This study describes the extent to which shared assumptions of literary scholars form part of an introductory literature course. Fahnestock and Secor, in The Rhetoric of Literary Criticism, describe five special topoi of literary criticism (appearance/reality, paradigm, ubiquity, contemptus mundi, and paradox) that characterize the warrants of literary criticism appearing in a sample of major literary studies journals. This study triangulates ethnographic data of a class's meetings, analyses of students' essays, and questionnaires to discover whether these topoi are communicated to students in a survey course, whether students recognize and use them, and whether students are rewarded for using them. The special topoi of literary criticism appear in the discourse of instructors and students. Though textual analysis did not reveal a connection between using the special topoi in writing assignments and receiving a higher grade, questionnaires revealed that students adept at recognizing literary values and discourse conventions were more successful.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aristotle. (1991). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse (G. A. Kennedy, Trans.). New York: Oxford University Press.
2.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
3.
Charney, D., Newman, J., & Palmquist, M. (1995). “I'm just no good at writing”: Epistemological style and attitudes towards writing. Written Communication, 12, 298-329.
4.
Christensen, C. R., Garvin, D. A., & Sweet, A. (1991). Education for judgment: The artistry of discussion leadership. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
5.
Dowdey, D. (1992). Citation and documentation across the curriculum. In M. Secor & D. Charney (Eds.), Constructing rhetorical education (pp. 330-351). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
6.
Fahnestock, J. (1999). Rhetorical figures in science. New York: Oxford University Press.
7.
Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. (1988). The stases in scientific and literary argument. Written Communication, 5, 427-443.
8.
Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. (1991). The rhetoric of literary criticism. In C. Bazerman & J. Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities (pp. 77-96). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
9.
Fitzwater, E. (1967). Doctor Faustus notes. Lincoln, NE: CliffsNotes.
10.
Francoz, M. J. (1999). Habit as memory incarnate. College English, 62, 11-29.
11.
Graff, G. (1987). Professing literature: An institutional history. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
12.
Graff, G. (1992). Beyond the culture wars: How teaching the conflicts can revitalize American education. New York: Norton.
13.
Herrington, A. J. (1985). Writing in academic settings: A study of the contexts for writing in two college chemical engineering courses. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 331-361.
14.
Herrington, A. J. (1988). Teaching, writing, and learning: A naturalistic study of writing in an undergraduate literature course. In D. A. Jolliffe (Ed.), Advances in writing research: Vol. 2 Writing in academic disciplines (pp. 133-166). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
15.
Herrington, A. J. (1992). Composing one's self in a discipline: Students' and teachers' negotiations. In M. Secor & D. Charney (Eds.), Constructing rhetorical education (pp. 91-115). Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
16.
Hillegass, C. K. (1959). Othello notes. Lincoln, NE: CliffsNotes.
17.
Humble, P. (1995). Hemingway's “very short story”—A stylistic frequency analysis. In J. Payne (Ed.), Linguistic approaches to literature: Papers in literary stylistics (pp. 17-24). Birmingham: University of Birmingham Printers.
18.
Krishnamurthy, R. (1995). The macrocosm and the microcosm: The corpus and the text. In J. Payne (Ed.), Linguistic approaches to literature: Papers in literary stylistics (pp. 1-16). Birmingham: University of Birmingham Printers.
19.
Lentricchia, F., & McLaughlin, T. (1995). Critical terms for literary study (2nd ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
20.
MacDonald, S. P. (1987). Problem definition in academic writing. College English, 49, 315-331.
21.
MacDonald, S. P. (1989). Data-driven and conceptually driven academic discourse. Written Communication, 6, 411-455.
22.
MacDonald, S. P. (1992). A method for analyzing sentence-level differences in disciplinary knowledge making. Written Communication, 9, 533-569.
23.
MacDonald, S. P. (1994). Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
24.
Miko, S. J. (1982). Tempest. ELH, 49, 1-17.
25.
Nelson, J. (1990). This was an easy assignment: Examining how students interpret academic writing tasks. Research in the Teaching of English, 24, 362-396.
26.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise on argumentation. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
27.
Rawlins, J. P. (1980). What's so wrong with “in my opinion”?College English, 41, 670-674.
28.
Richter, D. H. (1994). Falling into theory: Conflicting views on reading literature. Boston: Bedford.
29.
Scholes, R. E. (1985). Textual power: Literary theory and the teaching of English. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
30.
Self, L. (1988). A little trick with syntax in the teaching of literature. English Journal, 77, 62-64.
31.
Steig, M. (1981). At the back of The Wind in the Willows: An experiment in biographical and autobiographical interpretation. Victorian Studies, 24, 303-323.
32.
Thompson, D. P. (1989). Introducing adult students to writing about literature. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 16, 37-39.
33.
Weinstein, A. (1981). The fiction of relationship. Novel, 15, 5-22.
34.
Wentworth, M. (1987). Writing in the literature class. Journal of Teaching Writing, 6, 155-162.
35.
Wright, G. (1981). Hendiadys and Hamlet. Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 96, 168-193.
