My qualifying examination reading list

16 Aug

These are the books and collections I must demonstrate expertise in for my PhD exams.
In some cases, I’m only responsible for a few chapters.
There are also dozens of articles, but they are in PDF form on my iPad.

 

(Updated Aug 19 to add picture and correct typos!) Below is the bibliography of the 150 or so books, book chapters, and articles I’m studying for my PhD qualifying exams in spring 2013. I need to pass these exams to be permitted to write my dissertation. The texts are actually divided into four groups, based on the faculty members who will be writing the question and reading my answer for each group: Rhetorical theory (Dr. Berkenkotter); scientific and technical communication (Dr. Breuch); law, language, logic (my specialty; Dr. Schuster); and computational methods (Dr. Pakhomov).

There are two items yet to be worked out, one a selection from Brooks and Gewirtz (for the law, language, logic list), the other a selection on the cognitive status of categories such as text genres (for the rhetorical theory list).

  • Allen, J., & Southard, S. (2002). Identifying and accommodating audiences for technical and professional communication research. In L. J. Gurak & M. M. Lay (Eds.), Research in Technical Communication (pp. 131–148). Praeger Publishers.
  • Anschuetz, L. (2002). Expanding roles for technical communicators. In B. Mirel, R. Spilka, & S. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Reshaping Technical Communication: New Directions and Challenges for the 21st Century (pp. 149–163). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Argamon, S., Koppel, M., Fine, J., & Shimoni, A. R. (2003). Gender, genre, and writing style in formal written texts. Text, 23(3), 321–346.
  • Aristotle. (1975). Categories and De Interpretatione. (J. L. Ackrill, Trans.). Oxford University Press, USA.
  • Aristotle. (1989). Aristotle, Prior Analytics. (R. Smith, Ed.). Hackett Pub Co.
  • Aristotle. (1997a). Sophistical Refutations. In R. Smith (Ed.), Topics. Books I and VIII, with excerpts from related texts. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Aristotle. (1997b). Topics. Books I and VIII, with excerpts from related texts. (R. Smith, Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Aristotle. (2007). On Rhetoric. (G. A. Kennedy, Trans.) (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Aristotle. (2010). Aristotle’s Posterior Analytics. (E. S. Bouchier, Trans.). Kessinger Publishing, LLC.
  • Austin, J. L. (1975). How to Do Things with Words (2nd ed.). Harvard University Press.
  • Baker, K. K. (2005). Gender and emotion in criminal law. Harvard Journal of Law and Gender, 28(2), 447–466.
  • Bandes, S. (1996). Empathy, narrative, and victim impact statements. The University of Chicago Law Review, 63(2), 361–412.
  • Barlowe, J. (1995). Daring to Dialogue: Mary Wollstonecraft’s Rhetoric of Feminist Dialogics. In A. A. Lunsford (Ed.), Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women In The Rhetorical Tradition (pp. 117–136). University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Barton, B. F., & Barton, M. S. (1993). Ideology and the map: Toward a postmodern visual design practice. In N. R. Blyler & C. Thralls (Eds.), Professional Communication: The Social Perspective (pp. 49–78). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Bawarshi, A. S., & Reiff, M. J. (2010). Genre: An Introduction to History, Theory, Research, and Pedagogy. Parlor Press.
  • Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge: The Genre and Activity of the Experimental Article in Science. University of Wisconsin Press.
  • Bazerman, C. (1993). Foreword. In N. R. Blyler & C. Thralls (Eds.), Professional Communication: The Social Perspective (p. vii–x). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Bazerman, C. (1997). Reporting the experiment: The changing account of scientific doings in the philosophical transactions of the Royal Society, 1665-1800. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science: Case Studies, Landmark Essays (pp. 169–186). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Berkenkotter, C. (2002). Analyzing Everyday Texts in Organizational Settings. In L. J. Gurak & M. M. Lay (Eds.), Research in Technical Communication (pp. 47–65). Praeger Publishers.
  • Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1993). You are what you cite: Novelty and intertextuality in a biologist’s experimental article. In N. R. Blyler & C. Thralls (Eds.), Professional Communication: The Social Perspective (pp. 109–127). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Berkenkotter, C., & Huckin, T. N. (1994). Genre Knowledge in Disciplinary Communication: Cognition/culture/power. Routledge.
