Previous studies of the professional discourse of literary studies have focused solely on published scholarly articles and have produced contradictory evidence regarding the knowledge-building function of literary argument. In this study, 9 English department faculty members use a “think-aloud” procedure to read four lyric poems and compose a short text proposing a hypothetical conference talk about them for a professional conference. Data are analyzed using the commonplaces, or “special topoi,” of literary argument. Results show that (a) different topoi are used when scholars read literary texts and in constructing written arguments and (b) some special topoi are used for communal knowledge building and others are used as audience appeals that may not reflect a commitment to knowledge building. The author concludes by comparing the findings of the study to those of other researchers of literary argument andto those of researchers of scientific argument construction.
Bazerman, C. (1985). Physicists reading physics: Schema-laden purposes and purpose-laden schema. Written Communication, 2, 3-24.
2.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping written knowledge: The genre and activity of the experimental article in science. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
3.
Becher, T., & Trowler, P. R. (2001). Academic tribes and territories: Intellectual enquiry and the culture of disciplines (2nd ed.). Buckingham, UK: Society for Research into Higher Education/Open University Press.
4.
Charney, D. (1993). A study in rhetorical reading: How evolutionists read “The Spandrels of San Marco.” In J. Selzer (Ed.), Understanding scientific prose (pp. 203-231). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
5.
Downing, D. B., Harkin, P., Shumway, D. R., & Sosnoski, J. J. (1987). A conversation with Gerald Graff. Critical Exchange, 23, 1-30.
6.
Downing, D. B., & Sosnoski, J. J. (1995). Working with narrative zones in a postdisciplinary pedagogy. Narrative, 3(3), 271-286.
7.
Ericsson, K. A., & Simon, H. A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
8.
Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. (1988). The stases in scientific and literary argument. Written Communication, 5, 427-443.
9.
Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. (1991). The rhetoric of literary criticism. In C. Bazerman & J. Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studiesof writing in professional communities (pp. 77-96). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
10.
Geisler, C. (2003). Analyzing streams of language: Twelve steps to the systematic coding of text, talk, and other verbal data. New York: Longman.
11.
Harkin, P. (1987). Arguing a history: Gerald Graff’s Professing Literature. Critical Exchange, 23, 77-90.
12.
Hayes, J. R., & Flower, L. (1983). Uncovering cognitive processes in writing: An introduction to protocol analysis. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on writing: Principles and methods (pp. 207-220). New York: Longman.
13.
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.
14.
MacDonald, S. P. (1987). Problem definition in academic writing. College English, 49, 315-331.
15.
MacDonald, S. P. (1989). Data-driven and conceptually driven academic discourse. Written Communication, 6, 411-455.
16.
MacDonald, S. P. (1992). A method for analyzing sentence-level differences in disciplinary knowledge making. Written Communication, 9, 533-569.
17.
MacDonald, S. P. (1994). Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.
18.
Menand, L. (2005). Dangers within and without. Profession, 10-17.
19.
Ohmann, R. (1996). English in America: A radical view of the profession. Hanover, NH: Wesleyan University Press.
20.
Pressley, M., & Afflerbach, P. (1995). Verbal protocols of reading: The nature of constructively responsive reading. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
21.
Sosnoski, J. J. (1994). Token professionals and master critics: A critique of orthodoxy in literary studies. Albany: State University of New York Press.
22.
Sosnoski, J. J. (1995). Modern skeletons in postmodern closets: A cultural studies alternative. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press.
23.
Spanos, W. V. (1993). The end of education: Toward posthumanism. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
24.
Wilder, L. (2002). “Get comfortable with uncertainty:” A study of the conventional values of literary analysis in an undergraduate literature course. Written Communication, 19, 175-221.
25.
Wilder, L. (2005). “The rhetoric of literary criticism” revisited: Mistaken critics, complex contexts, and social justice. Written Communication, 22, 76-119.
26.
Wilder, L. A. (2003). Critics, classrooms, and commonplaces: Literary studies as a disciplinary discourse community (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 2003). Dissertation Abstracts, AAT 3116231.
27.
Wolfe, J. (2003). A method for teaching invention in the gateway literature class. Pedagogy: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture, 3(3), 399-425.
28.
Wyatt, D., Pressley, M., El-Dinary, P. B., Stein, S., Evans, P., & Brown, R. (1993). Comprehension strategies, worth and credibility monitoring, and evaluations: Cold and hot cognition when experts read professional articles that are important to them. Learning and Individual Differences, 5(1), 49-72.
