The use of technology in the English language arts classroom is hotly debated, but there's no denying that digital tools can offer unique opportunities for teaching and learning. This is especially true when it comes to teaching literature. Whether it's through interactive lessons or online projects, technology can help bring literature to life in ways that encourage student interest.
If you want to add a layer of technology to your literature units, there are important things to consider before getting started. Let’s take a look at some pointers!
Make sure the tech serves the lesson—and the student.
Does the technology you use help students understand the text better? Or does it help them understand the technology better?
The main concern when using technology to teach literature is that it should help your students meet the learning objectives you've set for them. That's the case whether you're using computers or just books, pens, and paper. If you use a specific technology in your classroom, there should be a specific justification for why that technology is essential to the lesson.
But there are secondary concerns, too.
Teaching with technology that students understand and use themselves on a regular basis could help them engage more thoroughly with the texts you're teaching.
Author and teacher Jordan Shapiro offers this on thinking critically about modern forms of media:
“I don’t advocate for games in the classroom because I think it’s important that people learn about videogames. I do it for two reasons: one is to engage in contextualization; the other reason has to do with fostering a critical way of thinking about media and especially interactive media. Whether you play videogames or not, nobody in the world is going to get through the next 20 years without having gone through some kind of education into the digital, interactive, procedural process.”
Engaging in discourse about new forms of media—not just video games, but also graphic novels, video essays, etc.—will better prepare students to think critically about these forms of media and how to analyze them as texts. This could be important for their future success as these forms of media become increasingly prominent.
Crucial for the literature classroom, most traditional methods of literary analysis can still be applied to works in these new mediums, meaning that many of the skills students develop by analyzing the new forms of media can also be used to study traditional texts.
Or you can teach a traditional text alongside a reinterpretation of that text in a newer medium, as with this choose-your-own-adventure-style game based on Shakespeare's Hamlet. This could lead to all kinds of great discussions and textual analysis—and could help your students develop a new understanding of just what makes Shakespeare's original text so powerful.
Use the internet to your advantage.
The internet is all about connectivity, which is why it’s great for facilitating discussion. If your school uses learning management systems like Google Classroom, Canvas, Blackboard, or Schoology, consider setting up a forum or comments section for your classes in which you and your students can talk about the books you're teaching.
There are a couple advantages to this approach:
- You can ask your students questions or post comments about the book anytime.
- Answer a student's question once, and it's there for everyone to see. Students with similar questions get their problems solved at the same time, saving you time and effort.
Of course, there are some things to be careful about:
- The internet can be a notoriously toxic environment. Make sure that when you set up your forum, the only people who can access it and post comments to it are you and your students.
- Privacy concerns! If you're unable to restrict access to only you and your students, then anyone who knows your forum's web address can access it—including harassers and bullies. Students should be advised to provide as little personal information as possible. You may want to have your students use nicknames rather than their real names.
- To make sure you and your students are the only ones who can post comments, you'll all have to register accounts with the website hosting your forum. This is a more minor concern than the previous two, but it's still something to think about.
Be aware of emerging technologies.
As we know, technology is always evolving. What’s new one day could be obsolete the next. While you shouldn’t drop everything you’re using and immediately adopt the newest tools as soon as they appear, you should generally be aware of what’s happening out there.
Today, one of the biggest types of technology that has people talking is artificial intelligence (AI). As we mentioned previously on our blog, artificial intelligence has been under development for years but only recently became accessible to the public. Now, many teachers are using AI in the classroom to augment their lessons and assist with certain tasks like grading and planning. Some ELA educators are even using AI tools to supplement (but not replace!) literature-based activities and exercises.
Incorporate technology to enhance traditional reading experiences.
New programs and reading platforms offer you quite a bit of flexibility in how you deliver educational content to your students. Some platforms make it easy to blend online learning with more traditional experiences. Take KeyLit, for example.
KeyLit is our digital, interactive learning program featuring rigorous, standards-aligned lessons and assessments. It’s designed to guide students, working independently or in class, through a close reading of famous literary texts to help build critical reading skills. It can also help individualize lessons and target where students are struggling, making holding students accountable easier for you.
With KeyLit, students can explore brilliant works of literature without feeling like they’re completing scary summative assessments. Many of the lessons within KeyLit follow a multiple-choice question format asking students to recall key plot points, uncover character motivations, or analyze figurative language. A few multiple-choice questions that deal with more complicated ideas are “opinion questions” that are graded on completion. These are sprinkled throughout, allowing students to consider how they interpret an especially confusing passage risk-free.
Every KeyLit unit features discussion boards with thought-provoking response questions. This workspace allows students to express their ideas about the literary work, cite direct evidence from the text, and interact virtually with one another.
In addition to its exploratory nature, KeyLit allows you to hold students accountable without extra work for you. Each lesson features a plot-based reading quiz that objectively helps you determine who read and who didn’t. All questions are standards-aligned, allowing you to see which standards your students excel at and which need more attention. KeyLit even displays objectives at the top of each lesson so students clearly see what they should take away from the activities they complete. Worried about cheating? Though the questions are all in the same order per lesson, the answer choices are automatically randomized for each screen. Students cannot go back to prior questions once they’ve clicked “next.”
Once students complete a lesson, their submitted work is instantly graded, letting them see their results and find out where they need help. In the gradebook, you can isolate student reports and see which lessons were especially difficult for your class. This gives you the opportunity to create more targeted, individualized lessons without going through stacks of assessments!
The world of technology in the classroom can sometimes feel like the untamed wild West, but KeyLit allows you to harness it into something fun, exploratory, and useful. Give it a try to boost your units and spend more time on the parts of teaching you love!
How have you been using technology in your classroom? Do you have any success stories you want to share? Any challenges you're facing? We'd love to hear from you—let us know on Facebook!
Connect students to the literature you love to teach with KeyLit by Prestwick House! This interactive program uses standards-aligned lessons to guide students through close readings of famous works of literature, helping them develop critical reading and analytical skills along the way.
By using technology, literary texts can be intensified more, for example by turning them into literal hypertexts by introducing different notes (information, open questions, main ideas) and relationships (with other similar materials that can include also student assignments or notes).How would you incorporate technology in teaching literature? ›
- PoetryDaily helps literature/poetry students read, understand, and discuss works and also helps them understand the genre in general.
- SparkNotes offers the opportunity for students to read general analyses of great works in literature, character overviews, and book summaries.
By using technology, literary texts can be intensified more, for example by turning them into literal hypertexts by introducing different notes (information, open questions, main ideas) and relationships (with other similar materials that can include also student assignments or notes).What are the advantages of technology in teaching literature? ›
Technology facilitates teaching languages and studying languages. By enhancing the learning process, technology allows teachers to develop their teaching. The technique continues to grow to make it easier for teachers to learn a language for students.How to incorporate technology in teaching reading and writing lesson? ›
- Use automation. ...
- Monitor and correct language mechanics. ...
- Produce visual data and reporting. ...
