COMM 640, Spring 2016Course 6082We 7-9:45, Room: LA2 107

Rhetorical Theory & Criticism, Part 2Instructor: Dr. Ragan Fox Office: AS 364 Office Hours: MW 4:15-5:15Email: findragan@gmail.com

Course Description:In the Greek tradition, rhetorical training aided members of the polis, or the constituents of a city-state, in their various democratic endeavors. Rhetoric continues to be an object of study (i.e., public speeches and films) and a provocative method of inquiry (i.e., rhetorical concepts influence the manner in which we “unpack” the significance of communicative phenomena). In this course, we examine some of the philosophies that inform common understandings of contemporary rhetorical thought.

Rhetorical methods help people understand and interpret the significance and implications of rhetorical situations. This course is designed to familiarize you with the content and application of these methods. By the end of the semester, you will be able to identify key rhetorical methods and apply them to a wide array of texts.

Course Objectives and Outcomes: To comprehend the epistemological assumptions that shape rhetorical theories

and methods.o Demonstrated by in-class dialogue, activities, final exam, and end-of-year

paper presentation. To distinguish between and utilize various rhetorical methods, including metaphor

analysis, narrative criticism, dramatism, ideographic critique, Foucaultian critique, queer criticism, feminist critique, and critical race theory.

o Measured by application of research methods in writing assignments and semester-long project.

To produce a conference-ready piece of rhetorical criticism.o Measured by the quality and coherence of the final paper and its

presentation.

Required Reading: Venolia, Jan. Write Right!: A Desktop Digest of Punctuation, Grammar, and

Style. New York: Ten Speed Press, 2001. Modern Language Association. MLA Handbook for Writers of Research Papers,

7th Edition. New York: Modern Language Association, 2009. Course reader available at CopyPro: Atherton/Palo Verde

*MLA Handbook and Write Right! are NOT recommended texts; they are REQUIRED. From time to time, you will be asked to bring these books to class. You will be penalized if you do not have them with you on the required days.

COURSE POLICIES

University Withdrawal Policy:It is the student’s responsibility to withdraw from classes. Instructors have no obligation to withdraw students who do not attend courses, and may choose not to do so. Withdrawal from a course after the first two weeks of instruction requires the signature of the instructor and the department chair, and is permissible only for serious and compelling reasons. During the final three weeks of instruction, withdrawals are not permitted except in cases such as accident or serious illness where the circumstances causing the withdrawal are clearly beyond the student’s control and the assignment of an incomplete is not practical. Ordinarily, withdrawals in this category involve total withdrawal from the university. The deadline to withdraw from class for spring 2016 term is posted online. (However, drops at this time are not generally approved except in cases of accident or serious illness). Academic Integrity:Student work must be original as stipulated in University policies and publications. Plagiarism, cheating, fabrication, or other varieties of academic dishonesty, including but not limited to facilitating the dishonesty of others and using work from your other classes, WILL NOT BE TOLERATED.  Academic dishonesty in any form will result in failure on the assignment and may result in failure for the course (the instructor reserves the right to make such determinations on a case-by-case basis).  Additionally, the instructor will report each and every case to the Academic Integrity Committee.  The Committee may, in turn, choose to enforce its own sanctions, such as expulsion from the

University. Students uncertain about the parameters of academic dishonesty and its consequences should consult the University’s policy on “Cheating and Plagiarism, # 85-19.”

NOTE: I have a zero-tolerance policy for plagiarism. Plagiarizing any portion of an assignment WILL result in failing the class. Any word-for-word use of somebody else’s work MUST be in quotation marks and properly cited. Paraphrasing somebody else’s work also requires parenthetical citation.

Late Work:Because part of your commitment to the norms of the class is to do the best job you can in the time available, and because everyone in the class is operating under the same strictures, it would be unfair to excuse late work without penalty. Therefore, subtract 10% from the earned grade for EACH day (including weekends and holidays) that work is turned in after the class PERIOD on which an assignment is due. This rule applies even if your computer or printer fails to function. Start work far enough in advance to allow for possible glitches. A HARD copy of the assignment is due at the start of class time. I will not accept digital copies of an assignment.

