|
Welcome to New Students
Program Overview
Major Coursework
Choosing a Minor
Course Load
Tool Requirement
Foreign Language Requirement
The 32-Credit Rule & Continual Enrollment
Prelims Part I: Portfolio
Prelims Part II: Oral Examination
Prelims Calculator
Admission to Candidacy
Dissertation
Timeline for Completion of Degree
Readings Lists
 You
have chosen to join a venerable field and a dynamic program. During
the next several years you should consider yourself an apprentice
to the professions of research and teaching. While there will be plenty
of requirements to meet, it is important to keep your sights on the
broad goals of professional growth and experience. You are preparing
to join a field that is demandingly multidisciplinary and protean,
one that combines theory and practice in serious and rigorous ways,
and one that offers many kinds of self-definition depending on your
career goals. These conditions put a premium on personal initiative
and creativity. Coursework and preliminary examinations will rightly
occupy your attention over the next few years. However, fulfilling
basic requirements is only the beginning–not the end–of your
professional development. Making the most of your experience as a
teaching assistant, taking advantage of apprentice and leadership
opportunities beyond the classroom, participating in the larger professional
life of the program, the department, and the field–all are vital
aspects of your preparation. Coming to understand your own strengths
and interests and developing them to the highest standard of excellence
is the focus upon which your efforts and the faculty’s efforts
should converge. We try to provide an environment that stimulates
and supports your growth. However, it is critical that you be an
active agent in this process.
To be active, it is first necessary to be knowledgeable. We urge
you to become familiar with general resources and policies that pertain
to graduate education. The UW-Madison homepage provides
access to many sources of information, including the Timetable. The
Graduate School website carries many publications and bulletins.
The Graduate Office in this department (Room 7195) remains your best
source for answers to specific questions regarding graduation requirements
(including foreign language requirements, exam dates and procedures,
fellowship deadlines, formal admission to candidacy, dissertation
filing, etc.) For information about TA contracts, teaching assignments,
and teaching schedules, consult the Associate Chair’s office
(Room 6199). The Main Office (Room 7187) is a source for equipment,
office supplies, directories, etc.
Contacts
Faculty Mentor:
Upon admission to the program, you will be assigned a faculty mentor
who will normally serve in that capacity until you are admitted to
candidacy. After that, your dissertation director will become your
mentor. Your mentor will help to guide you in your professional development
and you should be in frequent contact with that person. Among topics
for discussion are academic progress, minor selection, timing and
preparation of prelims portfolio, professional activity and the like.
Whenever you have questions or concerns, your mentor is the first
person to consult. Your dissertation director will be your primary
aide during the job search.
Graduate Advisor
(2006-2007: Martin Nystrand,
6187c Helen C. White Hall; 263-3822)
The grad advisor is the clearinghouse for course registration and
for tracking your formal progress through the program. You will be
notified at the start of each registration period when it is time
to schedule an appointment with the area advisor. When necessary,
the grad advisor superauthorizes you into the English Department courses
that you choose and makes sure that you are meeting requirements and
timetables. For specific questions about the program or to review
your formal record, consult the area advisor. The area advisor also
coordinates aspects of the qualifying exam, which in CompRhet is a Prelims
Portfolio. For technical questions concerning umbrella regulations
of the department or the Graduate School, the Graduate Division remains
the last word.
The UW-Madison Ph.D. in Composition & Rhetoric is an advanced
research degree requiring a Master's degree for admission. The program
is designed to prepare candidates to do scholarly and pedagogical
work of a high order.
The Ph.D. degree is conferred by the University of Wisconsin-Madison
after a minimum of three years of study beyond the Bachelor's degree.
At least one half of the residence credit required for this degree
must be earned on the Madison campus. Students should consult the Graduate
School Catalog regarding residence credit, which is different
from the degree requirements described in this document (for example,
as the Graduate Bulletin states, "Each candidate must spend at
least one continuous academic year beyond the master's level as a
full-time graduate student"). Questions regarding residence are
to be taken to the Graduate School, the only authority on the subject.
Overall graduate study moves from general knowledge of the field
to specialized preparation and research capability. General preparation
occurs in prereqs and coursework and culminates in approval of the
prelims portfolio (written and oral). Specialized preparation focuses
on the dissertation and coursework supporting it, including minor
and research methods courses (tool requirement). While these phases
occur in sequence, they should be seen as independent forms of preparation.
Each will engage you in different kinds of intellectual challenge.
Coursework gives you background and helps you to experiment with a
variety of topics, perspectives, approaches, and skills. Reading for
your portfolio gives you theoretical and historical breadth and depth
for future research and teaching and helps you to reinterpret your
coursework within broader traditions and scholarly debates. With the
dissertation you specialize in a project that captures your strongest
interest and enables you to make a timely contribution to scholarship
in the field.
Graduate students’ teaching experience follows
a similar pattern of development. In your first year as a teaching
assistant in English
100, you
will receive extensive training and mentoring as you assist instruction
in the largest introductory composition course taught
in the College of Letters & Science. Your subsequent work as an
instructor in English 201 (Intermediate
Composition) will provide you the opportunity and support to discover
your teaching style and
reflect on a philosophy. In addition, Wisconsin graduate students
frequently work in the highly respected tutorial
Writing Center, which serves
the entire University. Beyond these experiences, many professional
opportunities exist for
work as administrative assistants in composition courses and numerous
campus writing programs.
 Coursework
within the program is designed to offer you a balanced background
in rhetorical theory, history, and criticism; contemporary
composition theory; discourse analysis; literacy; and research methods.
We offer courses in a regular, rotating sequence, two courses each
semester; all courses are available at least once in a two-year period.
Within the first four semesters of your program, you are expected
to take six CompRhet courses plus courses in research methods. Typically,
you will find the following courses offered in the following sequence:
Fall
English 700 Introd. to Composition and Rhetoric (available every
year) (Spring
2003 site / Spring 2005)
English 701 Writing and Learning (Some
course content)
English 704 Classical Rhetoric (Intellectual Sources for Contemp Composition
Theory I) (Fall
2004 site)
Spring
English 703 Res. Methods in Writing & Rhetoric (tool requirement
course) (Spring
2005 site)
English 706 Special Topics in Rhetoric (Spring
2006 site)
English 900 Special Topics in Language and Composition Theory (Fall
1999 site)
English 710 Discourse Analysis (available every year) (Course
Description)
Fall
English 702 Perspectives on Literacy (Fall
2005)
English 705 Modern Rhetoric (Intellectual Sources for Contemp Composition Theory
II) (Fall
2003)
Spring
English 722 Composition Theory and Critical Theory (Spring
2007 syllabus)
English 706 OR English 900
English 799 (Directed Reading). English 799 (Directed Reading) is
for specialized, not foundational coursework, and may be appropriate
as either a minor course or a course used to satisfy the tool requirement.