- Combine media forms. ...
- Let students collaborate. ...
- Help students publish and promote their own ideas. ...
- Use model-based learning. ...
- Use virtual and augmented reality.
The history of literature has always been influenced by technological progress, as a transformative cultural power—threatening destruction or promising a luminous future—as a theme inspiring new narrative forms and plots, or as a force influencing the way authors conceive textuality and perform their creative work.How do you integrate technology in teaching English? ›
Students can use interactive games to reinforce math, spelling, phonetic, and reading skills. Sites like Spelling Training permit students or teachers to upload their own word lists to practice word pronunciation and create interactive games.How can technology help reading and writing? ›
Computer programs and related technology can aid in the development of fluency in reading and help to expand vocabulary, allowing students to understand the meaning of words. Reading comprehension benefits from technology in the classroom as students are challenged to find meaning in what they have read.How technology helps in learning English? ›
Using tech ensures they have multiple chances to listen throughout the day. If you record your lessons or work in a flipped or blended environment, students can go back and listen to the instructions as many times as needed. Audio books help them listen to the texts they may struggle to read.What is the impact of technology on English language teaching and learning? ›
Computer- based communication technology provides tools for language learners to improve their language skills. Learners are exposed to numerous software programs to improve their reading, listening, speaking skills and grammar knowledge.
- Start with short stories. ...
- Focus on a story's elements. ...
- Involve reading methods. ...
- Use engaging texts. ...
- Show age-relevant media. ...
- Visualize concepts. ...
- Meet with students one-on-one. ...
- Assign small-group discussions.
By having the ability to access and utilize Wikis, Blogs, and Kajour chats allows students to express their feelings without having to be apprehensive about what others may think or say aloud in class. Having these resources for our students increases their abilities to write meaningful text.How has technology influenced the creativity in writing? ›
Since the early writers had limited information to work with, they could organize their thoughts and ideas systematically. Modern writers can easily borrow ideas from other writers. It is easy to copy paste ideas from different websites on a word processor, organize them, and present them as original ideas.How technology helps in teaching and learning? ›
Technology provides teachers with an opportunity to connect with their students in a new way. It allows you to open up lines of communication and use the Internet to explain curriculum material in a new way, which can be very helpful to students.What is the impact of technology in developing your reading and writing skills? ›
It can both support traditional literacies and introduce new forms in the classroom. Technology can help students discuss their ideas by bringing readers and writers together in the same classroom, and it can help students work together at different times through google documents and blogging.How does technology affect reading books? ›
3. Digital technology may lead to shallower comprehension. In traditional printed books, the author has (presumably) spent considerable time devising a logical story or line of reasoning. As the reader works his way through the book, he can stop and ponder the unfolding material.What is the impact of digitalization on literature? ›
The impact of digitization on Literature is that it acts as a great leveler, such that students and researchers are able to find the digital world as a repository of data, accessible at one's convenience and at lower costs. Digitization thus helps in creating a society that is well informed and knowledgeable.What are the positive effects of technology on the English language? ›
First, it adds lots of "jargon vocabulary". Second, it provides meaning to existing words and terms, such as the meaning of 'mouse' and 'keyboard' and so on. Moreover, it produces words on unifying the utterance of people all over the world as they meet each other via social media although they are from remote places.What are the effective technologies for improving English language skills? ›
- Blu-Ray Movies.
- Google Translate.
- Google Search.
- Converse with Siri. Siri is a great tool you can use to ask questions and get other information from on your smartphone. ...
- Online and Smartphone Apps.
What is Technology Literacy? Technology Literacy is using technology to solve problems and accomplish tasks effectively. It includes the ability to use technological tools for problem-solving and critical thinking and the ability to understand how technology works and its uses to improve learning and performance.
Digital literacy is an individual's ability to find, evaluate, and communicate information by utilizing typing or digital media platforms. It is a combination of both technical and cognitive abilities in using information and communication technologies to create, evaluate, and share information.What is the difference between digital literacy and technology literacy? ›
The difference between technology and digital literacy is if technology literacy is an appropriate skill and competence with using technology while digital literacy requires fluent in digital communication, understanding, filtering and manipulation to become successful in the future.What technology is used to improve reading? ›
Optical character recognition (OCR) technologies can scan printed visual text. OCR analyzes scanned text, renders it into digital text form and reads it aloud as TTS. This assistance can be handy in the case of printed classroom materials and homework, library materials, handwritten teacher evaluations and grading.What technology helps students read? ›
Types of assistive technology for reading
Text-to-speech (TTS) lets you see text and hear it read aloud at the same time. To use this tool, you click on or highlight words, and the words are read by a computer-generated voice. TTS works with any digital text.
Due to the current technology, students can easily obtain research data by simply going online. Writing has been simplified by online writing tools and plagiarism scanning tools help them submit original documents. When using the appropriate technologies, students will write better and more effectively.What are the technology tools for English learners? ›
Tools such as infographics, digital word walls, and digital storytelling are all effective for building background, deepening understanding of language and content through multiple and varied interactions, and promoting collaboration and communication—all important indicators of ELs' success in mainstream classrooms.How can technology empower English language teachers and students? ›
- Reclaiming days of instructional time in early elementary grades.
- Shifting attention from lesson planning to active learning.
- Breaking the bottleneck of writing feedback.
- The long-term goal of self-directed learning.
Auto-correction helps foreign and native speakers
Another huge technological innovation for language learners was the rise of autocorrection. From simple text-autocorrect to pronunciation analyzers, auto-correction has made learning languages that much easier.
- Diversifying Classroom Texts. ...
- Complementing Novels With Films. ...
- Scaffolding Student-Led Literary Analysis. ...
- Utilizing Creative Student Reading Responses.
Moreover, lecture-discussion was found to be the most effective strategy in the teaching of literature. It also revealed that teaching strategies were used to address the different learning skills of the students.
There are six approaches in the teaching of literature. They are the (1) Language-Based Approach, (2) Paraphrastic Approach, (3) Information-Based Approach, (4) Personal-Response Approach, (5) Moral-Philosophical Approach, and (6) Stylistic Approach.How technology helps students learn essay? ›
It gives us a chance to saving our time to rewrite the notes in the classroom because we can access them anytime anywhere. It also more effective for teachers, in order to do not waste their time to prepare the notes and jot down the notes on the board. Instead, gives them more time to explain the course better.Why is it important to integrate technology in the classroom? ›
Technology empowers teachers to develop creative and interactive classrooms and gives them access to innovative resources. Effective educators understand the benefits of integrating technology in the classroom and finding new ways to make lessons meaningful.How does technology inspire student learning and creativity? ›
' Digital learning tools allow children to engage and interact with content, forcing students to harness their creativity to overcome challenges, create content and personalize their own learning experience.What is creative use of technology? ›
Examples of creative technology include multi-sensory experiences made using computer graphics, video production, digital music, digital cinematography, virtual reality, augmented reality, video editing, software engineering, 3D printing, the Internet of Things, CAD/CAM and wearable technology.How does a literary device contribute to the formation of creative writing? ›
Literary devices are tools used by writers to better express their ideas and enhance their creative writing. These devices help highlight special concepts and ideas using text. As a result, it enhances the readers understanding of the text.How technology supports the constructivist approach in teaching and learning? ›
Constructivists believe that technology should be used by the students as a tool to explore problem solutions and acquire new information. Once this is done then the learners can apply their own meaning to the new knowledge.What can you do to incorporate digital literacy skills into your teaching in the future? ›
- Emphasise the importance of critical thinking. ...