  • Bernhardt, S. A. (2002). Active-practice: Creating productive tension between academia and industry. In B. Mirel & R. Spilka (Eds.), Reshaping Technical Communication: New Directions and Challenges for the 21st Century (pp. 81–90). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Bhatia, V. K. (1993). Analysing genre: Language use in professional settings. Harlow, Essex, UK: Longman Group UK Ltd.
  • Bitzer, L. (1968). The Rhetorical Situation. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 1(1), 1–14.
  • Blakeslee, Ann M., D. S. (2002). Researching a common ground: Exploring the space where academic and workplace cultures meet. In B. Mirel & R. Spilka (Eds.), Reshaping Technical Communication: New Directions and Challenges for the 21st Century (pp. 41–55). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Blyler, N. (1998). Taking a political turn: The critical perspective and research in professional communication. Technical Communication Quarterly, 7(1), 33–52.
  • Blyler, N. R., & Thralls, C. (1993a). Preface. Professional Communication: The Social Perspective (p. vii–x). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Blyler, N. R., & Thralls, C. (Eds.). (1993b). Professional Communication: The Social Perspective. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Borland, R. (2002). Tales of brave Ulysses. In B. Mirel & R. Spilka (Eds.), Reshaping Technical Communication: New Directions and Challenges for the 21st Century (pp. 189–195). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Bosley, D. S. (2002). Jumping off the ivory tower: Changing the academic perspective. In B. Mirel & R. Spilka (Eds.), Reshaping Technical Communication: New Directions and Challenges for the 21st Century (pp. 27–39). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Breuch, L.-A. K., Olson, A. M., & Frantz, A. (2002). Considering Ethical Issues in Technical Communication Research. In L. J. Gurak & M. M. Lay (Eds.), Research in Technical Communication (pp. 1–22). Praeger Publishers.
  • Brewer, S. (1996). Exemplary Reasoning: Semantics, Pragmatics, and the Rational Force of Legal Argument by Analogy. Harvard Law Review, 109(5), 923–1028.
  • Brooks, P. P., & Gewirtz, P. (Eds.). (1998). Law’s Stories: Narrative and Rhetoric in the Law. Yale University Press. (One selection, yet to be chosen.)
  • Burke, K. (1969). A Rhetoric of Motives. University of California Press.
  • Burnett, R. E. (1993). Conflict in collaborative decision-making. In N. R. Blyler & C. Thralls (Eds.), Professional Communication: The Social Perspective (pp. 144–162). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Research (1st ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
  • Campbell, J. A. (1997). Charles Darwin: Rhetorician of Science. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science: Case Studies, Landmark Essays (pp. 3–17). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Carletta, J. (1996). Assessing agreement on classification tasks: the kappa statistic. Computational Linguistics, 22(2), 249–254.
  • Charney, D. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental research. In L. J. Gurak & M. M. Lay (Eds.), Research in Technical Communication (pp. 111–130). Praeger Publishers.
  • Cicero, M. T. (2001). Cicero: On the Ideal Orator. (J. M. May & J. Wisse, Trans.). Oxford University Press, USA.
  • Clark, G. (1987). Ethics in technical communication: a rhetorical perspective. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 30(3), 190–195.
  • Comprone, J. J. (1993). Generic constraints and expressive motives: Rhetorical perspectives on textual dialogues. In N. R. Blyler & C. Thralls (Eds.), Professional Communication: The Social Perspective (pp. 92–108). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Conway, K. M. (1995). Woman Suffrage and the History of Rhetoric at the Seven Sisters Colleges, 1865-1919. In A. A. Lunsford (Ed.), Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women In The Rhetorical Tradition (pp. 203–226). University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Devitt, P. A. J. (2008). Writing Genres. Southern Illinois University Press.
