COM 462: Seminar in Communication Theory:
Sticks and Stones: All About Symbols
Spring 2016
Wednesdays 6:30 p.m. – 9:20 p.m.
Fell 112
Instructor: Phil Chidester Phone: 438-7746 (office)
Office: Fell 465
Office Hours: 10-12 MWF, 5:30-6:30 WTR Email:
And by appointment
Course Texts:
A single text that offers both an in-depth exploration of the development of theories on symbolic representation and an examination of contemporary applications of such theories across multiple communication contexts simply does not exist in the literature. As a result, in order to learn how human societies have come to understand the ever-shifting relationship between the symbolic and the material, we must look at a number of individual articles and chapters that together give some shape to the communicative function and power of the symbol. I have prepared PDF files of thoseassigned materials that aren’t readily available online, and will make them available to you via e-mail as the semester proceeds. I have also included complete reference information for all of the semester’s reading materials in this syllabus, so you may access the other articles online or through other means if you prefer. I will also be assigning additional readings to individuals and teams throughout the semester; more information on these assignments is included below.
Course Objectives:
As communication scholars, we have a tendency to treat symbols – verbal language, nonverbal cues, visual images, musical sounds, and a whole range of other types of representations – as nothing more than tools, as the means we’re forced to employ in order to effectively share meanings with each other. We are generally much more interested in exploring the ends that we achieve through using these symbolic tools: better interpersonal relationships, more effective persuasive messages, greater productivity and contentment at the workplace. So what could we possibly gain by pausing for a moment (or a semester) and considering the tools themselves: how they function, why they function, and why we make the specific choices we do when we turn to them in our times of communicative need?
Entire generations of philosophers and theorists disagree broadly over precisely how symbols function, but they’re definitely one in arguing that symbols are much, much more than simple tools. Saussure contends that language becomes an essential part of the material objects it represents; Heidegger goes even further, concluding that the symbol is central to Being itself (in other words, in a nod back to Proseminar, epistemology and axiology ARE ontology). And for Burke, the symbol is a form of action; a verbal assault is no different from actually swinging a baseball bat. This course has been designed to trace and explore these and other scholars’ arguments in an effort to reveal the power and influence at the heart of our most basic materials of communication. We will follow the evolution of human thought when it comes to the symbol, from its role as a simple representative of the physical world through its function as a filter for our material experiences and, finally, on to a more contemporary understanding of language as a social structure that defines its membership and reinforces patterns of domination and subordination. Along the way, we’ll touch base with scholars and theories and traditions that have contributed in powerful ways to this evolution: these will include functionalism and structuralism, Saussure and Heidegger and Sartre, constructivism and speech act theory and persuasion, Foucault and Derrida. And because we are all, in the end, communication scholars ourselves, the goal will be not only to understand the symbol at a much more fundamental level, but to use this understanding to be better communicators – in our relationships, at the workplace, in the media messages we create and interpret.
Exploring and answering these and other vital concepts and applications will be the focus of this course, with the intent of both enhancing students’ facility with various communication theories and of fostering a more fundamental understanding of the relationship between the symbolic and the material within the communication context. Classroom discussions, activities and assignments have been specifically designed to achieve these objectives.
Course Preparation and Attendance:
As a master’s level seminar, this course is highly dependent upon you as the student for its ultimate success. While much of your learning through the semester will come from your own efforts at reading and writing, a dynamic classroom environment will also add much to your knowledge and understanding of the subject we are exploring. As the course instructor, my role is not that of a lecturer, but rather of a facilitator – one who raises questions and directs the conversation. In other words, I am depending on you as students to be ready to share your informed opinions on the assigned topics, to seek consensus in a mature, cooperative way, and to “agree to disagree” when multiple perspectives persist. To ensure that such a discussion can take place, it is of utmost importance that you attend each class session, and that you come prepared to contribute to the discussion.
Late Work Policy
It is expected that all written and oral work for this course will be turned in or presented on the day that it is due and that it will represent your highest possible effort in quality. Late assignments will not be accepted; any exceptions are at the discretion of the instructor and must be arranged ahead of time.
Special Needs
Any student needing to arrange a reasonable accommodation for a documented disability should contact Disability Concerns at 350 Fell Hall, 438-5853 (voice), or 438-8620 (TTY).
Course Assignments
Assignments for the semester will include the following:
1. Paper – A journal-length article dealing with some aspect of symbol use within a communication context. Possible topics might include a mythic analysis of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign rhetoric; a conversation analysis focusing on the language used in breakups in romantic relationships; or a study of the metaphors used in the workplace to encourage group identity. The paper will be written and submitted in three parts: a literature review, a description/method section and an analysis/discussion section. The final paper (a revised manuscript combining the three sections) will be due the final week of the semester. More specific information on the paper will be provided later in the semester.