- Use social media for learning and collaborating. ...
- Provide guidance on how to avoid plagiarism. ...
- Teach students to manage their online identity. ...
- Help students manage digital distractions. ...
- Provide authentic contexts for practice.
Computer programs and related technology can aid in the development of fluency in reading and help to expand vocabulary, allowing students to understand the meaning of words. Reading comprehension benefits from technology in the classroom as students are challenged to find meaning in what they have read.How does technology help teachers in teaching English language learning? ›
Language teachers can use a wide range of digital resources, such as e-books, audio files, videos, and online articles, to supplement their teaching materials. These resources offer increased flexibility and can be easily updated, making them a valuable tool in language teaching.
Online resources improve student learning and retention.
Through videos, learning games, and images, teachers can show students colorful, stimulating examples of the material that they're trying to teach. Subjects that are historically dry or difficult to grasp can be turned vibrant and interesting.
There are three main types of skills within digital literacy. These are consuming skills, creating skills, and communicating skills.How technology improve reading skills? ›
Additional opportunities to build background knowledge
One factor that influences reading comprehension is the background the reader brings to the text. Through technology students can access images and other content to help expand their knowledge of time periods, locations, and contexts.
Technology helps by making it easy to edit written work, engage with ideas and content in multiple modalities, and practice oral fluency without stress as they record, listen, and rerecord.What are the methods of teaching English language and literature? ›
There are very famous and productive methods of teaching English. Some popular methods are Grammar-cum-Translation, Direct Method, Audio-Lingual, Suggestopedia, and Silent Way. The methodology of teaching English differs from person to person.What are the advantages of information technology in teaching English language? ›
Technology provides an even greater avenue for interaction between teacher and students. At the English lessons different videos, exercises, games, listening drills may be done. Information technology makes learning English available to a wider range of learners as well.Which situation shows that technology can be used to motivate students to learn? ›
There are several ways to increase students' motivation using technology, such as: Videos – Educational videos can be used to boost students' motivation. This new approach has a great impact because most of the students are visual learners.


Written arguments–whether in essay or some other form–come in many different types. Most arguments involve one or more of the rhetorical modes. Once again, rhetoric is the study and application of effective writing techniques. There are a number of standard rhetorical modes of writing—structural and analytical models that can be used effectively to suit different writing situations. The rhetorical modes include, but are not limited to, narration, description, comparison, cause and effect, classification, process analysis, definition, and persuasion.
Arguments of Persuasion
One of the most common forms of argument is that of persuasion, which was discussed earlier in this chapter. Often standardized tests will provide writing prompts for persuasive arguments. On some level, all arguments have a persuasive element because the goal of the argument is to persuade the reader to take the writer’s claim seriously. Many arguments, however, exist primarily to introduce new research and interpretation whereas persuasive arguments expressly operate to change someone’s mind about an issue or a person.
A common type of persuasive essay is an Op-Ed article. Included in the opinion section of a newspaper, these articles are more appropriately called argument essays because most authors strive not only to make explicit claims but also to support their claims, sometimes even with researched evidence. These articles are often well-designed persuasive essays, written to convince readers of the writer’s way of thinking.
In addition to essays, other forms of persuasive writing exist. One common and important example is the job letter, where you must persuade others to believe in your merits as a worker and performer so that you might be hired.
In a persuasive essay, you should be sure to do the following:
- Clearly articulate your claim and the main reasons for it. Avoid forming a thesis based on a negative claim. For example, “The hourly minimum wage is not high enough for the average worker to live on.” This is probably a true statement, but persuasive arguments should make a positive case because a negative is hard to prove. That is, the thesis statement should focus on how the hourly minimum wage is too low or insufficient.
- Anticipate and address counterarguments. Think about your audience and the counterarguments they would mostly likely have. Acknowledging points of view different from your own also has the effect of fostering more credibility between you and the audience. They know from the outset that you are aware of opposing ideas and that you are not afraid to give them space.
- Make sure your support comes in many different forms. Use logical reasoning and the rhetorical appeals, but also strive for concrete examples from your own experience and from society.
- Keep your tone courteous, but avoid being obsequious. In other words, shamelessly appealing to your readers’ vanity will likely ring false. Aim for respectful honesty.
- Avoid the urge to win the argument. On some level, we all want to be right, and we want others to see the error of their ways. More times than not, however, arguments in which both sides try to win end up producing losers all around. The more productive approach is to persuade your audience to consider your claim as a sound one, not simply the right one.
Because argument writing is designed to convince readers of an idea they may not have known before or a side of an issue they may not agree with, you must think carefully about the attitude you wish to convey as you advance your argument. The overall attitude of a piece of writing is its tone, and it comes from the words you choose. In argument writing, strive for the following:
- Confidence —The reader needs to know that you believe in what you say, so be confident. Avoid hedgy and apologetic language. However, be careful not to cross the line from confidence to overconfidence. Arrogance can rebuff your readers, even if they agree with you.
- Neutrality —While you may advocate for one side or way of thinking, you still must demonstrate that you are being as objective as you can in your analysis and assessment. Avoid loaded terms, buzzwords, and overly emotional language.
- Courtesy and fairness —Particularly when dealing with any counterarguments, you want your tone to reveal that you have given other points of view due consideration. Avoid being smug, snide, or harshly dismissive of other ideas.
Sample Writing Assignment 1
Find an Op-Ed article from one of the major US newspapers: The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post, The Boston Globe, or the LA Times. Then, do the following:
- Prewriting Work: Read the article carefully, taking notes or annotating it. Be sure to find the main argument and map the support used by the author, i.e., how the author is trying to persuade you. Note any use of rhetorical appeals, expert testimony, and research.
- Write a paragraph summary of the article. Include the main argument and its support. Explain the different types of support used by the author (rhetorical appeals, expert testimony, and research).
- In a paragraph, devise and explain your own counterargument(s) to the author’s thesis.
- In a paragraph, explain what kind of support you would use for your counterargument. What rhetorical appeals would you use? What experts might you call on? Do you think you would need to do research and if so, on what?
Sample Writing Assignment 2
Write a job letter. As you design it, be sure to do the following:
- Use formal letter format. Be sure to include these elements: your address, the address of the job you’re applying to (or the department you are applying to), the date you send the letter, a greeting, the letter content in coherent paragraphs (single-spaced paragraphs with a double space in between paragraphs), a sign off, any additional information (your phone and/or email address). For some visual examples of what this would look like, do a Google image search for “job letter format.”