  • Dicks, R. S. (2002). Cultural impediments to understanding: Are they surmountable? In B. Mirel & R. Spilka (Eds.), Reshaping Technical Communication: New Directions and Challenges for the 21st Century (pp. 13–25). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Downing, J. D. H. (1999). `Hate Speech’ and `First Amendment Absolutism’ Discourses in the US. Discourse & Society, 10(2), 175 –189. doi:10.1177/0957926599010002003
  • Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (1995). Writing Ethnographic Fieldnotes (1st ed.). University of Chicago Press.
  • Faber, B. (2002). Migrations: Strategic thinking about the future(s) of technical communication. In B. Mirel, R. Spilka, & J. Johnson-Eilola (Eds.), Reshaping Technical Communication: New Directions and Challenges for the 21st Century (pp. 135–148). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Fahnestock, J. (1997). Arguing in different forums: The Bering Crossover controversy. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science: Case Studies, Landmark Essays (pp. 53–67). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (2009). Retrieved from http://www.utd.uscourts.gov/forms/civil2009.pdf
  • Federal Rules of Evidence (2010). Retrieved from http://www.uscourts.gov/uscourts/RulesAndPolicies/rules/2010%20Rules/Evidence.pdf
  • Foucault, M. (1995). Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison (2nd ed.). Vintage.
  • Frank, J. (2009). Law & the modern mind. New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers.
  • Freed, R. C. (1993). Postmodern practice: Perspectives and prospects. In N. R. Blyler & C. Thralls (Eds.), Professional Communication: The Social Perspective (pp. 196–214). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Glenn, C. (1995). Reexamining The Book of Margery Kempe: A Rhetoric of Autobiography. In A. A. Lunsford (Ed.), Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women In The Rhetorical Tradition (pp. 53–71). University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Gorgias. (1995). Encomium of Helen. In M. Gagarin & P. Woodruff (Eds.), Early Greek Political Thought from Homer to the Sophists (pp. 190–195). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Grice, R. A. (2002). Evaluating the complete user experience: dimensions of usability. In L. J. Gurak & M. M. Lay (Eds.), Research in Technical Communication (pp. 149–164). Praeger Publishers.
  • Gross, A. G. (1997). On the shoulders of giants: Seventeenth-century optics as an argument field. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science: Case Studies, Landmark Essays (pp. 19–38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Gurak, L. J., & Lay, M. M. (2002a). Introduction. In L. J. Gurak & M. M. Lay (Eds.), Research in Technical Communication (p. vii–xi). Praeger Publishers.
  • Gurak, L. J., & Lay, M. M. (Eds.). (2002b). Research in Technical Communication. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
  • Gurak, L. J., & Silker, C. M. (2002). Technical Communication Research in Cyberspace. In L. J. Gurak & M. M. Lay (Eds.), Research in Technical Communication. Praeger Publishers.
  • Haas, C., & Witte, S. P. (2001). Writing as an Embodied Practice. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 413 –457. doi:10.1177/105065190101500402
  • Hafner, C. A. (2010). A Multi-perspective Genre Analysis of the Barrister’s Opinion: Writing Context, Generic Structure, and Textualization. Written Communication, 27(4), 410–441. doi:10.1177/0741088310377272
  • Halloran, M. S. (1997). The birth of molecular biology: An essay in the rhetorical criticism of scientific discourse. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science: Case Studies, Landmark Essays (pp. 39–50). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Harris, R. A. (1997a). Introduction. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science: Case Studies, Landmark Essays (p. xi–xlv). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Harris, R. A. (Ed.). (1997b). Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science: Case Studies. Landmark Essays. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Hasian, M., Condit, C. M., & Lucaites, J. L. (1996). The rhetorical boundaries of “the law”: A consideration of the rhetorical culture of legal practice and the case of the “separate but equal” doctrine. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 82(4), 323–342. doi:10.1080/00335639609384161
  • Herndl, C. G., & Wilson, G. (2007). Commentary: Reflections on Field Research and Professional Practice. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 21(2), 216 –226. doi:10.1177/1050651906297171
  • Herzberg, B. (1993). Rhetoric unbound: Discourse, community, and knowledge. In N. R. Blyler & C. Thralls (Eds.), Professional Communication: The Social Perspective (pp. 35–48). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Isocrates. (2000a). Antidosis. In D. C. Mirhady & Y. L. Too (Trans.), Isocrates I, The Oratory of Classical Greece (pp. 201–264). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
  • Isocrates. (2000b). Against the Sophists. In D. C. Mirhady & Y. L. Too (Trans.), Isocrates I, The Oratory of Classical Greece (pp. 61–66). Austin, TX: University of Texas Press.