2. Propositions – In order to encourage your reading of the course materials, I will from time to time assign “propositions” on given articles or book chapters. A proposition is not a summary of the material, but rather a short (one sentence) “observation” on the reading – an argument against the writer’s conclusion, an unusual or unexpected application of the author’s findings, etc. Propositions should be typed and ready to turn in at the beginning of class; you should also be ready to discuss and defend your proposition to the other students.
3. Additional Readings – Throughout the semester, I will assign individuals or pairs to read an article or book chapter and present that information to the rest of the class, focusing on those theories or findings that most directly apply to our study of media representations. Handouts are a helpful but not required element of your presentation.
4. Attendance and Participation – Being an active member of a master’s seminar is crucial to the learning experience. Therefore, a good share of my assessment of your performance will be based on your attendance and involvement in our classroom discussions.
5. Symbol Awareness – Finally, the most effective means of understanding the vital relationship between the material and the symbolic is to pay close attention to the ways in which symbols are presented – and manipulated – in your day-to-day experiences. I will be constantly encouraging you to share and discuss your observations, and to bring examples to class from time to time so you can share them with your classmates. We will also engage in some in-class “analyzing sessions” to practice the analysis skills we learn about in our discussions.
Course Grading:Grading Scale:
Literature Review: _____100540-600 points = A
Description:_____100480-539 points = B
Analysis_____100420-479 points = C
Final Paper:_____200560-419 points = D
Propositions, Additional Readings<419 points = F
and Participation: _____100
Total Points Possible:_____600
Tentative Class Calendar and Readings:
January 13Course Introduction: What Does It Mean To Symbolize?
January 20How Do Symbols “Work?”
Alp, K.O. (2010). A comparison of sign and symbol (their contents and boundaries). Semiotica, 182(1), 1-13.
Lee, Y. (2008). Application of Peircean symbol to symbol-mediated dialogic interpreting activity. Semiotica, 169(1), 107-133.
Epure, M., Eisenstat, E., & Dinu, C. (2014). Semiotics and persuasion in marketing communication. Linguistic and Philosophical Investigations, 13, 592-605.
Hinshelwood, R. D. (2015). Words and calls: The unconscious in communication. Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication, 6(2), 127-139.
January 27Burke and Language As Symbolic Action
Burke, K. (1966). Definition of man. In Language as symbolic action:
Essays on life, literature and method (pp. 3-24). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Burke, K. (1966). Terministic screens. In Language as symbolic action: Essays on life, literature and method (pp. 44-62). Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Appel, E. C. (1993). Implications and importance of the negative in Burke’s dramatistic philosophy of language. Communication Quarterly, 41(1), 51-65.
February 3Literal vs Figurative Symbols
Kapitany, A., & Kapitany, G. (2008). Did the gods go crazy? Emergence and symbols (a few laws in the symbolism of objects). Semiotica, 170(1), 97-123.
Lewis, T. V. (2013). Religious rhetoric in southern college football: New uses for religious metaphors. Southern Communication Journal, 78(3), 202-214.
Chidester, P. (2009). A metaphorical mansion on the hill (from book
proposal submitted to Routledge).
Macagno, F., & Zavatta, B. (2014). Argumentation, 28, 453-488.
February 10Quantitative Approaches To Symbol Study
Nevile, M., & Rendle-Short, J. (2009). A conversation analysis view of communication as jointly accomplished social interaction: An unsuccessful proposal for a social visit. Australian Journal of Linguistics, 29(1), 75-89.
King, K.A. (2013). A tale of three sisters: Language ideologies, identities, and negotiations in a bilingual, transnational family. International Multilingual Research Journal, 7, 49-65.
Tilney, M. (2015). Keeping the upper-hand: Pragmatic techniques in the media interview. Critical Approaches to Discourse Analysis Across Disciplines, 7(2), 180-199.
Grant, D., & Iedema, R. (2005). Discourse analysis and the study of organizations. Text, 25(1), 37-66.
February 17Rhetorical Approaches To Symbol Study
Pennington, D. (2011). The “rhetorical situation” as mediator in the
response of African Americans to perceptions of terrorism: Condoleezza
Rice as symbol. Howard Journal of Communications, 22, 123-139.
Wolfe, A. S., Loy, M., & Chidester, P. (2009). Mass communication and
identity construction: Theory and a case study of song-recordings by a
popular musician. Journalism & Communication Monographs, 11(1), 67-
113.
Dubrofsky, R. (2006). The Bachelor: Whiteness in the harem. Critical
Studies in Media Communication, 23(1), 39-56.
February 24LITERATURE REVIEW DUE!
Critical Approaches To Symbol Study
Perry, K. M. E., & Kang, H. H. (2012). When symbols clash: Legitimacy, legality and the 2010 Winter Olympics. Mass Communication and Society, 15, 578-597.
