Simulated Social Action
Assessing Generative AI’s attempts at the Rhetoric of Literary Criticism
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.31468/dwr.1149Keywords:
rhetoric, literary criticism, disciplinary discourse, disciplinary rhetoric, WID, Artificial IntelligenceAbstract
Previous analyses of the rhetoric of literary criticism establish English studies as a disciplinary discourse community with both a characteristic rhetoric and a distinctive rhetorical approach to research activity, albeit one that is gradually changing over time. The findings of these prior studies allow me to examine LLM outputs to assess whether and how they simulate this disciplinary rhetoric. The comparison showcases differences and similarities between the rhetoric of literary criticism composed by human writers and the simulated literary-critical rhetoric that AI is capable of generating in 2025. This study shows that there remains a profound difference, although the superficial similarities between human- and LLM-composed literary criticism are striking. I will argue that while LLMs effectively signal the genre of the literary research article, they fail to register its rhetorical context or undertake its characteristic social action.
References
Andersen, J.P., Degn, L., Fishberg, R., Graversen, E.K., Horbach, S.P.J.M., Schmidt, E.K., Schneider, J.W., & Sørensen, M.P. (2025). Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) in the research process: A survey of researchers’ practices and perceptions. Technology in Society, 81, 102813. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.techsoc.2025.102813.
Anthropic. (2025). Home page. https://www.anthropic.com/
Anthropic. (2025). Claude (June 16 version) [Large language model]. https://claude.ai/login?returnTo=%2F%3F
Balocco, A. E. (2000). Who’s afraid of literature? Rhetorical routines in literary research. The ESP, 21(2), 207-223. https://revistas.pucsp.br/index.php/esp/article/view/9426
Banting, S. (2016). If what we do matters: Motives of research in Canadian literature scholarship. ESC: English Studies in Canada, 42(3-4), 27-64.
Banting, S. (2023). Humanistic knowledge-making and the rhetoric of literary criticism: Special topoi meet rhetorical action. Written Communication, 40(1), 175-209.
Bazerman, C. (1981). What written knowledge does: Three examples of academic discourse. Philosophy of the Social Sciences, 11(3), 361-387.
Carter, M. (1992). Scholarship as rhetoric of display; or, why is everybody saying all those terrible things about us? College English, 54(3), 303-311.
Caulfield, M. (2024, December 31). Critical reasoning with AI: How we know LLMs are applying reasoning patterns, and not just reverse image searching. The End(s) of Argument substack. https://mikecaulfield.substack.com/p/critical-reasoning-with-ai-how-we.
Deptula, A., Hunter, P. T., & Johnson-Sheehan, R. (2025). Rhetorics of authenticity: Ethics, ethos, and artificial intelligence. Journal of Business & Technical Communication, 39(1), 51-74. DOI: 10.1177/10506519241280639.
Fahnestock, J., & Secor, M. (1991). The rhetoric of literary criticism. In C. Bazerman & J. Paradis (Eds.), Textual dynamics of the professions: Historical and contemporary studies of writing in professional communities (pp. 76-96). The University of Wisconsin Press.
Freadman, A. (2002). Uptake. In R. Coe, L. Lingard, & T. Teslenko (Eds.), The rhetoric and ideology of genre: Strategies for stability and change (pp. 39-53). Hampton Press.
Grav, P. F. (2019). Harnessing sources in the humanities: A corpus-based investigation of citation practices in English literary studies. Canadian Journal for Studies in Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, 29, 24-50.
Gray, A. (2024, March 25). ChatGPT ‘contamination’: Estimating the prevalence of LLMs in the scholarly literature. arXiv.org. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2403.16887
Hsu, H. (2025, July 7). The end of the essay. The New Yorker. Gale Literature Resource Center, accessed August 15, 2025.
Hyland, K. (2002). Options of identity in academic writing. English Language Teaching Journal, 56(4), 351-358.
Knowles, A. M. (2024). Machine-in-the-loop writing: Optimizing the rhetorical load. Computers and Composition: An International Journal for Teachers of Writing, 71.
