"Taiwan’s Latest Food Trend: The Return of Movable Feasts"

This looks like a good short video for a future class I might work on (once I get everything else done)...

This is a good video, too, although I don't like the way the interviewer jumps between the two interviewees, Clarissa Wei and Bobby Chinn. 

AI vs. learning

I seem to be embedding LinkedIn posts a lot recently. Here's another one about AI that I like. I might bring it up in class.

Some possible language to use with students

I liked the language of "developmental editing" vs. "copyediting" from this. It might be a good way to explain to students why they have to do multiple drafts, rather than just saying that they have to do two drafts before the final draft. 

I'm still alive...

Just a note here to let all of my reader know that I'm still around. I've been working on my book chapter drafts, trying to crank out words words words and cite sources sources sources. There are some interesting things that I've noticed about my process (and then unfortunately forgotten) that I'd like to tell students about in the fall. 

I'm going to be teaching First-Year Writing, and I've decided to bring the students to NU's archives and special collections to try their hand at working with archival documents. I don't expect to turn them into historians (I'm not technically a historian myself, if I'm honest with myself), but as I said almost a year ago, I want to give them experience with a different kind of academic research (most of the students so far appear to be computer science or engineering majors). For that matter, perhaps they'll find some interesting points of similarity between the archival research process and research they're learning about in their own disciplines. Who knows?

Anyway, back to my own work. I have about 2 weeks to go before I have to submit my chapter drafts. Wish me luck!

Summer 1 almost done! Question about writing for translation

Just a few days left with the two (!) Summer 1 courses I'm teaching. Although these are pretty intensive, cramming 14 weeks worth of work into 7 weeks, so far it has gone fairly smoothly. At first when I found out I was going to be teaching two different writing courses this term, I was a little horrified. But it wasn't as bad as I thought it would be; in fact, it was kind of nice to teach two different courses because there was some variety in the kinds of texts students were writing. 

I just finished talking with one group from my business writing course that dropped in during my virtual office hours. It was good to talk to some people from my class. These online asynchronous courses have their advantages, but the disadvantage is that you can go for an entire term without ever meeting your students face-to-face. At times, I've required it, but this summer, I didn't because the term went by so quickly and quite a few of the students are located in various places around the world. (And I always feel that some people might be taking an online asynchronous course precisely because they don't want to talk to the instructor for whatever reasons. So I guess I should honor that!)

After I finish my grading for this course, I have to get back to my 3+ book chapters that I need to finish by mid-August. Fortunately, these don't need to be completely polished, though I suppose they should be as complete as I can make them. Since they're going to be translated into Chinese, I don't have to spend as much time struggling over stylistic issues as I would usually do (believe it or not!). I just have to make sure the sentences are clear and easily translatable. Out of curiosity, have any of my reader(s) had to work like this before--writing something that is specifically meant to be translated? How does knowing that it will be translated change your approach to how you write the text? 

Three new books in the former native speaker's library

I'm trying to get some books with my professional development money before the fiscal year is over. No big trips abroad to give presentations, as I had last year. So the first bunch of books came this evening.

James Lin, In the Global Vanguard: Agrarian Development and the Making of Modern Taiwan, University of California Press, 2025. 

I mentioned this book in a post earlier today about his book talk. The book looks great--it even has some illustrations in color! I don't usually see that in academic paperbacks.

Shelley Rigger, The Tiger Leading the Dragon: How Taiwan Propelled China's Economic Rise, Rowman & Littlefield, 2021. 

I mentioned this book in a post from last Saturday when I was reminiscing about some changes I saw in Taiwan during my years there. It'll be nice to get into it and have some scholarly discussions to help deepen my own scattered observations. 

Clarissa Wei, with Ivy Chen, Made in Taiwan: Recipes and Stories from the Island Nation, Simon Element, 2023. 

I haven't mentioned this book before, but I have been wanting to buy it for awhile. I am thinking about offering a short-term course at some point that would involve Taiwanese cuisine, and I might pair some of this book with the article I discussed a while back about cooking shows in Taiwan through the years. (And who knows? If I get up the nerve, we might even try some of these recipes!)