Musolff, A. (2012). Special feature: The study of metaphor as part of critical discourse analysis. Critical Discourse Studies, 9(3), 301-310.
Conradie, M. (2011). Constructing femininity: A critical discourse analysis of Cosmo. Southern African Linguistics and Applied Language Studies, 29(4), 401-417.
McKerrow, R. E. (2011). Foucault’s relationship to rhetoric. The Review of Communication, 11(4), 253-271.
March 2Speech Act Theory
Hamermesh, M. (1981). Sharpening the old saws: Speech-act theory and business communication. Journal of Business Communication, 18(2), 15-22.
Tsohatzidis, S. L. (2010). Speech act theory: Some current options. Intercultural Pragmatics, 7(2), 341-362.
Olmsted, A. P. (1998). Words are acts: Critical race theory as a rhetorical construct. Howard Journal of Communications, 9, 323-331.
Chirrey, D. A. (2003). “I hereby come out”: What sort of speech act is coming out? Journal of Sociolinguistics, 7(1), 24-37.
March 9SPRING BREAK – No Class!
March 16DESCRIPTION/METHOD SECTION DUE!
Speech Act Theory (Cont.)
Lassiter, C. (2013). Implicating without intending on the Gricean account of implicature. Empedocles: European Journal for the Philosophy of Communication, 4(2), 199-215.
Kallia, A. (2004). Linguistic politeness: The implicature approach. Multilingua, 23 (1), 145-169.
Reimer, M. (2013). Grice on irony and metaphor: Discredited by the experimental evidence? International Review of Pragmatics, 5, 1-13.
Meibauer, J. (2011). On lying: Intentionality, implicature, and imprecision. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(2), 277-292.
March 23Symbols In Relationships
Maiz-Arevalo, C., & Garcia-Gomez, A. (2013). “You look terrific!”: Social evaluation and relationships in online compliments. Discourse Studies, 15(6), 735-760.
Potowski, K. (2011). Linguistic and cultural authenticity of “Spanglish” greeting cards. International Journal of Multilingualism, 8(4), 324-344.
Bodie, G. D., & Villaume, W. A. (2008). Men and women holding hands revisited: Effects of mutual engagement and hand dominance on attributions of cross-sex handholding. Communication Research Reports, 25(4), 243-254.
Horan, S. M., & Booth-Butterfield, M. (2013). Understanding the routine expression of deceptive affection in romantic relationships. Communication Quarterly, 61(2), 195-216.
March 30ANALYSIS/DISCUSSION SECTION DUE!
Symbols In the Group
Stone, J. F. (2002). Using symbolic convergence theory to discern and segment motives for enrolling in professional master’s degree programs. Communication Quarterly, 50(2), 227-243.
Endres, T. G. (1997). Father-daughter dramas: A Q-investigation of rhetorical visions. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 25(4), 317-340.
Page, J. T., & Duffy, M. E. (2009). A battle of visions: Dueling images of morality in U.S. political campaign TV ads. Communication, Culture & Critique, 2(1), 110-135.
Burgers, C., Beukeboom, C. J., Kelder, M., & Peeters, M. M. E.. (2015). How sportsfans forge intergroup competition through language: The case of verbal irony. Human Communication Research, 41(3), 435-457.
April 6Symbols In the Organization
Campbell, K. S., Pierson, C., & Naidoo, J. (2015). Responding to hostility: Evidence-based guidance for communication during planned organizational change. Business & Professional Communication Quarterly, 78(2), 197-214.
Hayes, R. A., & Smudde, P. M. (2015). The incident: Not just another organizational disruption. Journal of Public Relations Research, 27(5), 416-430.
Manuti, A., & Mininni, G., (2013). Narrating organizational change: An
applied psycholinguistic perspective on organizational identity. Text &
Talk, 33(2), 13-232.
Williams, E. A., & Connaughton, S. L. (2012). Expressions of
identifications: The nature of talk and identity tensions among
organizational members in a struggling organization. Communication
Studies, 63(4), 457-481.
April 13Symbols In the Culture
Hall, B. J. (2013). Communication, culture, and ethics: Implications for symbol-users and the Golden Rule. China Media Research, 9(2), 102-110.
Chu, S., & Martinson, B. (2003). Cross-cultural comparison of the perception of symbols. Journal of Visual Literacy, 23(1), 69-80.
Kasanga, L. A. (2014). The linguistic landscape: Mobile signs, code choice, symbolic meaning and territoriality in the discourse of protest. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 230, 19-44.
Chidester, P. (2014). “Keep it strapped”: Lil Boosie, Stagger Lee, gangsta rap and authentic blackness as hypermasculinity. Paper presented at the annual convention of the Pop Culture Association of the South/American Culture Association of the South in New Orleans, LA.
April 20Pulling It All Together
April 27FINAL PAPER DUE!
Final Presentations
May 2-6Final TBA: Final Presentations