Attendance Policy and Missed Assignments:Attendance in this class is mandatory. Much of what we learn comes from our discussions and in-class activities. I will take attendance at the beginning of each class period. Being late three times counts as one absence. Any time beyond the class starting time will be considered late.

EXCUSED ABSENCES include:1. Illness or injury to student.2. Death, injury, or serious illness of an immediate family member or the like.3. Religious reasons (California Education Code section 89320)4. Jury duty or government obligation5. University sanctioned or approved activities (examples include: artistic

performances, forensics presentations, research conferences, intercollegiate athletic events, student government, required class field trips, etc.)

No Cell Phones or Text Messaging:Turn off your cell phones before walking into class. “Off” does not mean “vibrate.”

Laptop PolicyWhile class is in session, students MAY NOT use laptops. I have instituted this policy for a number of reasons that are substantiated by instructional research. First, emailing, instant messaging, game playing, and web surfing frequently distract students who use laptops in the classroom. As a result, laptop users provide less eye contact and participate less in class discussion. Second, technology use distracts other students in the class. Communication and technology experts Kinzer and Lohnes find that students are distracted by the sound of typing and sight of screen glow. Finally, the use of laptops inhibits feelings of community in a classroom, because several in-class laptop users are dually and only partially committed to two simultaneous contexts: the world of the classroom and online space. Laptops may ONLY be used for individual or group presentations.

Writing Format:Unless otherwise instructed, all written assignments should use 12-point Times New Roman font, be double-spaced, and have standard margins of 1” top and bottom, and 1.25” on the left and right sides. Do not insert additional spaces between paragraphs. Don’t alter font type and/or size or deviate from the margin requirements in an effort to “cheat” your way around the page minimum and maximum. Each “cheat” will result in a 5% automatic deduction from your paper grade. Note: The title page and bibliography do NOT count toward your page minimum or maximum.

ASSIGNMENTS

PARTICIPATIONYour contributions to course discussion will be evaluated in two ways, textually and orally. First, for each reading, submit a textual response, in which you identify and define at least two key concepts from the essay. Use 3-5 complete sentences and YOUR OWN WORDS to define the terms. Second, devise at least TWO discussion questions for each day of class. Have ONE discussion question for at LEAST two readings. Discussion questions should probe into the reading’s nuances. Don’t ask what a theorist means by a specific word if that concept is defined in the essay or a dictionary. Questions should aim to clarify the author’s philosophical assumptions, to highlight contradictions, to note points of convergence and divergence with other course readings, and to shed light on the scholar’s practice of criticism. Please make two copies of your reading responses for the day—one to keep and one to turn in.

Did you know that taking notes by hand leads to better information retention? Psychologists at UCLA recently discovered that taking notes on laptops hinders academic performance. According to their study, students taking notes in longhand perform significantly better on exams than those who use laptops. Their findings were featured in the journal Psychological Sciences.

Second, I will evaluate your oral contributions to course discussion. I am looking for you to 1) regularly volunteer your insights, and 2) stay on topic, or directly address ideas from the course reading. To receive maximum participation credit, you should contribute TWO times in the first half of class and TWO times in the second half of class. That said, be mindful that you don’t dominate course discussion. A good rule of thumb: Let AT LEAST 3 or 4 people speak after you before you volunteer to speak again. This recommendation isn’t intended to stifle discussion. There are times when you may want to clarify a point or have something pressing to say that can’t wait. If that’s the case, speak up! Just make sure those pressing moments don’t become regular moments. Having necessary materials on workshop days will also factor into your participation grade. 1 point for each reading response, 1 point for analysis outline (criticism court), 20 points total.

IN-CLASS CRITICISM Two times this semester, you’ll spend class time authoring a mini-criticism. At the start of class, I will assign an artifact to critique. Your mini-criticism should include 1) an explanation of your selected method and a justification for why you chose it, 2) a research question, and 2) two distinct rhetorical claims that answer the question you’ve posed. For each claim, 1) start with a multi-sentence argument, in which you feature key characteristic of your research method; 2) reference specific rhetorical aspects of your artifact that prove your argument; and 3) use the method to explain how the evidence you just presented proves your research claim. You MAY use a laptop, lecture notes, and the reading packet while writing in-class criticisms; but you only have an hour and fifteen minutes to complete the assignment, so use your time wisely. 15 points each, 30 points total.