  • Jamieson, K. M. (1975). Antecedent genre as rhetorical constraint. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 61(4), 406–415.
  • Jarratt, S. (1995). Christine de Pisan and The Treasure of the City of Ladies: A Medieval Rhetorician and her Rhetoric. In A. A. Lunsford (Ed.), Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women In The Rhetorical Tradition (pp. 73–92). University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Jarratt, S., & Ong, R. (1995). Aspasia: Rhetoric, Gender, and Colonial Ideology. In A. A. Lunsford (Ed.), Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women In The Rhetorical Tradition (pp. 9–24). University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Jones Royster, J. (1995). To Call a Thing by Its True Name: The Rhetoric of Ida B. Wells. In A. A. Lunsford (Ed.), Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women In The Rhetorical Tradition (pp. 167–184). University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Jurafsky, D., & Martin, J. H. (2009). Speech and language processing: an introduction to natural language processing, computational linguistics, and speech recognition (Chapters 2-4, 12-14, 19-21). Prentice Hall series in artificial intelligence (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
  • Katz, S. B. (1992). The Ethic of Expediency: Classical Rhetoric, Technology, and the Holocaust. College English, 54(3), 255–275.
  • Katz, S. M. (2002). Ethnographic research. In L. J. Gurak & M. M. Lay (Eds.), Research in Technical Communication (pp. 23–45). Praeger Publishers.
  • Kent, T. (1993). Formalism, social construction, and the prolem of interpretive authority. In N. R. Blyler & C. Thralls (Eds.), Professional Communication: The Social Perspective (pp. 79–91). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Kessler, B., Numberg, G., & Schütze, H. (1997). Automatic detection of text genre. Proceedings of the eighth conference on European chapter of the Association for Computational Linguistics, EACL  ’97 (pp. 32–38). Stroudsburg, PA, USA: Association for Computational Linguistics. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.3115/979617.979622
  • Kolodny, A. (1995). Inventing a Feminist Discourse: Rhetoric and Resistance in Margaret Fuller’s Woman in the Nineteenth Century. In A. A. Lunsford (Ed.), Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women In The Rhetorical Tradition (pp. 137–166). University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Koppel, M., Argamon, S., & Shimoni, A. R. (2002). Automatically categorizing written texts by author gender. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 17(4), 401 –412. doi:10.1093/llc/17.4.401
  • Kostelnick, C. (1993). Viewing functional pictures in context. In N. R. Blyler & C. Thralls (Eds.), Professional Communication: The Social Perspective (pp. 243–256). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Kynell, T., & Seely, B. (2002). Historical methods for technical communication. In L. J. Gurak & M. M. Lay (Eds.), Research in Technical Communication (pp. 67–92). Praeger Publishers.
  • Latour, B., & Woolgar, S. (1986). Laboratory Life. Princeton University Press.
  • Lauer, J. M., & Sullivan, P. (1993). Validity and reliability as social constructions. In N. R. Blyler & C. Thralls (Eds.), Professional Communication: The Social Perspective (pp. 163–176). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Lay, M. M. (1993). Gender studies: Implications for the professional communication classroom. In N. R. Blyler & C. Thralls (Eds.), Professional Communication: The Social Perspective (pp. 215–229). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Lay, M. M. (2002). Feminist Criticism and Technical Communication Research. In L. J. Gurak & M. M. Lay (Eds.), Research in Technical Communication. Praeger Publishers.
  • Lazaraton, A. (2003). Evaluative Criteria for Qualitative Research in Applied Linguistics: Whose Criteria and Whose Research? The Modern Language Journal, 87(1), 1–12.
  • Lipscomb, D. R. (1995). Sojourner Truth: A Practical Public Discourse. In A. A. Lunsford (Ed.), Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women In The Rhetorical Tradition (pp. 227–245). University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Lodder, A. R., Rahman, S., Symons, J., Gabbay, D. M., & Bendegem, J. P. van. (2004). Law, Logic, Rhetoric: A Procedural Model of Legal Argumentation. Logic, Epistemology, and the Unity of Science (pp. 569–588). Netherlands: Springer.