- Prewriting Work 1: Imagine a job you would like to apply for. Ask yourself the following questions and brainstorm answers to them: “What skills would I need to have for this job, and which of those skills do I have?” “What educational background would be required, and can I show that I fulfill the requirements?” “What experience might the hiring committee want to me to have, and do I have any experience that would be relevant?”
- Prewriting Work 2: Take the notes you have come up with and add as many specific details as you can. If you believe you do have relevant skills, what are they, specifically? Where did you get those skills, specifically? How long have you had those skills, specifically? Do you have examples where you have shown excellence with those skills, specifically?
- Drafting: Shape your details into three paragraphs organized by issue: skills, education, and experience. Be specific, include a couple examples per paragraph, and be succinct in your delivery.
- Proofread carefully. First of all, excellent sentence composition, punctuation, and spelling communicate your seriousness to those who might hire you. Mistakes make you look sloppy and make it easy for them to toss your letter on the rejection pile. Second, watch word choice. Choose specific over general words as much as possible (you say you are a hard worker, but what does that mean, practically speaking?). Make sure you avoid clichés and overly gushy sentiment (“I’m passionate about people!”). Finally, proofread for tone. Strive for courteousness and objectivity. Make it seem like you are being objective about your own abilities.
Arguments of Evaluation
If you have ever answered a question about your personal take on a book or movie or television show or piece of music, you have given a review. Most times, these reviews are somewhat hasty and based on initial or shallow impressions. However, if you give thought to your review, if you explain more carefully what you liked or didn’t like and why, if you bring in specific examples to back up your points, then you have moved on to an argument of evaluation. Reviews of film, books, music, food, and other aspects of taste and culture represent the most familiar type of argument of evaluation. The main objective of an argument of evaluation is to render a critical judgment on the merits of something.
Another common argument of evaluation is the performance review. If you have ever held a job, you know what it feels like to be on the receiving end of such a review; your timeliness and productivity and attitude are scrutinized to determine if you have been a good worker or need to worry about looking for another job. If you are in any sort of supervisory position, you will be the one writing and delivering those reviews, and your own supervisor will want to know that you have logical justification and evidence for your judgments.
For all types of reviews or evaluation arguments, make sure to plan for the following:
- Declare your overall judgment of the subject under review—good, bad, or somewhere in between. This is your conclusion or thesis.
- Lay out the criteria for your judgment. In other words, your review must be based on logical criteria—i.e., the standards by which you evaluate something. For example, if you are reviewing a film, reasonable criteria would include acting, writing, storytelling, directing, cinematography, music, and special effects. If you are evaluating an employee, that criteria will change and more likely involve punctuality, aspects of job performance, and overall attitude on the job.
- Make sure to evaluate each criteria and provide evidence. Draw your evidence from what you are reviewing, and use as many specific examples as you can. In a movie review in which you think the acting quality was top notch, give examples of a particular style that worked well or lines delivered effectively or emotions realistically conveyed.
- Use concrete language. A review is only an argument if we can reasonably see—from examples and your explanations—how you arrived at your judgment. Vague or circular language (“I liked it because it was just really good!”) will keep your evaluation at the opinion level only, preventing it from being taken seriously as an argument.
- Keep the tone respectful—even if you ultimately did not like the subject of your review. Be as objective as you can when giving your reasons. Insulting language detracts from the seriousness of your analysis and makes your points look like personal attacks.
Roger Ebert (1942-2013), a movie reviewer for the Chicago Sun-Times, was once one of the most famous movie critics in America. His reviews provide excellent examples of the argument of evaluation.
Consider his review (https://tinyurl.com/y82ylaav) of the 2009 film Avatar and note how clearly he declares his judgments, how he makes his reader aware of just what standards he uses for judgment (his criteria), and how he uses a wealth of examples and reasons to back his critiques (although he is careful to avoid spoilers, the review went to print as the movie was coming out).
Sample Writing Assignment 3
Write a brief review of your first job. How would you rate that experience, and what would your rating be based on?
- Declare your overall judgment of your job experience. This is your main claim.
- Come up with at least four criteria for evaluation. Give your judgment for each criteria. Include at least two specific examples to support each evaluation, and explain the logic of your support.
- Proofread for tone, making sure to look for any words that would cause a reader to think your critique was unfair or hostile. For example, even if you loathed your first job, treat it dispassionately, like you are a social scientist putting that work experience under a microscope. (This might allow you to say, for example, that although the job was dull and repetitive, it gave you some useful experience.)
Sample Writing Assignment 4
Evaluate a source that you plan to use for a research project. Explain what type of source you have (website? journal article? book? newspaper article?), and declare your source to be credible or not, using the following criteria:
- Author’s credentials. First of all, are the authors named? Can you find out anything about them, like degrees and professional information? If you cannot find anything, how does that affect credibility? If you can find information, how does that information show credibility or lack of it?
- Publication information and process. Was the article or book peer reviewed? Was it online or in print? Did you find it through a database or a Google search? Who funded publication? Explain what the results of these questions tell you about the source’s credibility.
- The use of support. Does the source have footnotes or endnotes? A bibliography? Links to different articles? In other words, how carefully is the author trying to back up his or her claims?
Arguments of Fact and Explanation
In the beginning of this chapter, arguments were shown to be distinct from facts. Facts are not arguable, they do not have “two sides,” and they are not up for debate. However, as we well know, people disagree with facts all the time. We wouldn’t have a nonsense term like “alternative facts” otherwise. We do, however, have arguments that deal with this scenario: arguments of fact and explanation. Arguments of fact seek to establish, often in the face of doubters, that a fact is indeed true. Arguments of explanation establish why that fact is true. Not surprisingly, these arguments often go hand in hand, and they lie primarily in the domain of the research paper.
Arguments of Fact: Many times, the goal of giving an argument is simply to establish that the conclusion is true. For example, to convince someone that obesity rates are rising in the US, the writer should cite evidence such as studies from the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and the National Institutes of Health (NIH). The studies cited would function as premises for the conclusion that obesity rates are rising:
Obesity is on the rise in the US because multiple studies carried out by the CDC and NIH have consistently shown a rise in obesity over the last four decades.
Putting this simple argument into standard form would look like this:
- Multiple studies by the CDC and NIH have consistently shown a rise in obesity over the last four decades. ( premises)
- Therefore, obesity is on the rise in the US. ( conclusion)
The standard form argument clearly distinguishes the premise from the conclusion and shows how the conclusion is supposed to be supported by the evidence offered in the premise. Again, the goal of this simple argument would be to convince someone that the conclusion is true. However, sometimes we already know that a statement or claim is true, and we are trying to establish why it is true rather than that it is true.