Students may take English 799 as their sixth major
course only with the agreement of the faculty sponsor and the Graduate
Advisor.
In addition to major course work, you are required to take a four-course
minor. Depending on your research direction, a distributed external
minor (four courses taken in at least two different departments) may
be in order. Alternatively, you may choose an internal minor in literature
or English language and linguistics or an external minor in an array
of departments and programs. You should consult the faculty, especially
your faculty mentor, as you make your decision. The minor traditionally
is meant to enhance your preparation for conducting dissertation research
so you should think about it in that respect. At the same time, the
minor also, more broadly, may help you to define yourself professionally.
For instance, if you are interested in preparing for a generalist
career in a teaching institution, a literature minor may be attractive.
If you are interested in defining yourself principally as a rhetorician,
then a minor in Communication
Arts may make the most sense. Or you may want to focus on literacy
by taking complementary courses in the School
of Education. Minors through programs such as Women’s Studies,
Afro American Studies, or cultural geography may be appropriate.
Departments vary in their minor requirements–some require that
you take specific courses; others don’t. It is a good idea to
visit the graduate advisors in any department or program in which
you are considering doing a minor and become familiar with their policies.
It is also important to know in advance when the courses that interest
you will be offered so that you can plan your schedule accordingly.
Because a representative from your minor traditionally sits as the
outside reader on your dissertation committee, it is a good idea to
develop a good working relationship with at least one of the faculty
members you encounter during minor coursework.
Usually four courses (12 credits) are to be chosen by the student
and the minor advisor in consultation with the student's advisor.
Although superior work in these courses is usually deemed sufficient
to satisfy the requirement, formal examination in the minor remains
at the discretion of the minor department. A student must obtain permission
from his or her advisor to exercise the Minor Option B (for which,
see the Graduate
School Bulletin) and must have at least a 3.00 average in the
four courses. The minor requirement need not be completed before taking
the preliminary examination, but the "minor agreement form" must
be on file with the Graduate School before taking prelims.
 Ordinarily students who are also teaching assistants enroll in two
courses per semester. We do not recommend a higher course load. If
you find yourself with extra time, it can be profitably spent reading
from the standing reading lists.
Ordinarily students who are also teaching assistants enroll in two
courses per semester. We do not recommend a higher course load. If
you find yourself with extra time, it can be profitably spent reading
from the standing reading lists.
A. Credit Enrollment
A normally enrolled student must carry a full graduate course load,
8-12 credits (or 6-8 credits if the student is a teaching assistant
teaching 44% or more of full_time, the maximum number of credits varying
according to the teaching load), until the English Course Requirements
(B) have been completed. Students who have satisfied the Graduate
School's full-time semester requirement, may reduce their course load
in the semester in which these requirements are completed, and thereafter.
A student may take English 999 (reading for prelims) for the first time in
the semester in which that student is completing the English Course Requirements
(B). Until the English Course Requirements have been completed, a student must
obtain permission from the Graduate Committee in order to take English 799
(independent reading) and may take it only on a graded basis (rather than S/U).
B. Course Requirements
All course requirements must have been completed with grades of B
or better before the student takes the preliminary examination.
Six courses must be taken in the Composition and Rhetoric Area. One of these
courses may be English 703, Research Methods.
C. Grades
In all post-Master's courses taken at UW-Madison, a normally enrolled
student in the Ph.D. program must maintain at all times at least a
3.50 G.P.A. in English courses and an overall G.P.A. of at least 3.25,
and a G.P.A. each semester of at least 3.00. (In computing the G.P.A.,
an Incomplete will be counted as a B. The grade of P--for Progress--will
be treated as a B in any course except English 990. The grade of S
will not be counted in computing the G.P.A.) A student who fails to
meet this requirement will be placed on Departmental Probation (see
Section I below). It should be noted that a grade of BC or lower cannot
be used to meet an English Course Requirement.
Incompletes
Incompletes will be allowed only in extraordinary circumstances,
and they must be removed within eight weeks of the following semester
of registration. If they are not removed within that time, they will
revert to a failure unless special dispensation is granted by the
Director of Graduate Studies. At no time may a student have more than
six credits of Incompletes. The preliminary examination may not be
taken by a student who has an Incomplete.
 In addition to demonstrating at least an adequate competence in
one foreign language, students must have advanced proficiency in research
methods. Ordinarily, this requirement is fulfilled by taking two courses
that focus explicitly on the problems and practice of research. English
703 (Research Methods) counts toward fulfillment of the tool requirement.
Students can go on to complete this requirement by taking an independent
study course with a CompRhet faculty member assisting that faculty
member with ongoing research. As an alternative, an array of qualitative
and quantitative research methods courses offered in other programs
and departments also can fulfill this requirement. Normally, all tool
requirements will be met before admission to candidacy.
 The
foreign language requirement may be satisfied by:
-
Having completed four semesters of college-level
work in the language within the previous five years, with no grade
lower than B
-
Having completing a graduate degree elsewhere and using
the previous certification in one foreign language granted for
that degree by a
United States, Canadian, or British university, after completing
two semesters here as a normal enrolled student with a minimum
GPA of
3.5 in English courses
-
using his or her native language when it is something other
than English
-
Passing the examination administered either by
the Educational Testing Service with a score of 520 or higher
-
Passing
a translation test administered by a UW-Madison department designated
for this purpose by the Department
of English
 The
Graduate School requires that you take a minimum of 32 credits in
order to qualify for a UW-Madison degree. You also are required to
be continually enrolled while pursuing your degree. To help students
meet the 32-credit rule and stay enrolled during periods when you
may not be taking regular courses, the English Department provides
credit slots:
Current Prelims Questions here!
Prelims occurs
on the cusp of shifting from general to specialized preparation and, in CompRhet,
takes the form of a portfolio rather
than the more usual sit-down exam. You are eligible to submit
your prelims portfolio only after you have first completed all major
coursework and either the tool requirement or the foreign language requirement;
the minor and the tool or language foreign requirement, which
ever
is not complete before prelims, may be completed after prelims.
Some students choose to submit their prelims portfolio at the end
of the second year, when CompRhet coursework is fresh in the mind.
Other students prefer the end of the third year after all coursework,
including minor coursework, is complete, so that they can move directly
into the dissertation without having to return to the classroom.