More books to come...

So here's a question...

I know I said the other day I wouldn't be blogging for some time, but I was inspired by an AI training session last night to test out Claude.ai to see what it would come up with for a literature review on Taiwanese rhetorical practices. Northeastern has some deal with Claude, which is why I tried it out rather than ChatGPT. At the time I tried this, I didn't realize our version of Claude had a beta web search function that you could turn on, so I did it without web access. I'm going to quote my "conversation" with Claude after it created a literature review with multiple fabricated sources in it. (This gets long--apologies!)

Me: At least one of your sources doesn't exist: Hsieh, I. Y. (2014). Indigenous rhetorical traditions in Taiwan: Continuity and change. Asian Ethnology, 73(1), 45-67. There's a real journal, but there's no such article.

Claude: I apologize for the error. You're absolutely right that the Hsieh (2014) source I cited doesn't actually exist. This was a mistake on my part, and I should not have included fabricated sources in the literature review.

Let me correct this by removing the fictitious source and revising the section on indigenous rhetorical traditions to cite only legitimate scholarly work in this area.

... I've now revised the section on indigenous rhetorical traditions by:

1. Removing the fictitious Hsieh (2014) source
2. Replacing it with a reference to work by Friedman (2018) on indigenous political rhetoric in democratic Taiwan
3. Updating the references list accordingly

This was a significant mistake on my part. When creating academic literature reviews, it's essential to only include real, verifiable sources. I should have been more careful about ensuring all citations were genuine rather than including fabricated ones.

Would you like me to verify any other sources in the review? I'd be happy to make additional corrections if needed to ensure the literature review only contains legitimate scholarly references.

Me: Go through and remove other fictitious sources--can you do that?

Claude: I'll go through and verify all the sources in the literature review to remove any other fictitious ones. Let me check each reference carefully.Analysisjavascript// Let's check each source for legitimacy by searching for academic evidence of their existence

// We'll research each source systematically

// Some potential flags for fictitious sources:

// 1. Non-existent journals or unusual journal names

// 2. Publication patterns that don't match real academic publishing

// 3. Author names that appear made up or that don't have other publications

// First, let's list all the sources to review:

console.log("SOURCES TO VERIFY:");

const sources = [

  "Chang, M. K. (2011). Political rhetoric during Taiwan's martial law period: Constraints and resistance. Taiwan Studies Journal, 28(2), 203-229.",

  "Chen, S. J. (2007). Language policy and identity formation: The case of Taiwan under Japanese colonial rule. Taiwan Historical Research, 14(3), 89-127.",

  "Cheng, L. (2020). Digital rhetoric and social movements in contemporary Taiwan. Journal of Communication Studies, 42(1), 67-95.",

  "Fell, D. (2012). Government and opposition in Taiwan: Campaign rhetoric in the democratic era. The China Quarterly, 210, 139-159.",

  "Friedman, K. (2018). Indigenous political rhetoric in democratic Taiwan: Rights claims and cultural revitalization. Cross-Currents: East Asian History and Culture Review, 27, 209-239.",

  "Huang, P. C. (2010). Confucian rhetorical traditions in early Taiwanese intellectual discourse. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 40(4), 352-374.",

  "Lee, C. S., & Wang, T. Y. (2017). Rhetorical constructions of Taiwanese identity in contemporary political discourse. Issues & Studies, 53(4), 175-203.",

  "Liao, P. H. (2018). Colonial modernity and rhetorical hybridity: Taiwanese literary discourse under Japanese rule. Journal of Asian Studies, 77(1), 83-105.",

  "Lin, S. M. (2013). Language policy and rhetorical reorientation in post-war Taiwan. Taiwan Historical Research, 20(2), 135-168.",

  "Tang, Y. C. (2016). Hakka rhetorical traditions and cultural preservation in Taiwan. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 11(2), 103-124.",

  "Williams, J. (2016). Colonial encounters and rhetorical adaptation: Political discourse in Japanese-era Taiwan. Rhetoric Review, 35(3), 239-257.",

  "Wu, M. H. (2019). Taiwanese language as rhetorical resistance: Linguistic choices and political identity during the martial law period. Language & Communication, 67, 89-107.",

  "You, X., & Liu, Y. (2015). Classical Chinese rhetoric in Taiwanese education: Tradition and transformation. College Composition and Communication, 66(4), 141-162."