PROPOSAL 1In roughly five pages, propose an artifact and method for your final paper. Spend roughly two pages describing your artifact and three pages 1) characterizing your selected research method and 2) explaining why the method is a good fit for the proposed study. Please select one of the following methods: metaphor criticism, narrative criticism, dramatism, or ideographic criticism.

On the day the assignment is due, craft a 5-7-minute oral pitch of your proposal, in which you provide an overview of your artifact, explain your choice of method and how you plan to use it in the final paper, and present a potential argument you might make in the analysis section of your paper. An argument should include a multi-sentence claim, evidence to support the argument, and a multi-sentence explanation of how the evidence substantiates the claim. Provide at least 70% eye contact and be conversational. Be prepared to answer questions about your artifact and choice of method. 50 points.

PROPOSAL 2In roughly five pages, propose an artifact and method for your final paper. Spend roughly two pages describing your artifact and three pages 1) characterizing your selected

research method and 2) explaining why the method is a good fit for the proposed study. Please select one of the following methods: Foucaultian criticism, feminist critique, performative criticism, queer criticism, or applications of CRT. Because this assignment is due weeks before we’ve covered some of the latter methods, you may need to read ahead. If, for instance, you’re interested in critiquing heteronormative aspects of a particular TV show, I will expect your proposal to reflect basics covered in the queer theory readings.

On the day the assignment is due, craft a 5-7-minute oral pitch of your proposal, in which you provide an overview of your artifact, explain your choice of method and how you plan to use it in the final paper, and present a potential argument you might make in the analysis section of your paper. An argument should include a multi-sentence claim, evidence to support the argument, and a multi-sentence explanation of how the evidence substantiates the claim. Provide at least 70% eye contact and be conversational. Be prepared to answer questions about your artifact and choice of method. 50 points.

LETTER TO THE EDITORIn one full, single-spaced page, write a cover letter to a journal editor. Select a journal that you think would be a good fit for your final paper. Typically, the journal you reference the most in your works cited is a good home for your essay. Visit the journal’s homepage and find out the name of the journal’s current editor. Address your letter to the editor. Your letter to the editor should contain 1) a paragraph where you describe the essay and note its primary contributions to the field, 2) a paragraph in which you explain why the piece complements others already featured in the journal, and 3) a brief paragraph where you thank the editor for his or her time. Sample letters to the editor can be found on BeachBoard. You are required to submit a COMPLETED draft of your final paper along with the letter to the editor. Failure to submit a COMPLETED draft will result in a failing grade for the assignment. 25 points.

BLIND PEER REVIEWPeer review is a defining characteristic of academic publication. When you submit a paper to a conference or journal, leaders in the field will review your work and hopefully recommend the essay for presentation or publication. Peer review is also a key way academics provide service to their discipline. The more expertise you develop, the more program planners and journal editors will call upon you to review the work of your peers. Authoring constructive peer reviews is a craft. This assignment is designed to help you hone your peer-review skills. Your critique should fall between 3-4 double-spaced pages (no less than three FULL pages, no more than four), not including cover page and references. The peer review should include 1) one or two paragraphs in which you celebrate the paper’s strengths, 2) a critique of the author’s style, organization, and content, 3) an assessment of whether or not the essay makes a clear

contribution to the author’s cited theories, and 4) a brief paragraph where you encourage continuation of the project. A sample peer review will be posted on BeachBoard. 50 points.

FINAL PAPER Submit a 20-25-page research paper. The paper should be no less than 20 FULL pages and no more than 25. Page minimum and maximum do not include cover page or works cited. Please include at LEAST 25 scholarly citations from peer-reviewed journals. The essays you cite should be consistent with the method you deploy. In other words, make sure you’re referencing peer-reviewed work in the areas of rhetoric theory and criticism. APA and MLA are the two primary style guides used by Communication scholars. APA reflects more social scientific standards, while MLA is more associated with the study of

various rhetorical forms. To that end, please make sure your essay is consistent with guidelines stipulated in the most recent MLA handbook. 200 points.