Portfolio Contents
1) 3-page introductory essay to be written as the last step in submitting
the portfolio, discussing:
- Your strengths, weaknesses, and progress through
the program, reviewing teaching, writing, research
- Important themes cutting across contents of the portfolio
- Future directions and professional aims
2) Your best paper: One scholarly essay of seminar or publication
quality; may be a revised paper from CompRhet coursework and seminars
that exemplifies your writing and research ability.
3) Documentation of successful teaching
- 1-2 page statement of your teaching philosophy
- 2 documents from teaching, e.g., syllabus, paper assignment, videotape
- Complete set of student evaluations from one course
4) Two 4,000-6,000 word (plus bibliographies) take home essays:
- One written in response to one of two faculty questions posted
each year on May 15 (using the Core List) and
- Another essay written in response to a question that each student
will work out in consultation with area faculty. The student-question
essay must be broadly enough focused as to situate the problems
and issues it raises in the field; it is to be more comprehensive
than the student's dissertation project. This essay will be based
on the individual student's list of 40 readings.
Students must identify the faculty question
they
will answer
and negotiate the question of their own no later than 6 months in
advance of turning
in their essays. Students must secure final approval of their own question
and accompanying reading list no later than 3 months before submission
of the portfolio.
Reading Lists
- Core list of 40 items (titles, scholars). List will
be common to all students in the program and provided by the
faculty
- Standing prelims reading lists: Individual
list of 40 items tailored to address the questions students choose
to
answer.
You
will create
your own list,
in addition
to the core list, in
consultation with faculty; You may find it useful to consult the standing
prelims reading lists on a) critical theory, b)
discourse, c) literacy, d)
pedagogy, e) rhetoric, f)
semiotics, and reading
lists compiled by other students.
(See appendices)
- Reading for prelims is to be
guided by both questions
After prelims, your portfolio is kept in the main Graduate Office.
You are not permitted to photocopy it but may view it in the Graduate
office in preparation for the oral. A copy will be available for your
use during the oral.
Preparing Your Portfolio
By the end of your first semester you should be thinking about your
portfolio, evaluating possible topics and arguments for your writing
and questions, and identifying selections for your reading lists.
It is never too early to begin actively organizing in your own mind
the trends, debates, historical time lines, etc. that make up CompRhet.
A successful portfolio requires you not only to display knowledge
of particular texts but also to marshal groups of texts to advance
sophisticated arguments or positions. You must read actively and critically.
Your mentor is a good person to converse with about titles you are
reading or issues or questions whose patterns you can discern in the
literature. You will also want to touch base with your other professors
to discuss works they are most familiar with. Keeping up with journals
in the field can show you how scholarship is used to address issues
and controversies. Be thorough. It always pays off.
Normally, the oral examination is administered by all members of
the CompRhet faculty. You must receive at least a marginal pass on
your portfolio before proceeding to the oral examination. If you receive
a marginal pass on the portfolio, you must receive at least a grade
of pass in the oral in order to pass the overall exam (i.e., two marginal
passes equal a failure).
The oral will be a discussion of your portfolio, in which you will
elaborate upon and defend your written work in response to faculty
questions. You will be invited first to introduce your portfolio by
recounting its development. Then the faculty takes up further questioning.
It is your responsibility to arrange the date and time of the oral
according to everyone’s availability and to schedule a meeting
room with the program assistant in the Graduate Division. To enjoy
the salary benefits that accompany dissertator status, it is necessary
to schedule the oral prior to the official start of the semester in
which you desire that status.
Failure to pass the exam by August or January before your seventh
semester will be grounds for academic probation. If necessary, you
have one additional semester to retake the exam and clear the probation.
Test
 This is a formal step in the graduate degree process and must be
completed by the end of your sixth semester. Admission to candidacy
occurs when you have successfully completed:
If you have not completed your minor, you must also declare one and
have it approved by signature of the grad advisor. ABD [all but dissertation]
status, which brings you a raise in your TA stipend, requires paperwork.
Keep in good contact with the Graduate Division during this phase.
Students not admitted to candidacy by the end of their 6th semester
will be placed on probation.
 Dissertation Proposal
Within six months after you have finished course work, you will be
expected to have completed a draft of your dissertation proposal and
defend it at a conference with area faculty members. Proposals can
range from 12-30 pages plus a bibliography. Your dissertation director
will be your main guide in formulating a dissertation project and
drafting a proposal. Guidelines for writing proposals as well as models
of dissertation proposals can be found in the Green File Cabinet.
When you have completed your proposal to the satisfaction of your
committee, it needs to be signed by a minimum of three members of
the CompRhet faculty and put on file in the Graduate Division. Another
proposal meeting is not necessary at this time.
The quality of your dissertation project–along with the quality
of your teaching record–is perhaps the most important factor
in how you will fare on the job market. The best projects are those
that are sensitive to their moment in the field, ones that proceed
from a knowledge of the past, a sense of the significance of the present,
and a vision of the future direction of the field. While our individual
life circumstances often draw us to particular kinds of projects,
dissertations should have a public significance within the field of
CompRhet and be approached with that significance in mind. Thinking
about the parts of the field with which you most want to affiliate–the
conversations you want to be in, the audiences you seek, the kinds
of things you want to be reading and doing–all should figure
into the search for a dissertation question. Dissertations also need
a realistic scope: you should be able to complete your thesis in a
year or two. It should also employ methods with which you have had
some earlier preparation and, ideally, experience.
Dissertation Committee
Your dissertation committee will consist of a minimum of 3 (and normally
no more than 4) members of the English Department faculty (generally,
members of the CompRhet faculty) plus an outside reader from another
department (generally, a representative from your minor). If you are
doing an internal minor, your “outside” reader may come
from that program.
You will need to work out with your director a procedure for sharing your work
with the wider dissertation committee. Your director needs to be the first
pair of eyes and may approve drafts of chapters to be circulated among other
faculty members. Some directors and students prefer that an entire draft be
completed before circulating it to other readers. Generally, the outside reader
is not consulted until near the time of the defense. According to Graduate
School rules, the outsider reader is required only to read the abstract. However,
many outside readers prefer to read the entire thesis and some are willing
to play active consulting roles. It is up to you to reach an understanding
with your outside reader about their role.
Dissertation Defense
It is the custom of this area to hold the dissertation defense only
after a draft of the thesis is finished. It is your responsibility,
in consultation with your director, to schedule a time and place for
the defense according to everyone’s availability. As a courtesy,
all dissertation committee members should have a copy of your dissertation
one month prior to the defense. Normally, some revisions are requested
as an outcome of the defense.