Arguments of Explanation: An argument that attempts to show why its conclusion is true is an explanation. Contrast the previous example with the following:
The reason that the rate of obesity is on the rise in the US is that the foods we most often consume over the past four decades have increasingly contained high levels of sugar and low levels of dietary fiber. Because eating foods high in sugar and low in fiber triggers the insulin system to start storing those calories as fat, it follows that people who consume foods high in sugar and low in fiber will tend to store more of the calories consumed as fat.
This passage gives an explanation for why obesity is on the rise in the US. Unlike the earlier example, here it is taken for granted that obesity is on the rise in the US. That is the claim whose truth the author must explain. The obesity explanation can also be put into standard form just like any other argument:
- Over the past four decades, Americans have increasingly consumed foods high in sugar and low in fiber. ( premise)
- Consuming foods high in sugar and low in fat triggers the insulin system to start storing those calories as fat. ( premise)
- When people store more calories as fat, they tend to become obese. ( premise)
- Therefore, the rate of obesity is on the rise in the US. ( conclusion)
Notice that in this explanation, the premises (1-3) attempt to explain why the conclusion is true, rather than a reason for thinking that the conclusion is true. That is, in an argument of explanation, we assume that what we are trying to explain (i.e., the conclusion) is true. In this case, the premises are supposed to show why we should expect or predict that the conclusion is true. Explanations often give us an understanding of why the conclusion is true.
Arguments of Interpretation
Arguments of interpretation come mainly in the form of critical analysis writing. Scholars and students use critical analysis to understand a text more deeply; therefore, it is common in disciplines in which texts are the main objects of study—literature, philosophy, and history. However, we can also think of critical analysis as any analysis where someone takes raw data—from texts, from objects and images, from laboratory experiments, from surveys of people—and analyzes that data to come up with what they mean. The “what it all means” is an interpretation. The argument in critical analysis writing is the interpretation of the data. This must be a logical interpretation with the data also used to support the interpretation through reasoning and examples.
The guidelines for analyzing data are determined by the experts in those areas. Scholars of the life, earth, and physical sciences; the social sciences; and the humanities gather all sorts of different data. When writing up an interpretation of that data, writers and researchers should follow the models and standards provided by experts in those fields of study. In college, professors are important sources of these models and standards.
In the humanities, particularly in literature, there are generally four ways (or perspectives) for analyzing a text: writing from the perspective of a reader, writing as if the text were an object of study, writing about or from the perspective of an author, and writing about where a text fits into a particular context.
The process of critical analysis is dependent on close reading of the data or text and is an analytical process in which the writer moves from analyzing the details of the text to a broader conclusion that is logically based on those details. What can confuse a lot of students is that formal essay structure is must be framed by the conclusion, not the details: They must establish the main claim immediately, and then use the reasons for the claim to organize the details in each body paragraph. For more on close reading, see Chapter 1.
The Rogerian argument, inspired by the influential psychologist Carl Rogers, aims to find compromise or common ground about an issue. If, as stated in the beginning of the chapter, academic or rhetorical argument is not merely a two-sided debate that seeks a winner and a loser, the Rogerian argument model provides a structured way to move beyond the win-lose mindset. Indeed, the Rogerian model can be employed to deal effectively with controversial arguments that have been reduced to two opposing points of view by forcing the writer to confront opposing ideas and then work towards a common understanding with those who might disagree.
The following are the basic parts of a Rogerian Argument:
1. Introduction: Introduce the issue under scrutiny in a non-confrontational way. Be sure to outline the main sides in the debate. Though there are always more than two sides to a debate, Rogerian arguments put two in stark opposition to one another. Crucially, be sure to indicate the overall purpose of the essay: to come to a compromise about the issue at hand. If this intent is not stated up front, the reader may be confused or even suspect manipulation on the part of the writer, i.e., that the writer is massaging the audience just to win a fight. Be advised that the Rogerian essay uses an inductive reasoning structure, so do not include your thesis in your introduction. You will build toward the thesis and then include it in your conclusion. Once again, state the intent to compromise, but do not yet state what the compromise is.
2. Side A: Carefully map out the main claim and reasoning for the opposing side of the argument first. The writer’s view should never really come first because that would defeat the purpose of what Rogers called empathetic listening, which guides the overall approach to this type of argument. By allowing the opposing argument to come first, you communicate to the reader that you are willing to respectfully consider another’s view on the issue. Furthermore, you invite the reader to then give you the same respect and consideration when presenting your own view. Finally, presenting the opposition first can help those readers who would side against you to ease into the essay, keeping them invested in the project. If you present your own ideas first, you risk polarizing those readers from the start, which would then make them less amenable to considering a compromise by the end of the essay. You can listen to Carl Rogers himself discuss the importance of empathy on YouTube(https://youtu.be/2dLsgpHw5x0, transcript here ).
3. Side B: Carefully go over your side of the argument. When mapping out this side’s claim and support, be sure that it parallels that of Side A. In other words, make sure not to raise entirely new categories of support, or there can be no way to come to a compromise. Make sure to maintain a non-confrontational tone; for example, avoid appearing arrogant, sarcastic, or smug.
4. The Bridge: A solid Rogerian argument acknowledges the desires of each side and tries to accommodate both. In this part, point out the ways in which you agree or can find common ground between the two sides. There should be at least one point of agreement. This can be an acknowledgement of the one part of the opposition’s agreement that you also support or an admittance to a shared set of values even if the two sides come to different ideas when employing those values. This phase of the essay is crucial for two reasons: finding common ground (1) shows the audience the two views are not necessarily at complete odds, that they share more than they seem, and (2) sets up the compromise to come, making it easier to digest for all parties. Thus, this section builds a bridge from the two initial isolated and opposite views to a compromise that both sides can reasonably support.
5. The Compromise: Now is the time to finally announce your compromise, which is your thesis. The compromise is what the essay has been building towards all along, so explain it carefully and demonstrate the logic of it. For example, if debating about whether to use racial profiling, a compromise might be based on both sides’ desire for a safer society. That shared value can then lead to a new claim, one that disarms the original dispute or set of disputes. For the racial profiling example, perhaps a better solution would focus on more objective measures than race that would then promote safety in a less problematic way.
Sample Writing Assignment 5
Find a controversial topic, and begin building a Rogerian argument. Write up your responses to the following:
- The topic or dilemma I will write about is…
- My opposing audience is…
- My audience’s view on the topic is…
- My view on the topic is…
- Our common ground–shared values or something that we both already agree on about the topic–is…
- My compromise (the main claim or potential thesis) is…
The Toulmin Argument Model
Stephen Edelston Toulmin (born March 25, 1922) was a British philosopher, author, and educator. Toulmin devoted his works to analyzing moral reasoning. He sought to develop practical ways to evaluate ethical arguments effectively. The Toulmin Model of Argumentation, a diagram containing six interrelated components, was considered Toulmin’s most influential work, particularly in the fields of rhetoric, communication, and computer science. His components continue to provide useful means for analyzing arguments, and the terms involved can be added to those defined in earlier sections of this chapter.