Recommended structure of the final paper:Introduction 1½-2 pages*. Briefly describe your artifact and explain how it relates to

a particular cultural phenomenon. Explain why the artifact is worth scholarly consideration. Hint at your selected method and theories so that you can easily transition from the introduction to the next section of the paper. State the overarching thesis of the paper.

Review of Method and Theory

6-8 pages*. A bulk of your scholarly citations will emerge in this area of the paper. Use outside research to PREVIEW the arguments you plan to make in the next section of the paper. In other words, use the scholarship you summarize in this section as a springboard to introduce TWO rhetoric-driven research questions that you can then answer in the following section. The two arguments that you preview in this section should be more specific ways of stating your overarching thesis. You’ll need to focus on two areas to properly frame your secondary research questions:

If necessary, provide more detailed information about your artifact. Offer an overview of your selected method. Who developed this method? How does the method work? What are some key concepts from the method that you will utilize in your study? Why is the method a good fit for your criticism? Explain how other scholars have used the method in a way that helps frame YOUR project?

Use the conversation about method as a springboard to review relevant theory about your artifact or selected phenomenon of study. Summarize what RHETORIC scholars have said about the artifact and/or cultural phenomenon that you will investigate in your analysis.

Analysis 12-15 pages*. Answer the two secondary research questions you posed in the previous section of the paper. In response to each question, construct at LEAST two distinct research claims. For each argument, 1) start with a multi-sentence research claim, in which you feature key concepts reviewed in the previous section of your paper; 2) reference specific rhetorical aspects of your artifact that prove your argument; and 3) use the reviewed theory and method to explain how the evidence you just presented proves your research claim.

Conclusion In 1½-to-2 pages*, explain how your findings extend the theoretical conversations you highlighted in the paper’s second section. Do not simply restate your findings. Use your findings to help reshape communication theory.

*The sum of each section must also conform to the overall page minimum (25 full pages) and maximum (30) for the assignment. These page limits do NOT include works cited. Format guidelines:

Biographical information (e.g., your name, my name, and the semester) should take up no more than 3 lines of your paper.

Use 12-point Times New Roman font. The document should be double-spaced and have standard margins of 1” top and

bottom, and 1.25” on the left and right sides. Do not insert additional spaces between paragraphs. Don’t alter font type and/or size or deviate from the margin requirements in an

effort to “cheat” your way around the page minimum and maximum. Please submit a hard copy of the paper and an electronic copy via Turn It In on Beach Board. You will not receive credit for the assignment unless both copies are submitted. Students will lose a tenth of a letter grade for every day their paper is not turned in via Turn It In.

FINAL PAPER PRESENTATION Prepare and deliver a conference-style presentation of your final paper. You will be given 10 minutes to speak. Your presentation should include a brief overview of your artifact; a statement of your overarching research question; an overview of the primary theoretical and methodological conversations you have entered as a result of doing this research; a statement of one secondary research question that, by answering, allows you to extends the aforementioned theoretical conversation; a detailed account of how you have answered this secondary research question; and a brief explanation of how answering this research question contributes to rhetorical theory. Things to Avoid in a Conference-Style Paper Presentation:

Don’t bite off more than you can chew. There’s no way you’ll be able to hit every major point you make in your paper. It’s better to get detailed about a few themes than it is to gloss over several of the arguments you make in your essay.

Keep your description of methods down to 2 or 3 sentences. Tell your audience, “A more thorough description of my research methods can be found in my paper, which, upon request, I will be happy to send to you.”

Do NOT go overtime. Leave your audience wanting MORE. Think of your presentation like it’s a sales pitch. Your goal is to give your audience a TASTE and coax them into reading the entire project.

Provide AT LEAST 70% eye contact; and, whenever possible, avoid reading directly from your paper. The only time you should read directly from your paper is when you want to relay a BRIEF, EXACT QUOTE from one of your research participants.