It is important to be in good communication with the Graduate Division
as completion of the dissertation nears, as there are forms to fill
out and procedures to follow. Also, be sure you are familiar with
Graduate School regulations for formatting and delivering the thesis
to the Graduate School. You must make an appointment ahead of time
to be “signed off” for your degree.
No Days Without Lines
If your dissertation is not completed within five years after the
admission to candidacy, the Graduate School requires that you submit
a new portfolio in order to complete the degree. Although the English
Department makes exceptions to this rule, we expect you to finish
the dissertation much sooner than the five-year limit.
During the dissertation phase of your program, the project must be
your number one priority. While the demands of teaching, service,
and life in general provide a constant stream of distractions, it
is best to start every day with the dissertation. Three to five hours
of work daily will ensure a timely completion. As Donald Murray used
to say, “Never a day without a line!”
Dissertator Status
While you are writing your dissertation, you need to be continually
enrolled in English 990 (Research in English). If you do not sign
up for these credits each semester by the registration deadline, you
will face a stiff financial penalty when you try to re-enroll. You
must always be enrolled during the semester in which you plan to defend
your dissertation–even if that means the summer. Stay in good
contact with the Graduate Office about these enrollment procedures.
Useful links:
A
Guide to Preparing Your Doctoral Dissertation
The
Three Ds: Deadlines, Defending, and Depositing Your PhD Dissertation
Dissertation Fellowships
The English Department offers some dissertation
fellowships for which you are eligible. The deadline for application
is January 8. If you plan to apply for a fellowship, you will need
to have an approved dissertation proposal prior to that date.
Year 1:
Complete 3-4 Comp/Rhet courses, including 703 if offered. Fulfill
language requirement and any make-up prerequisites. Begin reading
for the prelim.
Year 2:
Complete 2-3 Comp/Rhet courses, including 703 if offered and another
tool requirement course. Decide on sublists for prelim. Prepare and
read for the portfolio.
Year 2: Summer (optional).
Take prelims in August or January. Be admitted to candidacy.
Year 3:
Complete four course minor.
Year 3: Summer (required).
Gain approval of prelims portfolio. Be admitted to candidacy.
Year 4:
Dissertation proposal defense held sometime between November and
February (within 6 months of passing prelims). Complete approximately
one half of dissertation by the end of the summer.
Year 5
Apply for jobs beginning in October. Complete dissertation.
By Graduate School regulations, every student must complete the dissertation
within five calendar years after admission to candidacy. Where necessary,
the student, joined by the dissertation director and the Director
of Graduate Studies, may appeal for an extension beyond five years,
with a rationale for the appeal and a proposed absolute deadline for
completion. (rev. 9/2004)
 Core 
Critical Theory
Discourse
Literacy
Pedagogy
Rhetoric
Semiotics
Core List
Revised 3/11/05
Aristotle. (1991). On rhetoric: A theory of civic discourse. Trans.
G. A. Kennedy. New York: Oxford University Press
Bakhtin, M. M. (1986). Speech genres and other late essays. Trans., V. W. McGee.
Ed. C. Emerson & M. Holquist. Austin:University of Texas Press.
Barton E., & Stygall, G. (Eds.) (2002). Discourse studies in composition.
Cresskill NJ: Hampton Press.
Burke, K. (1969). A rhetoric of motives. University of California Press.
Canagarajah, Suresh. Resisting linguistic imperialism in English teaching.
Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Cicero. (2001). On the ideal orator (De Oratore). Trans. & Ed., James M.
May & Jakob Wisse. New York: Oxford University Press.
Either:
Cole, T. (1991). The origins of rhetoric in ancient Greece. Johns Hopkins University
Press, or
Schiappa, E. (1999). The beginnings of rhetorical theory in classical Greece.
Yale University Press.
Connors, R. (1997). Composition-rhetoric: Backgrounds, theory, and pedagogy.
University of Pittsburgh Press.
Crosswhite, J. (1996). The rhetoric of reason: Writing and the attractions
of argument. University of Wisconsin Press.
Cushman, E., Kintgen, G., Kroll, B., & Rose, M. et al. (2001). Literacy:
A critical sourcebook. Boston:Bedford/St. Martin’s Press.
Delpit, L. (1986). Skills and other dilemmas of a progressive black educator.
Harvard Educational Review, 56, 379-385.
Dixon, J. (1967). Growth through English. London: Oxford University Press.
Also available http://education.nyu.edu/teachlearn/research/ncrll/Dixon.pdf.
Elbow, P. (1986). Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford.
Emig, J. (1971). The composing processes of twelfth graders. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Freire, P. (1962). Pedagogy of the oppressed. Trans. M. Bergman Ramos. New
York: Seabury.
Either:
Geisler, C. (1994). Academic literacy and the nature of expertise:
Reading, writing, and knowing in academic philosophy. Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum
OR
Prior, P. (1998). Writing/disciplinarity: A sociohistoric account
of literate activity in the academy. Mahwah NJ: Lawrence
Gilyard, K. (1999). Race, rhetoric, and composition. Heinemann.
Glenn, C. (1997). Rhetoric retold: Regendering the tradition. Southern Illinois
University Press.
Halliday, M. A. K. (1978). Language as social semiotic: The social interpretation
of language and meaning. Baltimore: University Park Press.
Hawisher, G. & Selfe, C. (Eds.) (1999). Passions, pedagogies, and 21st
century technologies. Logan: Utah State University Press.
Heath, S. B. (1983). Ways with words: Language, life, and work in communities
and classrooms. Cambridge University Press.
Herrington, Anne J., and Curtis, M.(2000). Persons in process: Four stories
of writing and personal development in college. Urbana, IL: National Council
of Teachers of English.
hooks, bell (1994) Teaching to transgress. Education as the practice of freedom.
London: Routledge.
Jarratt, S. C. (1991). Rereading the sophists: Classical rhetoric refigured.
Southern Illinois University Press.
Jarratt, S. C. & Worsham, L. (Eds.) (1998). Feminism and composition studies.
New York: MLA Press.
Johnson, N. (1991). Nineteenth-century rhetoric in North America. Carbondale:
Southern Illinois University Press.
Kennedy, G. (1999). Classical rhetoric and its Christian and secular traditions.
(Second Edition). University of North Carolina Press.
Miller, Thomas. (1997). The formation of college English: Rhetoric and belles
lettres in the British cultural provinces. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh
Press.
Ohmann, R. (1976). English in America: A radical view of the profession. New
York: Oxford University Press.
Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The new rhetoric: A treatise
on argumentation. Trans. J. Wilkinson & P. Weaver. University of Notre
Dame Press.
Plato. (1952). Gorgias. Trans. W. C. Helmbold. New York: Macmillan. And (1952).
Phaedrus. Trans. R. Hackforth. Cambridge University Press.
Ritchie, J. & Ronald, K. (2001). Available means: An anthology of women's
rhetoric(s). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Royster, Jacqueline Jones. Traces of a stream: Literacy and social change among
African American women. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2000.
Scribner, S. & Cole, M. (1981). The Psychology of Literacy. Harvard University
Press
Shaughnessy, M. (1977). Errors and expectations. London: Oxford University
Press.
Smitherman, G. (1977). Talkin and testifyin: The language of Black America.
Detroit: Wayne State University Press.
Street, Brian.(2001). Literacy and development: Ethnographic perspectives.
New York: Routledge.
Villanueva, V., Jr. (Ed.) (1997). Cross-talk in comp theory. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Villanueva, V., Jr. (2003). Bootstraps: From an American academic of color.
Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.
Vygotsky, L. (1962). Thought and language. MIT Press; and Mind in society.
(1978). Harvard University Press.
a) Critical Theory
Althusser, "Ideology and Ideological State Apparatuses" (in
Lenin and Philosophy)
Bourdieu, Outline of a Theory of Practice
Bakhtin, Dialogic Imagination; Art and Answerability
Barthes, S/Z
Benjamin, "The Task of the Translator" (in Illuminations)
Butler, Bodies that Matter
Cixous, The Laugh of the Medusa
De Man, Blindness and Insight, Resistance to Theory
Derrida, The Post Card
Eco, The Role of the Reader
Eagleton, Walter Benjamin
Fish, Doing what comes Naturally
Foucault, Language, Countermemory, Practice
Gadamer, Truth and Method
Gates, Figures in Black
Geertz, The Interpretation of Culture
Genette, Figures of Literary Discourse
Gross, The Rhetoric of Science
Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere
Harding, "Rethinking Standpoint Epistemology: What is Strong Objectivity?" (in
Centennial Review [fall 1992]: 437-70)
Heidegger, "The Origin of the Work of Art" (in Poetry, Language,
Thought)
Haraway, Simians, Cyborgs, Women
hooks, Teaching to Transgress
Hymes, The Ethnography of Speaking
Irigaray, The Speculum of the Other Woman
Iser, The Implied Reader
Jauss, Towards an Aesthetics of Reception
Jakobson, "Two Aspects of Language...." (in On Language)
Johnson, The Critical Difference, "Writing" (in Lentricchia, Critical
Terms for Literary Study)
Kant, "Analytic of the Sublime" (in Crtique of Judgment)
Kristeva, Desire in Language, "Psychoanalysis and the Polis" (in
The Kristeva Reader)
Lacan, Ecrits
Lemon and Reis (eds.), Russian Formalism
Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
Marks and de Courtivron, New French Feminisms
Medvedev, The Formal Method in Literary Scholarship
Miller, S. (1989). Rescuing the Subject: A Critical Introduction to Rhetoric
and the Writer. Southern Illinois UP.
Minh-ha, Woman, Native, Other
Neel, Plato, Derrida, and Writing
Nussbaum, Love's Knowledge
Ong, The Presence of the Word
Phelps, Composition as a Human Science
Pratt, Toward a Speech Act Theory of Literary Discourse
Rorty, Contingency, Irony, Solidarity
Spivak, Outside in the Teaching Machine
Simons, The Rhetorical Turn
White, Metahistory
Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations
Worsham, "The Question Concerning Invention: Hermeneutics and the Genesis
of Writing" (in Pre/Text 8 [1987]: 197-244)
b) Discourse
Atkinson, J. M., Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1984). Structures of social
action: Studies in conversation analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press
Barton, E. and Stygall, G. (Eds.). (2001). Discourse studies in composition.
Hampton Press.
Biber, D. (1988). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Cazden, C. (1988). Classroom discourse: The language of teaching
and learning. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Chafe, W. (1998). Language and the flow of thought. In M. Tomasello
(Ed.), The new psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches
to language structure ( 93- 112). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Coulthard, M. (1977). An introduction to discourse analysis. London:
Longman.
Drew, P., Heritage, J. (Eds.). (1992) Talk at work: Interaction in
institutional settings. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Duranti, A. (1994). From grammar to politics. Berkeley: University
of California Press.
Engeström, Y., & Middletown, D. (1996). Cognition and communication
at work. Cambridge & New York : Cambridge University Press.
Garfinkel, H. (1967). Studies in ethnomethodology. Englewood Cliffs:
Prentice Hall.
Gee, J. (1999). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and
method. New York: Routledge.
Goodwin, M. H. (1990). He-said-she-said: Talk as social organization
among Black children. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Grice, H. P. (1975 [1967]). Logic and conversation. In P. Cole & J.
L. Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts ( 41-58). New
York: Academic Press.
Gumperz, J. (1982). Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Gumperz, J., & Hymes, D. (Eds). (1972) Directions in sociolinguistics:
The ethnography of communication. New York: Rinehart & Winston
Halliday, M.A.K. & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London:
Longman.
Heath, C., & Luff, P. (2000). Documents and professional practice:
'Bad' organizational reasons for 'good' clinical records. In C. Heath & P.
Luff (Eds.) Technology in action. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Heritage, J. (1984a). Garfinkel and ethnomethodology. Cambridge:
Polity Press
Hopper, P. (1998). Emergent grammar. In M. Tomasello (Ed.), The new
psychology of language: Cognitive and functional approaches to language
structure ( 67-92). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jefferson, G. (1978a). Sequential aspects of story telling in conversation.
In J. N. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational
interaction ( 213-48). New York: Academic Press.
Kitzinger, C. (2000). 'Doing feminist conversation analysis.' Feminism
and Psychology, 10, 163-93.
Markova, I., & Foppa, K. (1990). The dynamics of dialogue. New
York: Harvester Wheat sheaf.
Markova, I., & Foppa, K. (1991). Asymmetries in dialogue. Savage,
MD: Barnes & Noble Books.
Markova, I., Graumann, C., & Foppa, K. (1995). Mutualities in
dialogue. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mehan, H. (1979). Learning lessons: Social organization in the classroom.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Moerman, M. (1988). Talking culture: Ethnography and conversation
analysis. Philadelphia: University of Philadelphia Press.
Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development: Language acquisition
and language socialization in a Samoan village. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press.
