SHORT CRITICAL DISCUSSION #2 - ANTI/SIGNIFICATION
Due 10/19/13 by 12:00 noon to Blackboard
Please upload to Blackboard via "Assignments" and attach as .docx or .doc
PURPOSE AND TASK
For this second short critical discussion, I will ask you to put two or more theoretical texts into conversation with each other and with other texts in order to build an argument that is inspired by our Anti/Signification paradox. Putting them into conversation with each other generally requires that you do more than simply comment on them, compare them, dis/agree with them, or formulate an opinion about them. It generally requires that you use both texts together in order to arrive at some discovery that advances your thinking!
The readings in the second unit of the course are challenging, and in some cases mind-blowing, since they all deal with the complexities of using language to describe abstract concepts. So, this assignment may seem challenging at first, since you are having to grapple with philosophical understandings of language. However, I think our case studies will help you see that these are theories you already encounter on a fairly regular basis in your development as a rhetorical theorist and practitioner. As before, it may help you to remember that your aim with SCD #2 is three-fold:
- to demonstrate a nuanced (even sophisticated) understanding of a couple of our theorists and their texts;
- to craft an interesting and coherent argument based on some curiosity, question, or problem that arises from reading these texts or theorists together; and
- to hone your critical writing skills in the essay format.
I offer some prompts below to help you get started, but please remember that the prompts are just that—points of inquiry intended to urge you toward a more specific discovery. Your discovery (a.k.a., your thesis statement) should do more than simply answer the prompt!
PROMPTS
- How would you tackle the question: “What is language?” Although the question seems easy, I'd like you to complicate it. Is language always the compilation of words? Are words always language, or not always (or never) language? Can language “do” anything and, if so, what? Do symbols, signs, icons, and metaphors function according to the same principles? Feel free to take up a real dilemma in answering this question as you put at least two critical texts together. Once you have decided on how to put both texts into conversation, feel free to demonstrate your discovery on a case, especially to help explain to your reader why it matters.
- Choose one of the key terms in the title of a critical text below, then discuss its development, meaning, or significance in another text where it does not explicitly appear in the title. For example, you might take the term discourse from Bakhtin's title, and then consider how his text and another text treat discourse differently. Or, you might take style from Williams' title, and then consider how his text and another text articulate critical differences about the term. Draw on reference texts to help you, and feel free to demonstrate the difference on a case study to help persuade your reader why the difference matters.
- If there is one thing that all of these authors address, to one extent or another, it is signification. What new meaning does “signification” take on in this unit? What does it involve? What does it make possible, or what makes it possible? What limitations for signification do you see in this unit? Does the presence of the thing that signifies always guarantee or negate the signification? In other words, try to discover a more specific dimension to the anti/signification paradox, based on how two of our theorists wrestle with it. Using at least two of the critical texts below—and drawing on reference texts or cases as needed—discuss how your authors might answer (or fail to fully answer) this question of what it means to signify.
Here are your options for critical texts:
- Bakhtin “Discourse in the Novel” (259-331, heavily excerpted)
- Burke “The Rhetoric of Hitler's 'Battle'” (191-211)
- Derrida “Differance” (278-288)
- Lakoff and Johnson “From Metaphors We Live By” (weblink)
- Locke “From Essay Concerning Human Understanding” (814-827)
- McCloud “The Vocabulary of Comics” (24-45)
- Ong “The Writer’s Audience Is Always a Fiction” (9-21)
- Williams “Bakhtin on Teaching Style” (348-354)
Here are some reference texts you will most likely want to use:
- Relevant pages from Bedford Glossary
- Bizzell/Herzberg background on “Enlightenment” (793-799)
- Herrick introductory essay (222-240)
- Herrick background on “Derrida” (253-256)
- Rivkin/Ryan background on “Structuralism” and “Deconstruction” (53-55, 257-261)
Here are your options for cases:
- Barton “Textual Practices of Erasure” (169-199)
- Welling “Ecoporn: On the Limits of Visualizing the Nonhuman” (53-77)
- Satrapi's Persepolis
- El Rassi's Arab in America
- a case of your own choosing (as long as you make it available to me)
CHARACTERISTICS AND EVALUATION CRITERIA
This assignment is worth 100 points. Here are some specific criteria I will use to evaluate:
Argument and Thesis
For these assignments, "argument" does not necessarily mean "position" (as in, the traditional pro/con, agree/disagree, good/bad, right/wrong sense of argumentation). It does mean a discovery that can only be arrived at through careful synthesis. Your argument should be interesting and worthwhile, but it should also be nuanced and specific. Your argument should be guided by an original and clear thesis statement that represents the discovery, is not simply a summary of the texts’ main purpose or theme, and does not simply state the obvious about the texts you are reading. In other words, your thesis statement should provide us the answer to or outcome of your discussion, rather than just telling us broadly what you hope to find, and it should not simply answer the prompt. If your thesis is complex, it may take a few sentences to articulate all of its points. This is perfectly natural.
Textual and Contextual Evidence
You’ll want to develop your argument by drawing heavily on the critical text(s) you have chosen, and you’ll want to use examples accurately and well, using in-text (parenthetical) citations throughout your discussion where needed, especially where you paraphrase concepts. Feel free to use examples drawn from class, but please do not just echo the examples back to me without demonstrating that you can extend them. Rather than just relying on what you think is "common knowledge," use the reference texts to provide essential background. Please cite specific incidents, images, and other textual details. In a discussion this brief, please try to avoid extensive block quoting!
Reader Awareness
You are writing for a reader (or group of readers) who needs to see that you can carefully handle textual evidence, so be sure to educate them wherever possible by taking the time to define key terms. While I fully expect and fully encourage you to make use of the Oxford English Dictionary, it is not enough to simply justify a claim by saying “According to the Oxford English Dictionary …” You are also writing for a reader (or group of readers) who needs to know by the end of your introduction what their investment is in reading. Try hooking your reader(s) with a critical and imaginative beginning, i.e., a sense that you know what you want to say, and not a vague or wandering or philandering opening. Your introduction should help us understand the specific dilemma that prompted you to write.
Organization and Coherence
How you organize your critical discussion should ultimately reflect the argument you want to make. This includes a clear introduction and conclusion, useful transitions, and adequate development of each point. Your thesis may act like a “thread” for your main and supporting points, and each paragraph should be well focused and guided by something like a topic sentence that helps your thesis to unfold.
Language and Style
Your discussion can be confident and still carry a balanced tone, with neutral language and strong sentences. Your use of terms should be thoughtful, even elegant. You should not need to rely on excessive metadiscourse, “I think/feel/believe,” or “In my opinion” statements to carry your argument forward. It should always be clear who is saying what. Try putting dense or complicated language into your own words, and be sure to report names and titles accurately. No patterns of sentence- or paragraph-level error should get in the way of meaning. Spelling and punctuation should be precise.
Discourse Conventions and Formatting
Your title should reflect what you are trying to argue and may even contain layers of meaning. Citation conventions should be accurate. Aim for ~2-3 pages single-spaced with your “Works Cited” in MLA format. This means that the final draft should be: Word-processed in a legible 11- or 12-point serif font, and formatted to include 1-inch margins. No cover sheet is necessary, but your name, due date, and course information should appear at the top left of the first page. Please create a header or footer with your last name and page number on all remaining pages.
Please feel free to ask questions if any part of the assignment is unclear or if you become stuck while working through an idea.
