Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T14:29:00.843Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Presidential Address 2019–Re-visioning Language, Texts, and Theories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 October 2020

Extract

I attended my first MLA convention in Chicago, in 1973. A frugal graduate student, I stayed at a nearby YMCA but huddled in the evenings with a friend from graduate school in the Palmer House lobby where we shared, surreptitiously, a flask of bourbon and laments about the awful job market. I could never have imagined that forty-five years later I would be delivering the presidential address. During the years since that Chicago convention, I have worked with the executive director Phyllis Franklin, who invited me and a few others to think with her about how the MLA might accommodate what we then called composition and rhetoric. I have worked with Rosemary Feal, who became the executive director as I joined the Delegate Assembly Organizing Committee and who left the MLA shortly after persuading me to stand for election to the office of second vice president. In my participation on task forces, division committees, the Publications Committee, the Delegate Assembly Organizing Committee, the Executive Council, and most recently as an officer, I have been continually impressed by the talent, commitment, and resourcefulness of those who work for the MLA. I am grateful to belong to an association with such an excellent staff, and I want to offer special thanks to my friend Paula Krebs, whose first full year as executive director coincided with my term as president. Her keen intelligence, administrative skill, and fierce advocacy for our profession convince me that the MLA is in very good hands.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Modern Language Association of America, 2019

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Works Cited

Adams, Charles Francis. “A College Fetich: An Address Delivered before the Harvard Chapter of the Fraternity of Phi Beta Kappa, June 28, 1883.” Lee and Sheperd, 1883. HathiTrust Digital Library, babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=loc.ark:/13960/t88g9ch8v;view=1up;seq=11.Google Scholar
Berthoff, Ann E.“Killer Dichotomies: Reading In/Reading Out”. Farther Along: Transforming Dichotomies in Rhetoric and Composition, edited by Ronald, Kate and Roskelly, Hephzibah, Boynton/Cook Heinemann, 1990, pp. 1224.Google Scholar
Bledstein, Burton J. The Culture of Professionalism: The Middle Class and the Development of Higher Education in America. W.W. Norton, 1976.Google Scholar
Brandt, Deborah. Literacy in American Lives. Cambridge UP, 1991.Google Scholar
Buck, Gertrude. “Make-Believe Grammar”. School Review, vol. 17, 1909, pp. 2133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, Gertrude. “The Present Status of Rhetorical Theory”. Modern Language Notes, vol. 15, no. 4, 1900, pp. 167–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buck, Gertrude. The Social Criticism of Literature. Yale UP, 1916.Google Scholar
Carr, Jean Ferguson. “Composition, English, and the University”. PMLA, vol. 129, no. 3, May 2014, pp. 435–41.Google Scholar
“Constitution of the Modern Language Association”. PMLA, vol. 77, no. 2, May 1962, pp. 3943.Google Scholar
Corbett, Edward P.J. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. Oxford UP, 1965.Google Scholar
Derrida, Jacques. Of Grammatology. translated by Spivak, Ga-yatri Chakravorty, Johns Hopkins UP, 1976.Google Scholar
Executive Secretary [Stone, George W. Jr.]. “The Beginning, Development, and Impact of the MLA as a Learned Society, 1883–1958”. PMLA, vol. 73, no. 5, Dec. 1958, pp. 2344.Google Scholar
Goody, Jack. The Domestication of the Savage Mind. Cambridge UP, 1977.Google Scholar
Guillory, John. Cultural Capital: The Problem of Literary Canon Formation. U of Chicago P, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heath, Shirley Brice. Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. Cambridge UP, 1983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howe, Florence. “Literacy and Literature”. PMLA, vol. 89, no. 3, May 1974, pp. 433–41.Google Scholar
Hutton, Elizabeth. Textual Transactions: Recontextualizing Louise Rosenblatt's Transactional Theory for the College Writing Classroom. 2018. U of Michigan, PhD dissertation.Google Scholar
Larson, Margali Sarfatti. The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis. U of California P, 1977.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
March, Francis A. “Recollections of Language Teaching”. PMLA, vol. 7, appendix, 1892, pp. xix-xxii.Google Scholar
Miller, homas P. The Evolution of College English: Literacy Studies from the Puritans to the Postmoderns. U of Pittsburgh P, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olsen, David R., and Torrance, Nancy, editors. Literacy and Orality. Cambridge UP, 1991.Google Scholar
Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word. Methuen, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rich, Adrienne. “When We Dead Awaken: Writing as Revision”. College English, vol. 14, no. 1, 1972, pp. 1830.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenblatt, Louise. “The Transactional Theory: Against Dualisms”. College English, vol. 55, no. 4, 1993, pp. 377–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosenblatt, Louise. “The Transactional Theory of Reading and Writing”. Theoretical Models and Processes of Reading, edited by Ruddell, R.B. and Ruddell, M.R., International Reading Association, 1994, pp. 923–56.Google Scholar
Rosenblatt, Louise. “Viewpoints: Transaction versus Interaction—A Terminological Rescue Operation”. Research in the Teaching of English, vol. 19, no. 1, 1985, pp. 96107.Google Scholar
Scott, Fred Newton. “The Genesis of Speech”. PMLA, vol. 22, appendix, 1907, pp. xxvi-liv.Google Scholar
Scribner, Sylvia, and Cole, Michael. The Psychology of Literacy. Harvard UP, 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Street, Brian. Literacy in Theory and Practice. Cambridge UP, 1984.Google Scholar