The following are the parts of a Toulmin argument:
1. Claim: The claim is a statement that you are asking the other person to accept as true (i.e., a conclusion) and forms the nexus of the Toulmin argument because all the other parts relate back to the claim. The claim can include information and ideas you are asking readers to accept as true or actions you want them to accept and enact. One example of a claim:
My grandfather should wear a hearing aid.
This claim both asks the reader to believe an idea and suggests an action to enact. However, like all claims, it can be challenged. Thus, a Toulmin argument does not end with a claim but also includes grounds and warrant to give support and reasoning to the claim.
2. Grounds: The grounds form the basis of real persuasion and includes the reasoning behind the claim, data, and proof of expertise. Think of grounds as a combination of premises and support. The truth of the claim rests upon the grounds, so those grounds should be tested for strength, credibility, relevance, and reliability. The following are examples of grounds:
Over 70% of all people over 65 years have a hearing difficulty.
Hearing aids raise hearing quality.
Information is usually a powerful element of persuasion, although it does affect people differently. Those who are dogmatic, logical, or rational will more likely be persuaded by factual data. Those who argue emotionally and who are highly invested in their own position will challenge it or otherwise try to ignore it. Thus, grounds can also include appeals to emotion, provided they aren’t misused. The best arguments, however, use a variety of support and rhetorical appeals.
3. Warrant: A warrant links data and other grounds to a claim, legitimizing the claim by showing the grounds to be relevant. The warrant may be carefully explained and explicit or unspoken and implicit. The warrant answers the question, “Why does that data mean your claim is true?” For example,
A hearing aid helps most people hear better.
The warrant may be simple, and it may also be a longer argument with additional sub-elements including those described below. Warrants may be based on logos , ethos or pathos , or values that are assumed to be shared with the listener. In many arguments, warrants are often implicit and, hence, unstated. This gives space for the other person to question and expose the warrant, perhaps to show it is weak or unfounded.
4. Backing: The backing for an argument gives additional support to the warrant. Backing can be confused with grounds, but the main difference is this: Grounds should directly support the premises of the main argument itself, while backing exists to help the warrants make more sense. For example,
Hearing aids are available locally.
This statement works as backing because it gives credence to the warrant stated above, that a hearing aid will help most people hear better. The fact that hearing aids are readily available makes the warrant even more reasonable.
5. Qualifier: The qualifier indicates how the data justifies the warrant and may limit how universally the claim applies. The necessity of qualifying words comes from the plain fact that most absolute claims are ultimately false (all women want to be mothers, e.g.) because one counterexample sinks them immediately. Thus, most arguments need some sort of qualifier, words that temper an absolute claim and make it more reasonable. Common qualifiers include “most,” “usually,” “always,” or “sometimes.” For example,
Hearing aids help most people.
The qualifier “most” here allows for the reasonable understanding that rarely does one thing (a hearing aid) universally benefit all people. Another variant is the reservation, which may give the possibility of the claim being incorrect:
Unless there is evidence to the contrary, hearing aids do no harm to ears.
Qualifiers and reservations can be used to bolster weak arguments, so it is important to recognize them. They are often used by advertisers who are constrained not to lie. Thus, they slip “usually,” “virtually,” “unless,” and so on into their claims to protect against liability. While this may seem like sneaky practice, and it can be for some advertisers, it is important to note that the use of qualifiers and reservations can be a useful and legitimate part of an argument.
6. Rebuttal: Despite the careful construction of the argument, there may still be counterarguments that can be used. These may be rebutted either through a continued dialogue, or by pre-empting the counter-argument by giving the rebuttal during the initial presentation of the argument. For example, if you anticipated a counterargument that hearing aids, as a technology, may be fraught with technical difficulties, you would include a rebuttal to deal with that counterargument:
There is a support desk that deals with technical problems.
Any rebuttal is an argument in itself, and thus may include a claim, warrant, backing, and the other parts of the Toulmin structure.
Even if you do not wish to write an essay using strict Toulmin structure, using the Toulmin checklist can make an argument stronger. When first proposed, Toulmin based his layout on legal arguments, intending it to be used analyzing arguments typically found in the courtroom; in fact, Toulmin did not realize that this layout would be applicable to other fields until later. The first three elements–“claim,” “grounds,” and “warrant”–are considered the essential components of practical arguments, while the last three—“qualifier,” “backing,” and “rebuttal”—may not be necessary for all arguments.
Sample Writing Assignment 6
Find an argument in essay form and diagram it using the Toulmin model. The argument can come from an Op-Ed article in a newspaper or a magazine think piece or a scholarly journal. See if you can find all six elements of the Toulmin argument. Use the structure above to diagram your article’s argument.
Contributors and Attributions
Adapted from Let's Get Writing (Browning, DeVries, Boylan, Kurtz and Burton). Sourced from LibreTexts, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA


|Part of a series on|
In sociology, anthropology, archaeology, history, philosophy, and linguistics, structuralism is a general theory of culture and methodology that implies that elements of human culture must be understood by way of their relationship to a broader system. It works to uncover the structures that underlie all the things that humans do, think, perceive, and feel.
Alternatively, as summarized by philosopher Simon Blackburn, structuralism is:
[T]he belief that phenomena of human life are not intelligible except through their interrelations. These relations constitute a structure, and behind local variations in the surface phenomena there are constant laws of abstract structure.
Structuralism in Europe developed in the early 20th century, mainly in France and the Russian Empire, in the structural linguistics of Ferdinand de Saussure and the subsequent Prague, Moscow, and Copenhagen schools of linguistics. As an intellectual movement, structuralism became the heir to existentialism. After World War II, an array of scholars in the humanities borrowed Saussure's concepts for use in their respective fields. French anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss was arguably the first such scholar, sparking a widespread interest in structuralism.
The structuralist mode of reasoning has since been applied in a range of fields, including anthropology, sociology, psychology, literary criticism, economics, and architecture. Along with Lévi-Strauss, the most prominent thinkers associated with structuralism include linguist Roman Jakobson and psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan.
By the late 1960s, many of structuralism's basic tenets came under attack from a new wave of predominantly French intellectuals/philosophers such as historian Michel Foucault, Jacques Derrida, Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser, and literary critic Roland Barthes. Though elements of their work necessarily relate to structuralism and are informed by it, these theorists eventually came to be referred to as post-structuralists. Many proponents of structuralism, such as Lacan, continue to influence continental philosophy and many of the fundamental assumptions of some of structuralism's post-structuralist critics are a continuation of structuralist thinking.
The term structuralism is ambiguous, referring to different schools of thought in different contexts. As such, the movement in humanities and social sciences called structuralism relates to sociology. Emile Durkheim based his sociological concept on 'structure' and 'function', and from his work emerged the sociological approach of structural functionalism.
Apart from Durkheim's use of the term structure, the semiological concept of Ferdinand de Saussure became fundamental for structuralism. Saussure conceived language and society as a system of relations. His linguistic approach was also a refutation of evolutionary linguistics.