You will be evaluated on your delivery, professionalism, and argumentation. 25 points.

FINAL EXAM The final exam will consist of short-answer questions and cover material from the course lectures and readings. 100 points.

GRADE SCALE 20 Participation

30 In-Class Criticism 50 Proposal 1 50 Proposal 2 25 Letter to the Editor 50 Blind Peer Review100 Final Exam150 Final Paper 25 Final Paper Presentation 500 Total

TENTATIVE SCHEDULE

Week Topics and Readings Assignments Due

Jan 20 Introduction to Course and to One Another

The Rhetorical SituationBitzer, Lloyd. “The Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 1 (1968): 1-15.Vatz, Richard. “The Myth of the Rhetorical Situation.” Philosophy and Rhetoric 6 (1973): 154-161.

You have readings on the first day of class. Sorry!

Jan 27 Metaphor Criticism: From Universities to Scary MoviesFoss, Sonja K. Rhetorical Criticism: Exploration and Practice. Long

Grove, IL: Waveland Press, 2009.Osborn, Michael. “Archetypal Metaphor in Rhetoric: The Light-Dark

Family.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 53 (1967): 115-126.Ritchie, David. “Monastery or Economic Enterprise: Opposing or

Complementary Metaphors of Higher Education?” Metaphor and Symbol 17 (2002): 45-55.

Winter. Bodo. “Horror Movies and the Cognitive Ecology of Primary Metaphors.” Metaphor & Symbol 29 (2014): 151-70.

Bring in required texts (Write Right and MLA Handbook) for credit.

Feb 3 Metaphors in Latin@ CriticismCisneros, J. David. The Border Crossed us: Rhetorics of Borders,

Citizenship, and Latina/o Identity. Tuscaloosa: The University of Alabama Press, 2013.

O’Brien, Gerald V. “Indigestible Food. Conquering Hordes, and Waste Materials: Metaphors of Immigrants and the Early Immigration Restriction Debate in the United States.” Metaphor and Symbol 18 (2003): 33-47.

Cisneros, J. David. “Contaminated Communities: The Metaphor of ‘Immigrant as Pollutant’ in Media Representations of Immigration.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 11 (2008): 569-601.

Calafell, Bernadette M. “Monstrous Femininity: Constructions of Women of Color in the Academy.” Journal of Communication Inquiry 36 (2012): 111-130.

Feb 10 Introduction to Structuralism & The Narrative ParadigmFisher, Walter. “Narration as a Human Communication Paradigm.”

Communication Monographs 51 (1984): 1-21.Rowland, Robert C., and John M. Jones. “Recasting the American Dream

and American Politics: Barack Obama’s Keynote Address to the 2004 Democratic National Convention.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 93 (2007): 425-448.

Narratization: A Phenomenological Take on NarrativeAllison, John M. “Narrative and Time: A Phenomenological

Reconsideration.” Text and Performance Quarterly 14 (1994): 108-125.

Fox, Ragan. “‘You are Not Allowed to Talk About Production’: Narratization on and off the Set of CBS’s Big Brother.” Critical Studies in Media Communication (2013): in press.

Feb 17 Burke’s Dramatism and Guilt, Purification, and Redemption CycleBizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg. “Kenneth Burke.” The Rhetorical

Tradition. Eds. Patricia Bizzel and Bruce Herzberg. New York: Bedford Books, 1990. 1295-1312.

Burke, Kenneth. “The Rhetoric of Hitler’s Battle.” The Southern Review 5 (1940): 1-21.

Tonn, Mary B., Valerie A. Endress, and John N. Diamond. “Hunting and Heritage on Trial in Maine: A Dramatistic Debate Over Tragedy, Tradition, and Territory.” Quarterly Journal of Speech 79 (1993): 165-181.

Burke: Media Discourse as Equipment for LivingOtt, Brian L., and Eric Aoki. “The Politics of Negotiating Public Tragedy:

Media Framing of the Matthew Shepard Murder.” Rhetoric & Public Affairs 5 (2002): 483-505.