Ochs, E., Schegloff, E., Thompson, S. (Eds.). (1996). Interaction
and grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
Pennycook, A. (2001). Critical applied linguistics: A critical introduction.
Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.
Rommetveit, R. (1974). On message structure: A framework for the
study of language and communication. London: Wiley.
Sacks, H., Schegloff, E., & Jefferson, G. (1978). A simplest
systematics for the organization of turn taking for conversation.
In J. Schenkein (Ed.), Studies in the organization of conversational
interaction ( 7-55). New York: Academic Press.
Schegloff, E. (1982). Discourse as an interactional achievement:
some uses of "uh huh" and other things that come between
sentences. In D. Tannen (Ed.), Analyzing discourse: Text and talk
(71-93). (Georgetown University Roundtable on Languages and Linguistics).
Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
Schegloff, E. (1986). The routine as achievement, Human Studies,
9, 111-52.
Schegloff, E. (1988a). Goffman and the analysis of conversation.
In P. Drew & A. Wootton (Eds.), Erving Goffman: Exploring the
interaction order (89-135). Cambridge: Polity Press.
Schegloff, E. (1993). Reflections on quantification in the study
of conversation. Research on Language and Social Interaction, 26,
99-128
Schegloff, E., & Sacks, H. (1973) Opening up closings, Semiotica,
8, 289-327.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Stubbs, M. (1983). Discourse analysis: The sociolinguistic analysis
of natural language. Oxford: B. Blackwell.
van Dijk, Teun (Ed.) 1997. Discourse Studies. Volumes 1-2. London:
Sage. 1 Discourse as Structure and Function 2 Discourse as Social
Interaction Wold, A. H. (Ed.), The dialogical alternative: Towards
a theory of language and mind. Oslo: The University Press in cooperation
with Oxford University Press, London.
Zuengler, J. And J. Mori (eds.) (2002). Microanalysis of classroom
discourse: A critical consideration of methods. Special issue of Applied
Linguistics 23(3), Fall.
c) Literacy
Barton, David. Literacy: An Introduction to the Ecology of Written
Language. Cambridge, Mass: Blackwell, 1994.
Boone, Elizabeth and Walter Mignolo, Eds. Writing Without Words.
Durham: Duke University Press, 1994.
Sarah Beck and Leslie Olah (Eds.) Perspectives on Language and Literacy:
Beyond the Here and Now. Cambridge: Harvard Educational Review, 2001.
Bernstein, Basil. Class, Codes and Control, Volume 1. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul, 1971.
Besnier, Niko. Literacy, Emotion and Authority. New York: Cambridge
University Press, 1995.
Boyarin, Jonathan, ed. The Ethnography of Reading. Berkeley: U. of
California Press, 1993.
Canagarajah, Suresh. Resisting Linguistic Imperialism in English
Teaching. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Cavallo, Gugliemo and Roger Chartier. A History of Reading in the
West. Oxford: Polity Press, 1999.
Cintron, Ralph. Angels' Town. Boston: Beacon Press, 1997.
Clancy, Michael. From Memory to Written Record. Oxford: Blackwell,
1993.
Cook-Gumperz, Jenny. The Social Construction of Literacy. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Collins, James. "Literacy and Literacies." Annual Review
of Anthropology 24 (1995): 75- 93.
Cope, Bill & Mary Kalantzas, Ed. Multiliteracies. New York: Routledge,
2000.
Cornelius, Janet. 'When I Can Read My Title Clear': Literacy, Slavery,
and Religion in the Antebellum South. Columbia: University of South
Carolina Press, 1991.
Dyson, Anne Haas. Writing Superheroes. New York: Teachers College
Press, 1997.
Di Sessa, Andrea A. Changing Minds: Computers, Learning and Literacy.
Cambridge: MIT Press, 2000.
Eisenstein, Elizabeth. The Printing Press as an Agent of Change.
New York: Cambridge University Press, 1979.
Farr, Marcia. "Essayist Literacy and Other Verbal Peformances." Written
Communication 8 (1993): 4-38.
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of Freedom. Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield,
1998.
Freire, Paulo and Donaldo Macedo. Literacy: Reading the Word and
the World. South Hadley, Mass: Bergin and Garvey, 1987.
Gere, Anne. Intimate Practices. Urbana: University of Illinois Press,
1997.
Gere, Anne. "Kitchen Tables and Rented Rooms: The Extracurriculum
of Composition." College Composition and Communication 45 (1996):
75-92.
Gillmore, William J. Reading Becomes a Necessity of Life. Knoxville:
University of Tennessee Press, 1989.
Goelman, Hillel, et al. Awakening to Literacy. Exeter, NH: Heinemann,
1982.
Gonzalez, Norma and Luis Moll. "Funds of Knowledge for Teaching
in Latino Households." Urban Education, 29 (19950: 443-470.
Goody, Jack. The Logic of Writing and the Organization of Society.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986.
Goody, Jack. "Technologies of the Intellect." The Power
of the Written Tradition. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institute,
2000.
Graff, Harvey J. The Literacy Myth. New York: Academic Press, 1979.
Hall, David. Cultures of Print. University of Massachusetts Press,
1996.
Harris, Willaim V. Ancient Literacy. Harvard University Press, 1989.
Havelock, Eric. The Literate Revolution in Greece and Its Cultural
Consequences. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982.
Herrington, Anne and Marie Curtis. Persons in Process. Urbana: NCTE,
2000.
Hull, Glynda, (Ed.) Changing Work: Changing Workers. Albany: State
University of New York Press, 1997.
Kirsch, Irwin S. et al. Adult Literacy in America. Washington, D.C.:
OERI, 1993.
Lee, Carol D. and Peter Smagorinsky. Vygotskian Perspectives on Literacy
Research. New York: Cambridge, 2000.
Lepore, Jill. A is for American: Letters and Other Characters in
the Newly United States. New York: Knopf, 2002.
Mignolo, Walter D. The Darker Side of the Renaissance: Literacy,
Territoriality and Colonialization. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan
Press, 1995.
Olson, David R. The World on Paper. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1994.
Purcell-Gates, Victoria. Other People's Words. Cambridge, Ma.: Harvard
University Press, 1995.
Resnick, Daniel P. (Ed.). Literacy in Historical Perspective. Washington,
D.C.: Library of Congress, 1983.
Royster, Jacqueline Jones. Traces of a Stream: Literacy and Social
Change Among African American Women. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh
Press, 2000.
Soltow, Lee and Edward Stevens. The Rise of Literacy and the Common
School in the United States. Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1981.
Stock, Brian. Implications of Literacy. Princeton: Princeton Univeresity
Press, 1983.