Kulchar, D. (2024). Vector rhetoric: GPT's rhetorical agency. Philosophy & Rhetoric, 57(2), 194-217. DOI: 10.5325/philrhet.57.2.0194.
Ladd, H. A., & Spring, E. (2021) Feminizing Thomson's the seasons: Identity, gender, and seasonal aesthetics in L. M. Montgomery's Anne of Green Gables. In E. H. Pike, & L. M. Robinson (Eds.), L. M. Montgomery and gender, McGill-Queen’s University Press (pp. 284-304). ProQuest EBook.
Laquintano, T., Schnitzler, C. & Vee, A. (2023). Introduction to teaching with text generation technologies. In A. Vee, T. Laquintano, & C. Schnitzler (Eds.), TextGenEd: Teaching with Text Generation Technologies. The WAC Clearinghouse. https://doi.org/10.37514/TWR-J.2023.1.1.02 https://wac.colostate.edu/repository/collections/textgened/
Laquintano, T., & Vee, A. (2024). AI and the everyday writer. PMLA: Publications of the Modern Language Association of America, 139(3), 527-532.
Liang, W., Zhang, Y., Wu, Z., Lepp, H., Ji, W., Zhao, X., Cao, H., Liu, S., He, S., Huang, Z., Yang, D., Potts, C., Manning, C. D., & Zou, J. Y. (2024, April 1). Mapping the increasing use of LLMs in scientific papers. arXiv.org. https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2404.01268
Linkon, S. L. (2011). Literary learning: Teaching the English major. Indiana University Press.
MacDonald, S. P. (1994). Professional academic writing in the humanities and social sciences. Southern Illinois University Press.
Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2015). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation. John Wiley & Sons, Incorporated.
Microsoft. (2025). Copilot (June 16 version) [Large language model].https://copilot.microsoft.com/chats/c1CDMyCL3rRt4cADFNqKh
Miller, C.R. (1984). Genre as social action. Quarterly Journal of Speech, 70, 151-167.
Montgomery, L. M. (2014/1908). Anne of green gables. Tundra Books.
Montgomery, L. M. (2017/1908). Anne of green gables. eBook Collection, EBSCOhost.
Omizo, R., & Hart-Davidson, B. (2024). Is genre enough? A theory of genre signaling as generative AI rhetoric. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 54(3), 272-285.
OpenAI. (2025). ChatGPT (June 16 version) [Large language model]. https://openai.com/chatgpt/overview/
Paxton, A. (2025, June 2). AI and thou: Relationality and writing in the age of chatbots. Presentation to the Association of Canadian College and University Teachers of English, George Brown College, Toronto,Canada.
Thieme, K. (2017/2018). Do we need new method names? Descriptions of method in scholarship on Canadian Literature. ESC: English Studies in Canada, 43/44(4/1), 91-110.
Vee, A. (2023). Large language models write answers. Composition Studies, 51(1), 176-181.
Wang, Z. (2024). Post-rhetoric: A rhetorical profile of the generative artificial intelligence chatbot. Rhetoric Review, 43(3), 155-172. DOI: 10.1080/07350198.2024.2351723.
Warren, J. E. (2006). Literary scholars processing poetry and constructing arguments. Written Communication, 23(2), 202-206. Doi: 10.1177/0741088306286864
Wilder, L. (2005). ‘The rhetoric of literary criticism’ revisited: Mistaken critics, complex contexts, and social justice. Written Communication, 22(1), 76-119.
Wilder, L. (2012). Rhetorical strategies and genre conventions in literary studies: teaching and writing in the disciplines. Southern Illinois University Press.
Wolfe, J., & Wilder, L. (2015). Digging into literature: Strategies for reading, analysis, and writing. Bedford/St. Martin’s.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Sarah Banting
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
If this article is selected for publication in Discourse and Writing/Rédactologie, the work shall be published electronically under the terms of Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike (CC BY-SA 4.0). This license allows users to adapt and build upon the published work, but requires them to attribute the original publication and license their derivative works under the same terms. There is no fee required for submission or publication. Authors retain unrestricted copyright and all publishing rights, and are permitted to deposit all versions of their paper in an institutional or subject repository.