  • Longo, B. (2000). Spurious Coin: A History of Science, Management, and Technical Writing. State University of New York Press.
  • Lunsford, A. A. (1995a). On Reclaiming Rhetorica. In A. A. Lunsford (Ed.), Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women In The Rhetorical Tradition (pp. 3–8). University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Lunsford, A. A. (Ed.). (1995b). Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women In The Rhetorical Tradition. University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Lyne, J. (1997). “Punctuated equilibria”: Rhetorical dynamics of a scientific controversy. In R. A. Harris & H. F. Howe (Eds.), Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science: Case Studies, Landmark Essays (pp. 69–86). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Lyon, A. (1995). Susanne K. Langer: Mother and Midwife at the Rebirth of Rhetoric. In A. A. Lunsford (Ed.), Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women In The Rhetorical Tradition (pp. 117–136). University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Macagno, F., & Walton, D. (2009). Argument from Analogy in Law, the Classical Tradition, and Recent Theories. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 42(2), 154–182.
  • MacNealy, M. S. (1998). Strategies for Empirical Research in Writing. Longman.
  • Mann, W. C., & Thompson, S. A. (2011). Rhetorical Structure Theory: Toward a functional theory of text organization. Text – Interdisciplinary Journal for the Study of Discourse, 8(3), 243–281. doi:doi: 10.1515/text.1.1988.8.3.243
  • Marshall, C., & Rossman, G. B. (2010). Designing Qualitative Research (Fifth ed.). Sage Publications, Inc.
  • McDorman, T. F. (2005). Controlling death: bio-power and the right-to-die controversy. Communication and Critical/Cultural Studies, 2(3), 257–279.
  • Miller, C. R. (1979). A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing. College English, 40(6), 610–617.
  • Miller, C. R. (1984). Genre as Social Action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70(2), 151–167. doi:Article
  • Mirel, B. (2002). Advancing a vision of usability. In B. Mirel & R. Spilka (Eds.), Reshaping Technical Communication: New Directions and Challenges for the 21st Century (pp. 165–187). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Mirel, B., & Spilka, R. (2002a). Preface, introduction, section introductions, and appendix. In B. Mirel & R. Spilka (Eds.), Reshaping Technical Communication: New Directions and Challenges for the 21st Century (pp. xv–xvii, 1–6, 7–11, 91–96, 197–201). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Mirel, B., & Spilka, R. (Eds.). (2002b). Reshaping Technical Communication: New Directions and Challenges for the 21st Century. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Monberg, J. (2002). Science and technology studies as a research method: Toward a practical ethics for technical writing. In L. J. Gurak & M. M. Lay (Eds.), Research in Technical Communication (pp. 211–227). Praeger Publishers.
  • Morgan, M. (1993). The group writing task: A schema for collaborative assignment making. In N. R. Blyler & C. Thralls (Eds.), Professional Communication: The Social Perspective (pp. 230–242). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Murphy, D. J. (2002). Surveys and questionnaires. In L. J. Gurak & M. M. Lay (Eds.), Research in Technical Communication: (pp. 93–110). Praeger Publishers.
  • Murphy, J. J. (Ed.). (1987). Quintillian on the Teaching of Speaking and Writing: Translations from Books One, Two and Ten of the Institutio oratoria (1st ed.). Southern Illinois University Press.
  • Myers, G. (1997). Texts as knowledge claims: The social construction of two biology articles. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science: Case Studies, Landmark Essays (pp. 169–186). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Nadeau, R. (1964). Hermogenes On Stases: A translation with introduction and notes. Speech Monographs, 31(4), 362–424.
  • Odell, L., Goswami, D., & Herrington, A. (1983). The discourse-based interview: a procedure for exploring the tacit knowledge of writers in nonacademic settings. In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor, & S. A. Walmsley (Eds.), Research on Writing: Principles and Methods (pp. 221–236). New York: Longman.