Street, Brian. Literacy and Development: Ethnographic Perspectives.
New York: Routledge, 2001.
Street, Brian. Social Literacies. Addison-Wesley, 1995.
Vygotsky, Lev. Mind in Society. Cambridge: Harvard University Press,
1978.
Wagner, Daniel, Richard Venezsky and Brian Street (Eds.). Literacy:
An International Handbook. Boulder: Westview Press, 1999.
d) Pedagogy
Applebee, Curriculum as conversation
Atwell, In the middle
Bartholomae & Petrosky, Facts, artifacts and counterfacts
Berlin, Rhetorics, Poetics and Cultures
Brereton, The origins of composition studies in the American college,
1875-1925
Bruffee, "Collaborative learning and the conversation of mankind," CE,
46 (1984): 635- 52
Bruner, Acts of meaning
Bullock & Schuster, Politics of writing instruction
Cazden, Classroom discourse
Connors, et al. Esssays in classical rhetoric and modern discourse
Corbett and Connors, Classical rhetoric for the modern student
Crowley, Composition in the university
Dewey, Democracy and education
Dewey, The child and the curriculum
Dyson, Writing superheroes
Elbow, Everyone can write
Emig, Web of meaning
Flower, Problem solving strategies for writing
Fox, Social uses of writing
Freire, Pedagogy of Freedom
Fulkerson, Teaching the argument in writing
Kimball, Orators and philosophers: A history of the idea of liberal
education
Gilligan, In a Different Voice
Gilyard, Race, rhetoric and composition
Graff, Professing literature
Grumet, Bitter Milk: Women and teaching
Herrington & Curtis, Persons in process
Hillocks, Ways of thinking, ways of teaching
hooks,Teaching to transgress
Horner and Lu, Representing the other
Horton and Freire, We make the road by walking
Kent, Post-process theory
Lave & Wenger, Situated learning
Macrorie, Telling writing
Marrou, History of education in antiquity or Clark, Rhetoric in Greco-Roman
education
Mehan, Learning lessons
Moll, Vygostky and Education
Petraglia, Reconceiving writing: rethinking writing instruction
Quintilian, Institutes of oratory
Resnick, ed. Knowing, learning and instruction: Essays in honor of
Robert Glaser
Rose, Lives on the boundary
Roskelly and Ronald, Reason to believe
Shon, The reflective oractitioner
Sternglass, Time to know them Wells, Dialogic inquiry
Wertsch, The concept of activity in Soviet psychology
White, E. Teaching and assessing writing
Young, Becker & Pike, Rhetoric: Discovery and change
e) Rhetoric
anonymous, Rhetorica ad Herrenium.
Aristotle, Poetics; Ethics; Politics; Topics.
Augustine, On Christian Doctrine
Bacon, The Advancement of Learning.
Bain, English Composition and Rhetoric (in Bizzell & Herzberg,
The Rhetorical Tradition, Part Four)
Berlin, J. (1984). Writing Instruction in l9th-Century American Colleges.
Southern Illinois UP.
Booth, W. (1974). Modern Dogma and the Rhetoric of Assent. U of Chicago
P.
Burke, K. (1945). A Grammar of Motives. U of California P.
Cole, T. (1991). The Origins of Rhetoric in Ancient Greece. Johns
Hopkins UP.
Covino, W. (1988). The Art of Wondering: A Revisionist Return to
the History of Rhetoric. Boynton/Cook.
D'Angelo, F. (1975). . Cambridge, MA: Winthrop.
DeMan, P. (1979). Allegories of Reading. Yale UA Conceptual Theory
of RhetoricP.
Eagleton, T. (1981). "A Short History of Rhetoric" in Walter
Benjamin. London: Verso
Enos, T., & Brown, S. (Eds.) (1994). Professing the New Rhetorics:
A Sourcebook. Prentice Hall.
Fish, S. (1989). "Rhetoric," "Change" in Doing
What Comes Naturally. Duke UP.
Foss, S. Foss, K., & Trapp, R.. (1991). Contemporary perspectives
on rhetoric. Waveland P.
Garver, E. (1994). Aristotle's Rhetoric: An Art of Character. U of
Chicago P.
Genette, G. (1982). Figures of Literary Discourse. Columbia UP.
Gilman, S., Blair, C., & Parent, D. (Eds.). (1989). Friedrich
Nietzsche on Rhetoric and Language. Oxford.
Glenn, C. (1997). Rhetoric Retold: Regendering the Tradition. Southern
Illinois UP.
Gross, A., & Keith, W. (Eds.) (1997). Rhetorical Hermeneutics.
State U of New York P.
Gross, A., & Walzer, A. (Eds.) (2000). Rereading Aristotle's
Rhetoric. Southern Illinois UP.
Habermas, J. (1989). Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere.
MIT P.
Havelock, E. (1963). Preface to Plato. Harvard UP.
Howell, W. (1956). Logic and Rhetoric in England, 1500-1700. Princeton
UP.
Isocrates, Against the Sophists; Antidosis.
Kennedy. G. (1998). Comparative Rhetoric. Oxford UP.
Kerferd, G. (1981). The Sophistic Movement. Cambridge UP. or De Romilly,
J. (1992). The Great Sophists in Periclean Athens. Clarendon P.
Kimball, B. (1986). Orators & philosophers: A history of the
idea of liberal education. Teachers College P.
Kinneavy, J. (1971). A Theory of Discourse. Prentice-Hall.
Kitzhaber, A. (1990). Rhetoric in American Colleges, 1850-1900. Southern
Methodist UP.
Lanham, R. (1976). The Motives of Eloquence: Literary Rhetoric in
the Renaissance. Yale UP.
Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding
Lucaites, J., Condit, C., & Caudill, S. (1999). Contemporary
Rhetorical Theory: A Reader. Guilford.
Mailloux, S. (1989). Rhetorical power. Cornell UP.
Marrou, H. (1956). A History of Education in Antiquity. New York:
Sheed and Ward.
Miller, S. (1989). Rescuing the Subject: A Critical Introduction
to Rhetoric and the Writer. Southern Illinois UP.
Murphy, J. (1974). The Art of Rhetoric in the Middle Ages. U of California
P.
Christine de Pisan, The Treasure of the City of Ladies
Ober, J. (1989). Mass and Elite in Democratic Athens. Princeton UP.
Quintilian, Institutes of Oratory
Ramus, Arguments in Rhetoric Against Quintillian; or Ong, W. J. (1958).
Ramus, method, and the decay of dialogue. Harvard UP.