Throughout the 1940s and 1950s, existentialism, such as that propounded by Jean-Paul Sartre, was the dominant European intellectual movement. Structuralism rose to prominence in France in the wake of existentialism, particularly in the 1960s. The initial popularity of structuralism in France led to its spread across the globe. By the early 1960s, structuralism as a movement was coming into its own and some believed that it offered a single unified approach to human life that would embrace all disciplines.
Russian functional linguist Roman Jakobson was a pivotal figure in the adaptation of structural analysis to disciplines beyond linguistics, including philosophy, anthropology, and literary theory. Jakobson was a decisive influence on anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, by whose work the term structuralism first appeared in reference to social sciences. Lévi-Strauss' work in turn gave rise to the structuralist movement in France, also called French structuralism, influencing the thinking of other writers, most of whom disavowed themselves as being a part of this movement. This included such writers as Louis Althusser and psychoanalyst Jacques Lacan, as well as the structural Marxism of Nicos Poulantzas. Roland Barthes and Jacques Derrida focused on how structuralism could be applied to literature.
Accordingly, the so-called "Gang of Four" of structuralism is considered to be Lévi-Strauss, Lacan, Barthes, and Michel Foucault.[dubious ]
The origins of structuralism are connected with the work of Ferdinand de Saussure on linguistics along with the linguistics of the Prague and Moscow schools. In brief, Saussure's structural linguistics propounded three related concepts.
Structuralism rejected the concept of human freedom and choice, focusing instead on the way that human experience and behaviour is determined by various structures. The most important initial work on this score was Lévi-Strauss's 1949 volume The Elementary Structures of Kinship. Lévi-Strauss had known Roman Jakobson during their time together at the New School in New York during WWII and was influenced by both Jakobson's structuralism, as well as the American anthropological tradition.
In Elementary Structures, he examined kinship systems from a structural point of view and demonstrated how apparently different social organizations were different permutations of a few basic kinship structures. In the late 1950s, he published Structural Anthropology, a collection of essays outlining his program for structuralism.
Blending Freud and Saussure, French (post)structuralist Jacques Lacan applied structuralism to psychoanalysis. Similarly, Jean Piaget applied structuralism to the study of psychology, though in a different way. Piaget, who would better define himself as constructivist, considered structuralism as "a method and not a doctrine," because, for him, "there exists no structure without a construction, abstract or genetic."
Proponents of structuralism argue that a specific domain of culture may be understood by means of a structure that is modelled on language and is distinct both from the organizations of reality and those of ideas, or the imagination—the "third order." In Lacan's psychoanalytic theory, for example, the structural order of "the Symbolic" is distinguished both from "the Real" and "the Imaginary;" similarly, in Althusser's Marxist theory, the structural order of the capitalist mode of production is distinct both from the actual, real agents involved in its relations and from the ideological forms in which those relations are understood.
Although French theorist Louis Althusser is often associated with structural social analysis, which helped give rise to "structural Marxism," such association was contested by Althusser himself in the Italian foreword to the second edition of Reading Capital. In this foreword Althusser states the following:
Despite the precautions we took to distinguish ourselves from the 'structuralist' ideology…, despite the decisive intervention of categories foreign to 'structuralism'…, the terminology we employed was too close in many respects to the 'structuralist' terminology not to give rise to an ambiguity. With a very few exceptions…our interpretation of Marx has generally been recognized and judged, in homage to the current fashion, as 'structuralist'.… We believe that despite the terminological ambiguity, the profound tendency of our texts was not attached to the 'structuralist' ideology.
In a later development, feminist theorist Alison Assiter enumerated four ideas common to the various forms of structuralism:
Main article: Structural linguistics
|Part of a series on|
In Ferdinand de Saussure's Course in General Linguistics, the analysis focuses not on the use of language (parole, 'speech'), but rather on the underlying system of language (langue). This approach examines how the elements of language relate to each other in the present, synchronically rather than diachronically. Saussure argued that linguistic signs were composed of two parts:
This differed from previous approaches that focused on the relationship between words and the things in the world that they designate.
Although not fully developed by Saussure, other key notions in structural linguistics can be found in structural "idealism." A structural idealism is a class of linguistic units (lexemes, morphemes, or even constructions) that are possible in a certain position in a given syntagm, or linguistic environment (such as a given sentence). The different functional role of each of these members of the paradigm is called 'value' (French: valeur).
In France, Antoine Meillet and Émile Benveniste continued Saussure's project, and members of the Prague school of linguistics such as Roman Jakobson and Nikolai Trubetzkoy conducted influential research. The clearest and most important example of Prague school structuralism lies in phonemics. Rather than simply compiling a list of which sounds occur in a language, the Prague school examined how they were related. They determined that the inventory of sounds in a language could be analysed as a series of contrasts.
Thus, in English, the sounds /p/ and /b/ represent distinct phonemes because there are cases (minimal pairs) where the contrast between the two is the only difference between two distinct words (e.g. 'pat' and 'bat'). Analyzing sounds in terms of contrastive features also opens up comparative scope—for instance, it makes clear the difficulty Japanese speakers have differentiating /r/ and /l/ in English and other languages is because these sounds are not contrastive in Japanese. Phonology would become the paradigmatic basis for structuralism in a number of different fields.
Based on the Prague school concept, André Martinet in France, J. R. Firth in the UK and Louis Hjelmslev in Denmark developed their own versions of structural and functional linguistics.
Main article: Structural anthropology
|Part of a series on|
According to structural theory in anthropology and social anthropology, meaning is produced and reproduced within a culture through various practices, phenomena, and activities that serve as systems of signification.
A structuralist approach may study activities as diverse as food-preparation and serving rituals, religious rites, games, literary and non-literary texts, and other forms of entertainment to discover the deep structures by which meaning is produced and reproduced within the culture. For example, Lévi-Strauss analysed in the 1950s cultural phenomena including mythology, kinship (the alliance theory and the incest taboo), and food preparation. In addition to these studies, he produced more linguistically-focused writings in which he applied Saussure's distinction between langue and parole in his search for the fundamental structures of the human mind, arguing that the structures that form the "deep grammar" of society originate in the mind and operate in people unconsciously. Lévi-Strauss took inspiration from mathematics.
Another concept used in structural anthropology came from the Prague school of linguistics, where Roman Jakobson and others analysed sounds based on the presence or absence of certain features (e.g., voiceless vs. voiced). Lévi-Strauss included this in his conceptualization of the universal structures of the mind, which he held to operate based on pairs of binary oppositions such as hot-cold, male-female, culture-nature, cooked-raw, or marriageable vs. tabooed women.
A third influence came from Marcel Mauss (1872–1950), who had written on gift-exchange systems. Based on Mauss, for instance, Lévi-Strauss argued an alliance theory—that kinship systems are based on the exchange of women between groups—as opposed to the 'descent'-based theory described by Edward Evans-Pritchard and Meyer Fortes. While replacing Mauss at his Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes chair, the writings of Lévi-Strauss became widely popular in the 1960s and 1970s and gave rise to the term "structuralism" itself.