  • Oldham, J. (1995). The Telling: Laura (Riding) Jackson’s Project for a Whole Human Discourse. In A. A. Lunsford (Ed.), Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women In The Rhetorical Tradition (pp. 247–263). University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Pakhomov, S. V., Hanson, P. L., Bjornsen, S. S., & Smith, S. A. (2008). Automatic Classification of Foot Examination Findings Using Clinical Notes and Machine Learning. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 15, 198–202.
  • Paré, A. (2002). Keeping writing in its place: A participatory action approach to workplace communication. In B. Mirel & R. Spilka (Eds.), Reshaping Technical Communication: New Directions and Challenges for the 21st Century (pp. 57–79). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Perelman, C. (1979). Authority, ideology, and violence. The New Rhetoric and the Humanities: Essays on rhetoric and its applications (pp. 138–145). Boston, MA: D. Reidel Publishing Co.
  • Perelman, C., & Olbrechts-Tyteca, L. (1969). The New Rhetoric: A Treatise on Argumentation. University of Notre Dame Press.
  • Petrenz, P., & Webber, B. (2011). Stable Classification of Text Genres. Computational Linguistics, 37(2), 385–393. doi:10.1162/COLI_a_00052
  • Plato. (1998). Gorgias: Translated with Introduction, Notes, and Interpretive Essay. (J. H. Nichols Jr., Trans.). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
  • Plato. (2003). Phaedrus. (S. Scully, Trans.)Focus Philosophical Library. Newburyport, MA: Focus Publishing.
  • Porter, J. E. (1993). The role of law, policy, and ethics in corporate composing: Toward a practical ethics for professional writing. In N. R. Blyler & C. Thralls (Eds.), Professional Communication: The Social Perspective (pp. 128–143). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Posner, R. A. (2006). Reasoning by analogy (Book review of Weinreb, Legal Reason: The Use of Analogy in Legal Argument). Cornell Law Review, 91(3), 761–774.
  • Prelli, L. J. (1997). The rhetorical construction of scientific ethos. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science: Case Studies, Landmark Essays (pp. 87–104). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Priel, D. (2007). Lloyd L. Weinreb, Legal Reason: The Use of Analogy in Legal Argument (book review). Journal of Legal Education, 57(4), 579–599.
  • Quintilian. (1966). Quintilian II – Books IV – VI (The Institutio Oratoria of Quintilian; Book VI). (H. E. Butler, Trans.). Harvard University Press / Heinemann.
  • Quintilian. (n.d.). Institutio Oratoria (Books XI and XII).
  • R.A.V. v. City of Saint Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992).
  • Reeves, C. (1997). Owning a virus: The rhetoric of scientific discovery accounts. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science: Case Studies, Landmark Essays (pp. 151–165). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Rosch, E., & Mervis, C. B. (1975). Family resemblances: Studies in the internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7(4), 573–605. doi:10.1016/0010-0285(75)90024-9
  • Rymer, J. (1993). Collaboration and conversation in learning communities: The discipline and the classroom. In N. R. Blyler & C. Thralls (Eds.), Professional Communication: The Social Perspective (pp. 179–195). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Santini, M. (2011). Cross-testing a genre classification model for the web. In A. Mehler, S. Sharoff, & M. Santini (Eds.), Genres on the Web, Text, Speech and Language Technology. Springer Netherlands.
  • Santini, M., Power, R., & Evans, R. (2006). Implementing a characterization of genre for automatic genre identification of web pages. Proceedings of the COLING/ACL on Main conference poster sessions (pp. 699–706). Sydney, Australia: Association for Computational Linguistics.
  • Saravanan, M., & Ravindran, B. (2010). Identification of rhetorical roles for segmentation and summarization of a legal judgment. Artificial Intelligence and Law, 18(1), 45–76.
  • Schank, R. C., & Abelson, R. P. (1977). Scripts, Plans, Goals, and Understanding: An Inquiry Into Human Knowledge Structures. Psychology Press.