Richards, I. A. (1936). The Philosophy of Rhetoric. Oxford UP.
Schiappa, E. (1999). The Beginnings of Rhetorical Theory in Classical
Greece. Yale UP.
Seigel, J. (1968). Rhetoric and Philosophy in Renaissance Humanism.
Princeton UP.
Sidney, "An Apology for Poetry"
Sloane, T. (1997). On the Contrary: The Protocol of Traditional Rhetoric.
Catholic U of America P.
Vickers, B. (1988). In Defense of Rhetoric. Clarendon.
Weaver, R. (1953). The Ethics of Rhetoric. Regnery/Gateway
Young, R., Becker, A., & Pike, K. (1970). Rhetoric: Discovery
and Change. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
f) Semiotics
Definitions of the Field
Chandler, D. (2001). Semiotics: The basics. Routledge.
Benveniste, E. (1971). Problems in general linguistics. (M. E. Meek,
Trans.). Coral Gables, Fla.: University of Miami Press.
Withalm, G. (1988). Depictions-reflections-perspectives. Semiotica,
69, 149-78.
Historiography/Historical Overviews
Deely, J. N. (1982). Introducing semiotic: Its history and doctrine.Bloomington:
Indiana University Press.
Nöth, W. (1990). Handbook of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Morris, C. W. (1970). Foundations of the theory of signs. Chicago:
University Press Semiotics Ancient through Enlightenment
Aristotle. On interpretation. (E. M. Edghill, Trans.) [On-line],
Available: http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/interpretation.sum.html
Dascal, M. (1987). Leibniz: Language, signs, and thought. Amsterdam:
Benjamins.
Eco, U., & Constantino, M. (Eds.). (1989). On the medieval theory
of signs. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Locke, J. (1973). An essay concerning human understanding. London:
Collins.
Ogden, C. K. & Richards, I. A. (1946). The meaning of meaning:
A study of the influence of language upon thought and of the science
of symbolism (8th edition, rev.). New York: Harcourt, Brace & co.
O'Mahoney, B. E. (1964). A medieval semantic. Laurentianum, 5, 448-86.
Plato. (1998) Cratylus (C. D. C. Reeve, Trans). Indianapolis: Hackett.
Poinsot, J. (1985). Tractatus de signis (J. N. Deely, Ed. and Trans.).
Berkeley: University of California Press.
Vico, G. (1984). The new science (T. G. Bergin & M. H. Fish,
Trans. of the 3rd edition of 1744). Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Modern Semiotics
Callaghan, W. J. (1986).Charles Sanders Peirce: His general theory
of signs. Semiotica, 61, 123-61.
Husserl, E. (1970). On the logic of signs. In E. Husserl, Gesammelte
Werke, Vol. 12 (pp. 340-73). The Hague: Nijhoff.
Morris, C. W. (1971). Writings on the general theory of signs. The
Hague: Mouton.
Peirce, C. S. (1991). Peirce on signs: Writings on semiotic (J. Hoopes,
Ed.). Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.
Saussure, F. de. (1969). Course in general linguistics (W. Baskin,
Trans.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
Shannon, C. E., Weaver, W. (1949). The mathematical theory of communication.
Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
Russian Formalism, Prague School Semiotics, and Structuralism
Eco, U. (1977). The influence of Roman Jakobson on the development
of semiotics. In D. Armstrong & C. H. van Schooneveld (Eds.),
Roman Jakobson: Echoes of his scholarship (pp. 39-58). Lisse: de Ridder.
Galan, F. W. (1984). Historic structures: the Prague School project,
1928-1946. Austin: University of Texas Press.
Hjelmslev, L. (1961). Prolegomena to a theory of language. Madison:
University of Wisconsin Press.
Jakobson, R. (1985). Verbal art, verbal sign, verbal time. Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
Jameson, F. (1972). The prison-house of language: A critical account
of structuralism. Princeton: University Press.
Lemon, L.T. & Reis, M. J. (Eds. And Trans.) (1965). Russian formalist
criticism; four essays. Lincoln, University of Nebraska Press.
Mukarovský, J. (1978). Structure, sign, and function. New
Haven: Yale University Press.
Text Semiotics and Post Structuralism
Barthes, R. (1967). Elements of semiology. London: Cape.
Derrida, J. (1976). Of grammatology. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University
Press.
Genette, G. (1982). Figures of literary discourse. (A. Sheridan,
Trans.). New York: Columbia University Press.
Greimas, A. J. & Courtés, J. (1982). Semiotics and language.
Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Kristeva, J. (1980). Desire in language: A semiotic approach to literature
and art. New York: Columbia University Press.
Dialogism and Sociocultural Theory
Lotman, Y. M. (1990). Universe of the mind: A semiotic theory of
culture. A. Shukman, Trans. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
Rommetveit, R. (1974). On message structure: A framework for the
study of language and communication. London: Wiley.
Vološinov, V. N. (1973). Marxism and the philosophy of language.
Ladislav Matejka and I. R. Titunik, trans. New York: Seminar Press.
Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach
to mediated action. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,1991.
Astri Heen Wold (Ed.). (1992). The dialogical alternative: Towards
a theory of language and mind. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.
Contemporary Semiotics and Philosophy
Eco, U. (1979). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University
Press.
Langer, S. (1942). Philosophy in a new key: A study in the symbolism
of reason, rite, and art. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Parret, H. (1983). Semiotics and pragmatics. Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Sebeok, T. A. (1991). A sign is just a sign. Bloomington: Indiana
University Press.
Todorov, T. (1983). Symbolism and interpretation. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul.
Applied Semiotics
Coppock, Patrick (Ed.). (2002). The semiotics of writing: Transdisciplinary
perspectives on the technology of writing. Turnhout: Brepols.
Goodwin, C. (1986). Gestures as a resource for the organization of
mutual orientation. Semiotica, 62(1/2), 29-49.
Kress, G. (1997). Before writing: Rethinking the paths to literacy.
London: Routledge.
Medway, P. (1996). Virtual and material buildings: Construction and
constructivism in architecture and writing. Written Communication,
13, 472-514.
Mertz, E., & Parmentier, R. J. (Eds.). (1985). Semiotic mediation.
Orlando: Academic Press.
Schmandt-Besserat, D. (1997). How writing came about. Austin: University
of Texas Press.
Witte, S. P. (1992). Context, text, intertext: Toward a constructivist
semiotic of writing. Written Communication, 9, 237-308.
 |
Last
Updated: December 3, 2006
For any questions, including accessibility issues, contact the Web
Administrator
Best if viewed at 800x600 or !higher!
|
|