In Britain, authors such as Rodney Needham and Edmund Leach were highly influenced by structuralism. Authors such as Maurice Godelier and Emmanuel Terray combined Marxism with structural anthropology in France. In the United States, authors such as Marshall Sahlins and James Boon built on structuralism to provide their own analysis of human society. Structural anthropology fell out of favour in the early 1980s for a number of reasons. D'Andrade suggests that this was because it made unverifiable assumptions about the universal structures of the human mind. Authors such as Eric Wolf argued that political economy and colonialism should be at the forefront of anthropology. More generally, criticisms of structuralism by Pierre Bourdieu led to a concern with how cultural and social structures were changed by human agency and practice, a trend which Sherry Ortner has referred to as 'practice theory'.
One example is Douglas E. Foley's Learning Capitalist Culture (2010), in which he applied a mixture of structural and Marxist theories to his ethnographic fieldwork among high school students in Texas. Foley analyzed how they reach a shared goal through the lens of social solidarity when he observed "Mexicanos" and "Anglo-Americans" come together on the same football team to defeat the school's rivals.: 36–7 However, he also continually applies a marxist lens and states that he," wanted to wow peers with a new cultural marxist theory of schooling.": 176
Some anthropological theorists, however, while finding considerable fault with Lévi-Strauss's version of structuralism, did not turn away from a fundamental structural basis for human culture. The Biogenetic Structuralism group for instance argued that some kind of structural foundation for culture must exist because all humans inherit the same system of brain structures. They proposed a kind of neuroanthropology which would lay the foundations for a more complete scientific account of cultural similarity and variation by requiring an integration of cultural anthropology and neuroscience—a program that theorists such as Victor Turner also embraced.
Main article: Semiotic literary criticism
In literary theory, structuralist criticism relates literary texts to a larger structure, which may be a particular genre, a range of intertextual connections, a model of a universal narrative structure, or a system of recurrent patterns or motifs.
The field of structuralist semiotics argues that there must be a structure in every text, which explains why it is easier for experienced readers than for non-experienced readers to interpret a text. Everything that is written seems to be governed by rules, or "grammar of literature", that one learns in educational institutions and that are to be unmasked.
A potential problem for a structuralist interpretation is that it can be highly reductive; as scholar Catherine Belsey puts it: "the structuralist danger of collapsing all difference." An example of such a reading might be if a student concludes the authors of West Side Story did not write anything "really" new, because their work has the same structure as Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet. In both texts a girl and a boy fall in love (a "formula" with a symbolic operator between them would be "Boy + Girl") despite the fact that they belong to two groups that hate each other ("Boy's Group - Girl's Group" or "Opposing forces") and conflict is resolved by their deaths. Structuralist readings focus on how the structures of the single text resolve inherent narrative tensions. If a structuralist reading focuses on multiple texts, there must be some way in which those texts unify themselves into a coherent system. The versatility of structuralism is such that a literary critic could make the same claim about a story of two friendly families ("Boy's Family + Girl's Family") that arrange a marriage between their children despite the fact that the children hate each other ("Boy - Girl") and then the children commit suicide to escape the arranged marriage; the justification is that the second story's structure is an 'inversion' of the first story's structure: the relationship between the values of love and the two pairs of parties involved have been reversed.
Structuralist literary criticism argues that the "literary banter of a text" can lie only in new structure, rather than in the specifics of character development and voice in which that structure is expressed. Literary structuralism often follows the lead of Vladimir Propp, Algirdas Julien Greimas, and Claude Lévi-Strauss in seeking out basic deep elements in stories, myths, and more recently, anecdotes, which are combined in various ways to produce the many versions of the ur-story or ur-myth.
There is considerable similarity between structural literary theory and Northrop Frye's archetypal criticism, which is also indebted to the anthropological study of myths. Some critics have also tried to apply the theory to individual works, but the effort to find unique structures in individual literary works runs counter to the structuralist program and has an affinity with New Criticism.
Main article: Structuralist economics
Structuralist economics is an approach to economics that emphasizes the importance of taking into account structural features (typically) when undertaking economic analysis. The approach originated with the work of the Economic Commission for Latin America (ECLA or CEPAL) and is primarily associated with its director Raúl Prebisch and Brazilian economist Celso Furtado. Prebisch began with arguments that economic inequality and distorted development was an inherent structural feature of the global system exchange. As such, early structuralist models emphasised both internal and external disequilibria arising from the productive structure and its interactions with the dependent relationship developing countries had with the developed world. Prebisch himself helped provide the rationale for the idea of Import substitution industrialization, in the wake of the Great Depression and World War II. The alleged declining terms of trade of the developing countries, the Singer–Prebisch hypothesis, played a key role in this.
Structuralism is less popular today than other approaches, such as post-structuralism and deconstruction. Structuralism has often been criticized for being ahistorical and for favouring deterministic structural forces over the ability of people to act. As the political turbulence of the 1960s and 1970s (particularly the student uprisings of May 1968) began affecting academia, issues of power and political struggle moved to the center of public attention.
In the 1980s, deconstruction—and its emphasis on the fundamental ambiguity of language rather than its logical structure—became popular. By the end of the century, structuralism was seen as a historically important school of thought, but the movements that it spawned, rather than structuralism itself, commanded attention.
Several social theorists and academics have strongly criticized structuralism or even dismissed it. French hermeneutic philosopher Paul Ricœur (1969) criticized Lévi-Strauss for overstepping the limits of validity of the structuralist approach, ending up in what Ricœur described as "a Kantianism without a transcendental subject."
Anthropologist Adam Kuper (1973) argued that:
'Structuralism' came to have something of the momentum of a millennial movement and some of its adherents felt that they formed a secret society of the seeing in a world of the blind. Conversion was not just a matter of accepting a new paradigm. It was, almost, a question of salvation.
Philip Noel Pettit (1975) called for an abandoning of "the positivist dream which Lévi-Strauss dreamed for semiology," arguing that semiology is not to be placed among the natural sciences. Cornelius Castoriadis (1975) criticized structuralism as failing to explain symbolic mediation in the social world; he viewed structuralism as a variation on the "logicist" theme, arguing that, contrary to what structuralists advocate, language—and symbolic systems in general—cannot be reduced to logical organizations on the basis of the binary logic of oppositions.
Critical theorist Jürgen Habermas (1985) accused structuralists like Foucault of being positivists; Foucault, while not an ordinary positivist per se, paradoxically uses the tools of science to criticize science, according to Habermas. (See Performative contradiction and Foucault–Habermas debate.) Sociologist Anthony Giddens (1993) is another notable critic; while Giddens draws on a range of structuralist themes in his theorizing, he dismisses the structuralist view that the reproduction of social systems is merely "a mechanical outcome."