  • Schriver, K. (2002). Taking our stakeholders seriously: Re-imagining the dissemination of research in information design. In B. Mirel & R. Spilka (Eds.), Reshaping Technical Communication: New Directions and Challenges for the 21st Century (pp. 111–133). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Schryer, C., Afros, E., Mian, M., Spafford, M., & Lindgard, L. (2009). The Trial of the Expert Witness: Negotiating Credibility in Child Abuse Correspondence. Written Communication, 26(3), 215–46. doi:10.1177/0741088308330767
  • Scott, R. (1967). On Viewing Rhetoric as Epistemic. Central States Speech Journal, 18, 9–16.
  • Searle, J. R. (1985). Expression and Meaning: Studies in the Theory of Speech Acts (Chapters 1-3). Cambridge University Press.
  • Spilka, R. (2002). Becoming a Profession. In B. Mirel & R. Spilka (Eds.), Reshaping Technical Communication: New Directions and Challenges for the 21st Century (pp. 97–109). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Sutherland, M. S. (1995). Mary Astell: Reclaiming Rhetorica in the Seventeenth Century. In A. A. Lunsford (Ed.), Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women In The Rhetorical Tradition (pp. 93–116). University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Swales, J. M. (1990). Genre Analysis: English in academic and research settings (Chapters 1, 2, and 3). Cambridge Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Swales, J. M. (2004). Research Genres: Exploration and Applications (Chapters 1 and 3). Cambridge Applied Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Swearingen, C. J. (1995). A Lover’s Discourse: Diotima, Logos, and Desire. In A. A. Lunsford (Ed.), Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women In The Rhetorical Tradition (pp. 25–51). University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Teston, C. B. (2009). A Grounded Investigation of Genred Guidelines in Cancer Care Deliberations. Written Communication, 26(3), 320 –348. doi:10.1177/0741088309336937
  • Teufel, S., & Moens, M. (2002). Summarizing scientific articles: experiments with relevance and rhetorical status. Comput. Linguist., 28(4), 409–445.
  • Thralls, C., & Blyler, N. (2002). Cultural Studies: An Orientation for Research in Professional Communication. In L. J. Gurak & M. M. Lay (Eds.), Research in Technical Communication (pp. 185–209). Praeger Publishers.
  • Thralls, C., & Blyler, N. R. (1993). The social perspective and professional communication: Diversity and directions in research. In N. R. Blyler & C. Thralls (Eds.), Professional Communication: The Social Perspective (pp. 3–34). Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
  • Toulmin, S. (2003). The uses of argument (Updated ed.). Cambridge  U.K. ;;New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • United States v. O’Brien, 391 U.S. 367 (1968).
  • Wachsmuth, H., & Bujna, K. (2011). Back to the roots of genres: text classification by language function. Proceedings of the 5th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing (pp. 632–640). Presented at the 5th International Joint Conference on Natural Language Processing, Chiang Mai, Thailand: Asian Federation of Natural Language Processing.
  • Waddell, C. (1997). The role of pathos in the decision-making process: A study in the rhetoric of science policy. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science: Case Studies, Landmark Essays (pp. 127–149). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Wagner, J. (1995). “Intelligent Members or Restless Disturbers”: Women’s Rhetorical Styles, 1880-1920. In A. A. Lunsford (Ed.), Reclaiming Rhetorica: Women In The Rhetorical Tradition (pp. 185–202). University of Pittsburgh Press.
  • Walton, D. (2011). Computational dialectic and rhetorical invention. AI & Society, 26(1), 3–17.
  • Walton, D. N. (2008). Witness testimony evidence: argumentation, artificial intelligence, and law (Chapters 1-4). Cambridge; New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Weaver, R. M. (1997). Dialectic and rhetoric at Dayton, Tennessee. In R. A. Harris (Ed.), Landmark Essays on Rhetoric of Science: Case Studies, Landmark Essays (pp. 107–125). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
  • Weinreb, L. L. (2005). Legal Reason: The Use of Analogy in Legal Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Weinreb, L. L. (2007). Legal Reason Redux (response to Priel). Journal of Legal Education, 57(4), 600–614.
  • Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (1993).
Advertisements

2 Responses to “My qualifying examination reading list”

  1. Tina Hollenbeck August 18, 2012 at 3:41 pm #

    Wow. Happy reading! :^)

  2. Brian Larson August 19, 2012 at 1:00 pm #

    Tina: Thanks! It will be a hoot!
    -B

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: