaca: Cornell U Press, 1986), John
Louis Lucaites and Celeste Michelle Condit, ÒRe-constructing Narrative
Theory: A Functional Perspective,Ó Journal
of Communication 35 (1985): 90-108 |
|
|
Week 14 |
Textual Pleasures Roland Barthes, ÒFrom Work to Text,Ó
in Image Music Text, trans. by
Stephen Heath (New York: Hill and Wang, 1977), 155-164. Roland Barthes, The Pleasure of the Text, trans. by Richard Miller (New York:
Hill and Wang, 1975). |
|
|
Week 15 |
Rhetorical
Hermeneutics—a bigger perspective. Steven
Mailloux, Rhetorical Power (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press, 1989). |
|
|
Week 16: Final Exam Week Turn in Final Paper |
Discussion About Your Final Papers |
|