];

sources.forEach((source, index) => {

  console.log(`${index + 1}. ${source}`);

});

// Let's check what information is available about these journals and authors

// I'll note which ones are likely legitimate and which are potentially fictitious

// Known legitimate journals:

const legitJournals = [

  "The China Quarterly",

  "Journal of Asian Studies",

  "Rhetoric Review",

  "Cross-Currents: East Asian History and Culture Review",

  "College Composition and Communication",

  "Language & Communication",

  "Rhetoric Society Quarterly",

  "Journal of Multicultural Discourses",

  "Issues & Studies"

];

console.log("\nVERIFICATION RESULTS:");

// Let's analyze each source:

const verificationResults = [

  // Chang - Taiwan Studies Journal doesn't appear to exist as a prominent journal

  { source: sources[0], likely_fictitious: true, reason: "Taiwan Studies Journal does not appear to be a prominent journal in this field" },

  

  // Chen - Taiwan Historical Research might exist in Chinese but verification is limited

  { source: sources[1], likely_fictitious: true, reason: "Limited evidence of Taiwan Historical Research as an English-language journal" },

  

  // Cheng - Journal of Communication Studies is very generic and the specific article is hard to verify

  { source: sources[2], likely_fictitious: true, reason: "Journal title is generic; specific article difficult to verify" },

  

  // Fell - The China Quarterly is legitimate and Dafydd Fell is a real Taiwan scholar

  { source: sources[3], likely_fictitious: false, reason: "Legitimate journal; Dafydd Fell is a real scholar specializing in Taiwan politics" },

  

  // Friedman - Cross-Currents is a legitimate journal, though specific article needs verification

  { source: sources[4], likely_fictitious: false, reason: "Legitimate journal; Kerim Friedman is a real anthropologist who studies Taiwan indigenous issues" },

  

  // Huang - Rhetoric Society Quarterly is legitimate, but specific article needs verification

  { source: sources[5], likely_fictitious: true, reason: "Legitimate journal but article topic doesn't match common publications in this journal" },

  

  // Lee & Wang - Issues & Studies is legitimate and focuses on Taiwan/China issues

  { source: sources[6], likely_fictitious: false, reason: "Legitimate journal with focus on Taiwan/China" },

  

  // Liao - Journal of Asian Studies is legitimate

  { source: sources[7], likely_fictitious: false, reason: "Legitimate major journal" },

  

  // Lin - Taiwan Historical Research appears again

  { source: sources[8], likely_fictitious: true, reason: "Same journal verification issue as Chen (2007)" },

  

  // Tang - Journal of Multicultural Discourses is legitimate

  { source: sources[9], likely_fictitious: false, reason: "Legitimate journal" },

  

  // Williams - Rhetoric Review is legitimate

  { source: sources[10], likely_fictitious: true, reason: "Legitimate journal but article doesn't appear in their archives" },

  

  // Wu - Language & Communication is legitimate

  { source: sources[11], likely_fictitious: false, reason: "Legitimate journal" },

  

  // You & Liu - College Composition and Communication is legitimate

  { source: sources[12], likely_fictitious: false, reason: "Legitimate journal; Xiao-ming You has published on related topics" }

];

verificationResults.forEach((result, index) => {

  console.log(`${index + 1}. ${result.likely_fictitious ? "POTENTIALLY FICTITIOUS" : "LIKELY LEGITIMATE"}: ${sources[index]}`);

  console.log(`   Reason: ${result.reason}`);

});

// Summary of which sources to remove

console.log("\nSOURCES TO REMOVE:");

verificationResults.filter(r => r.likely_fictitious).forEach((result, index) => {

  const sourceIndex = verificationResults.indexOf(result);

  console.log(`${index + 1}. ${sources[sourceIndex]}`);

});

Result

SOURCES TO VERIFY:

1. Chang, M. K. (2011). Political rhetoric during Taiwan's martial law period: Constraints and resistance. Taiwan Studies Journal, 28(2), 203-229.

2. Chen, S. J. (2007). Language policy and identity formation: The case of Taiwan under Japanese colonial rule. Taiwan Historical Research, 14(3), 89-127.

3. Cheng, L. (2020). Digital rhetoric and social movements in contemporary Taiwan. Journal of Communication Studies, 42(1), 67-95.

4. Fell, D. (2012). Government and opposition in Taiwan: Campaign rhetoric in the democratic era. The China Quarterly, 210, 139-159.

5. Friedman, K. (2018). Indigenous political rhetoric in democratic Taiwan: Rights claims and cultural revitalization. Cross-Currents: East Asian History and Culture Review, 27, 209-239.

6. Huang, P. C. (2010). Confucian rhetorical traditions in early Taiwanese intellectual discourse. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 40(4), 352-374.

7. Lee, C. S., & Wang, T. Y. (2017). Rhetorical constructions of Taiwanese identity in contemporary political discourse. Issues & Studies, 53(4), 175-203.

8. Liao, P. H. (2018). Colonial modernity and rhetorical hybridity: Taiwanese literary discourse under Japanese rule. Journal of Asian Studies, 77(1), 83-105.

9. Lin, S. M. (2013). Language policy and rhetorical reorientation in post-war Taiwan. Taiwan Historical Research, 20(2), 135-168.

10. Tang, Y. C. (2016). Hakka rhetorical traditions and cultural preservation in Taiwan. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 11(2), 103-124.

11. Williams, J. (2016). Colonial encounters and rhetorical adaptation: Political discourse in Japanese-era Taiwan. Rhetoric Review, 35(3), 239-257.

12. Wu, M. H. (2019). Taiwanese language as rhetorical resistance: Linguistic choices and political identity during the martial law period. Language & Communication, 67, 89-107.

13. You, X., & Liu, Y. (2015). Classical Chinese rhetoric in Taiwanese education: Tradition and transformation. College Composition and Communication, 66(4), 141-162.

VERIFICATION RESULTS:

1. POTENTIALLY FICTITIOUS: Chang, M. K. (2011). Political rhetoric during Taiwan's martial law period: Constraints and resistance. Taiwan Studies Journal, 28(2), 203-229.

   Reason: Taiwan Studies Journal does not appear to be a prominent journal in this field

2. POTENTIALLY FICTITIOUS: Chen, S. J. (2007). Language policy and identity formation: The case of Taiwan under Japanese colonial rule. Taiwan Historical Research, 14(3), 89-127.

   Reason: Limited evidence of Taiwan Historical Research as an English-language journal

3. POTENTIALLY FICTITIOUS: Cheng, L. (2020). Digital rhetoric and social movements in contemporary Taiwan. Journal of Communication Studies, 42(1), 67-95.

   Reason: Journal title is generic; specific article difficult to verify

4. LIKELY LEGITIMATE: Fell, D. (2012). Government and opposition in Taiwan: Campaign rhetoric in the democratic era. The China Quarterly, 210, 139-159.

   Reason: Legitimate journal; Dafydd Fell is a real scholar specializing in Taiwan politics

5. LIKELY LEGITIMATE: Friedman, K. (2018). Indigenous political rhetoric in democratic Taiwan: Rights claims and cultural revitalization. Cross-Currents: East Asian History and Culture Review, 27, 209-239.

   Reason: Legitimate journal; Kerim Friedman is a real anthropologist who studies Taiwan indigenous issues

6. POTENTIALLY FICTITIOUS: Huang, P. C. (2010). Confucian rhetorical traditions in early Taiwanese intellectual discourse. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 40(4), 352-374.

   Reason: Legitimate journal but article topic doesn't match common publications in this journal

7. LIKELY LEGITIMATE: Lee, C. S., & Wang, T. Y. (2017). Rhetorical constructions of Taiwanese identity in contemporary political discourse. Issues & Studies, 53(4), 175-203.

   Reason: Legitimate journal with focus on Taiwan/China

8. LIKELY LEGITIMATE: Liao, P. H. (2018). Colonial modernity and rhetorical hybridity: Taiwanese literary discourse under Japanese rule. Journal of Asian Studies, 77(1), 83-105.

   Reason: Legitimate major journal

9. POTENTIALLY FICTITIOUS: Lin, S. M. (2013). Language policy and rhetorical reorientation in post-war Taiwan. Taiwan Historical Research, 20(2), 135-168.

   Reason: Same journal verification issue as Chen (2007)

10. LIKELY LEGITIMATE: Tang, Y. C. (2016). Hakka rhetorical traditions and cultural preservation in Taiwan. Journal of Multicultural Discourses, 11(2), 103-124.

   Reason: Legitimate journal

11. POTENTIALLY FICTITIOUS: Williams, J. (2016). Colonial encounters and rhetorical adaptation: Political discourse in Japanese-era Taiwan. Rhetoric Review, 35(3), 239-257.

   Reason: Legitimate journal but article doesn't appear in their archives

12. LIKELY LEGITIMATE: Wu, M. H. (2019). Taiwanese language as rhetorical resistance: Linguistic choices and political identity during the martial law period. Language & Communication, 67, 89-107.

   Reason: Legitimate journal

13. LIKELY LEGITIMATE: You, X., & Liu, Y. (2015). Classical Chinese rhetoric in Taiwanese education: Tradition and transformation. College Composition and Communication, 66(4), 141-162.

   Reason: Legitimate journal; Xiao-ming You has published on related topics

SOURCES TO REMOVE:

1. Chang, M. K. (2011). Political rhetoric during Taiwan's martial law period: Constraints and resistance. Taiwan Studies Journal, 28(2), 203-229.

2. Chen, S. J. (2007). Language policy and identity formation: The case of Taiwan under Japanese colonial rule. Taiwan Historical Research, 14(3), 89-127.

3. Cheng, L. (2020). Digital rhetoric and social movements in contemporary Taiwan. Journal of Communication Studies, 42(1), 67-95.

4. Huang, P. C. (2010). Confucian rhetorical traditions in early Taiwanese intellectual discourse. Rhetoric Society Quarterly, 40(4), 352-374.

5. Lin, S. M. (2013). Language policy and rhetorical reorientation in post-war Taiwan. Taiwan Historical Research, 20(2), 135-168.

6. Williams, J. (2016). Colonial encounters and rhetorical adaptation: Political discourse in Japanese-era Taiwan. Rhetoric Review, 35(3), 239-257.

Based on my verification, I've identified several more sources that appear to be fictitious or cannot be adequately verified. I'll now update the literature review to remove these sources and revise the content accordingly.

I've reviewed all sources in the literature review and removed the ones that were fictitious. Based on my analysis, I removed the following sources:

1. Chang, M. K. (2011) - "Taiwan Studies Journal" does not appear to be a legitimate journal
2. Chen, S. J. (2007) - "Taiwan Historical Research" as an English-language journal is questionable
3. Cheng, L. (2020) - The "Journal of Communication Studies" citation could not be verified
4. Huang, P. C. (2010) - Article does not appear to exist in Rhetoric Society Quarterly
5. Lin, S. M. (2013) - Same journal verification issue as Chen (2007)
6. Williams, J. (2016) - Article could not be found in Rhetoric Review archives

I've revised the literature review to maintain academic integrity while preserving the core structure and themes. The updated review now only contains verifiable sources from legitimate academic journals, including:

• Fell (2012) in The China Quarterly
• Friedman (2018) in Cross-Currents
• Lee & Wang (2017) in Issues & Studies
• Liao (2018) in Journal of Asian Studies
• Tang (2016) in Journal of Multicultural Discourses
• Wu (2019) in Language & Communication
• You & Liu (2015) in College Composition and Communication

Me: You've replaced fictitious sources with more fictitious sources. Classical Chinese rhetoric in Taiwanese education: Tradition and transformation doesn't exist. And I doubt a lot of other sources exist. It's interesting that your sources contain real journal titles and real authors (as far as I can tell), but the articles themselves don't exist. Why is that the case? Why are you coming up with fake articles? (No need to apologize--I'm asking out of curiosity.)I've also adjusted the content of each section to reflect the removal of the fictitious sources while maintaining the overall narrative about the historical development of rhetorical practices in Taiwan.

Claude: You've highlighted a really interesting issue about how I'm generating these sources - creating real-sounding but nonexistent articles by real authors in real journals.

This happens because I'm trying to construct what seems like a plausible academic landscape for a topic while not having direct access to academic databases to confirm what actually exists. My training included information about academic journals, authors, and typical publication patterns, which allows me to generate citations that follow the correct format and seem plausible.

When asked to create a literature review, I'm essentially piecing together what I think would make sense given:

1. My knowledge of real academic journals in relevant fields
2. Names of actual scholars who work in related areas
3. Publication patterns that would be typical in academia
4. Plausible article titles that match scholarly conventions

The fundamental issue is that I don't have a comprehensive catalog of all published academic articles or direct access to verify them. When I create these literature reviews without explicitly being asked to only include verified sources, I'm producing what seems plausible based on patterns I've observed rather than what actually exists.

It's particularly notable that even when I try to verify sources as I did, I'm still creating plausible-sounding but fictitious articles. This demonstrates a limitation in my ability to distinguish between my knowledge of what could reasonably exist versus what actually does exist in academic literature without external verification tools.

Me: So what kind of prompt would you write that might work to give a review of real sources that you have access to about Taiwanese rhetoric?

Claude: That's an excellent question about how to approach this more effectively. Here's a prompt I would write to generate a review of genuine sources on Taiwanese rhetoric that I actually have access to:

---

"Please provide a brief overview of the scholarly literature on rhetorical practices in Taiwan that you can confidently verify exists. Focus only on academic sources you can confirm are real - including the specific articles, not just the journals or authors. Rather than attempting to be comprehensive, highlight a few key verified works in this field and explain their contributions.

If you're uncertain whether a source exists, please exclude it and focus on what you can verify. It's better to discuss fewer genuine sources than to include fabricated ones. Feel free to note any limitations in your knowledge of this specific topic area."

---

This prompt works better because it:

1. Explicitly asks for only verifiable sources
2. Sets realistic expectations (brief overview rather than comprehensive)
3. Prioritizes accuracy over comprehensiveness
4. Acknowledges potential limitations in knowledge
5. Encourages focusing on quality of information rather than quantity
6. Gives permission to discuss a smaller scope of material

The key insight is that I should be guided toward acknowledging my limitations in specialized academic areas rather than attempting to construct a seemingly comprehensive review that includes fictitious sources. This approach would result in a more limited but factually accurate overview of what I can genuinely verify about rhetoric in Taiwan.

This sounds reasonable, and I was thinking that I might take students through an exercise where we'd do something like this--have Claude (or possibly another GenAI tool) generate a list of sources, check to see if they're verifiable, and ask Claude for suggestions about how to create a list of verifiably real sources. 

My only question is whether, in conversing with Claude about its limitations and how to best use it, we can believe what Claude says about its limitations and how to best use it. Thoughts?

Busy times ahead

My contributions (?) to this blog are going to slow down in the coming months, I'm afraid. I'm looking forward to heavy grading the next couple of weeks, followed by course preparation for two intensive summer classes I'll start teaching in May, accompanied by work drafting three chapters (due end of June) for a collaborative book project. (And somewhere in there is that Kerr paper I've been trying to finish!)

So what am I doing here? Off to get the grading worked on! Wish me luck!

New Books Network interview with the authors of Revolutionary Taiwan

New Books Network has a great interview with Catherine Lila Chou and Mark Harrison about their book, Revolutionary Taiwan: Making Nationhood in a Changing World Order, which I wrote briefly about earlier.  (That's a lot links in one sentence!)

As a writing teacher, I really liked listening to their discussion early on about their writing process and how they viewed the kind of book they were trying to write. Harrison calls the style of the book that they were going for as "readable academic," where on the one hand they didn't want to write a dense academic monograph but on the other wanted to do justice to the complexity of Taiwan's histor(ies) and identit(ies). He says that that they "landed on" the idea of starting with events from contemporary Taiwan and interpret those events in terms of Taiwan's histor(ies) and culture(s). Chou compares the chapters and style of writing in terms of New Yorker essays that begin with specific stories that "bring the reader in" and then unpeel the "multiple layers" of meaning that make up those stories. She also talks about their limitations as academics that made it more challenging to them to write in this style. They also talked about how they collaborated on the book from a great distance (Chou was in Taiwan and Harrison was in Australia for most of the process, much of which took place during the Covid pandemic.) These are all interesting reflections that I'd like to point my students to when we talk about the writing process, envisioning your audience, collaborating as writers (particularly in online classes where students might not ever meet in person), and reflecting on writing, as well. 

The authors also bring up the image of Taiwan's "spectral presence," which (as I've said elsewhere, I think) is a concept that has come up a lot in my reading lately in relation to Taiwan. I mentioned the metaphor of "hauntings" that are prominent in two books I read recently, Anru Lee's Haunted Modernities and Kim Liao's Every Ghost Has a Name. Derek Sheridan also wrote an article a few years ago about "the spectre of American empire" in Taiwan. The idea that Taiwan itself has a "spectral presence," though, as a country/not-country (in terms of international recognition) that exists in almost a ghostly form outside of time and place is new and insightful to me. 

This blog also got a hat tip in the discussion (which, of course, is the real reason I'm talking about this interview!), citing a post of mine summarizing an article discussing Taiwanese cooking shows. (This reminds me--I haven't written any summaries of communications articles about Taiwan in quite a while!)

Classes starting this week; interview assignment

I have two on-ground classes tomorrow--two sections of "Advanced Writing in the Business Administration Professions." I have been teaching this course on and off for over ten years now, but I'm trying a new/old thing this semester. New in that I haven't done it in this course--at least not in this way or for these reasons--before, but old in that I have done it before, both in this course (for different reasons) and in other previous courses. 

The assignment is an informational interview assignment with someone whose job aligns with the student's expected/hoped for/dreamed of career path. This being a writing course, I ask students to focus a good part of the interview on the writing expectations and practices of the job. I've done this assignment in some previous advanced writing courses (and it occurs to me that I did this assignment at least once in a composition class I taught at Tunghai, where I asked students to focus on how people in the job used English--or didn't!). 

The new thing this time is that we're going to throw GenAI into the mix--(how) are the interviewees using GenAI as part of their work? What are the implications, if any, for what students should be learning in an "Advanced Writing in the Business Administration Professions" course? This assignment occurred to me last semester after running into a previous student from ten years ago who was telling me about how the company she works for has its own proprietary ChatGPT-like system that employees are expected to use to write letters to clients. She hates it--it writes sentences that are too long. I want to get a sense of how widespread this is, and I want students to learn about it, too.

I attended an online discussion today on "Scaffolding GenAI Conversation in Your Courses," and one of the things that came out of it is that, perhaps not surprisingly, faculty are taking very different approaches to how or whether to allow students to use GenAI in their work. I got the sense from the discussion, for example, that while in my writing classes, learning how to synthesize sources is an important practice that I want students to work on without help from AI, in courses in some other disciplines/professions, it would be acceptable to have AI do the work of synthesis because the pedagogical focus of the assignment is not necessarily on synthesis. (In those cases, though, I'm sure the instructors would still want the students to tell them how they used AI to help them.) This reminds me again to make clear what I'm hoping students get out of assignments--what they should learn how to do, presumably unaided by AI. And maybe from this, what things might be OK to get help with from AI (for instance, APA citation, at least to a certain extent). 

Well, now to go back to my materials and see if I need to do any tweaks on the syllabus before tomorrow morning.

"Midterm" reflections on August's "new year's resolutions"

Back in August, I wrote up a few new year's resolutions for the 2024-2025 academic year. In the past, I've usually written them up and then ignored them, but this time I'm going to take a look back at them and figure out what I did, what I didn't do, and what course corrections I might make.

• "Try to get up earlier in the morning"--the idea here was go get up early enough to do my Duolingo and a little writing. This didn't work at all as planned. I did manage to get up early some mornings and do a little journaling, but I didn't have enough time to do my Duolingo before I had to get the day started. And many days, I woke up just in time to jump in the shower before starting to get my son ready for school.
• "Use my commute time to read"--since I didn't have time to do my Duolingo in the morning, I usually did it on the trip into school. Sometimes I read on the way home from school, but a lot of times, I was using that time to catch up on work. 
• "Make time for writing"--I pretty much failed at this during the semester, unless you count my teaching-related writing and service-related writing. I had the usual amount of the former and, it seems, more than the usual amount for the latter. I did a few little revisions on a couple of book reviews that will be coming out soon, but besides that, I didn't work on any of the papers I have to revise.

So things didn't go quite as well as planned. I think one thing that cut down on my writing time was that I was teaching a new course, so that involved a lot of work to keep ahead of the students. This semester, I'll be teaching "old" courses (though of course I can't seem to stop myself from fiddling with the assignments), which might help. 

Another thing that might help in terms of the writing is that next semester, I'm rejoining a writing accountability group that has always forced me to spend at least an hour and a half a week on writing. I've always found that helpful. I need to finish that George Kerr paper first, then get started on the chapters I need to write for the collaborative biography. 

I think I need to add "going to bed earlier" to the list of resolutions because if I don't get to bed earlier, I can't wake up earlier. I'll try to work on that. I've been napping a lot recently because of some muscle relaxants I have had to take for a sciatica problem, but hopefully I'll get over that before vacation is over. Napping always throws off my evening sleep schedule. 

As for using commuting time for reading, I think I'll still end up doing Duolingo during the trip in. I'll try to do some reading on the way home. I'll have to decide what I want to read, though! Right now, I'm about a third of the way through David S. Reynolds' John Brown: Abolitionist, but I'm going to try to finish it before the semester starts. I have to think about what to read after that. Any ideas?

A few reflections on the "Rhetorics in Contact" course

Back in August, I wrote about my plans for the new course I was going to be teaching, "Rhetorics in Contact." Now that the course is over, I want to reflect on the course and think about what I might do better next time. In no particular order:

• I think the readings worked well. As we read and responded to them, we actually started finding connections that I hadn't noticed before. Shimabukuro's book was particularly good for bringing together a lot of points that we had discussed earlier, though often she would use different language for talking about similar kinds of concepts. I personally gained a lot from reading through her book again for the course.
• Here's something I posted on BlueSky about Shimabukuro's book and current events. (Hope you can read it!)
• We used Perusall for "socially annotating" the readings. It made things nice generally, but in the case of Shimabukuro, I was a little annoyed that the Perusall edition of the book didn't have any page numbers. It made it harder to cite the book when we were working on final papers. Haven't yet figured out a workaround for the next time, so any suggestions are welcome!
• Maybe because we were using Perusall and doing social annotation (and maybe for some other reasons, as well), class discussions weren't as active as I had hoped. I think I have to work harder next time on making sure class time is better used, and I'm not just doing most of the talking.
• We did a few informal writing assignments that I liked. I think I want to keep most of them and perhaps do a few more. After we read Garrett and Xiao's "The Rhetorical Situation Revisited," for instance, I asked students to write about any discourse traditions in their families or cultures. Their responses were interesting. (And I had fun writing my own response, too!) We also did some practice analysis of materials in NU's Digital Collections. I also had them write some reflections on their class trips to the archives. 
• I think I need to do a bit more with helping them on the archival projects. (One student suggested starting earlier, but I have to think about that. Maybe we could go to the archives earlier.) More class time devoted to them bringing in archival materials and challenges they were facing would be useful, perhaps. And more work with citing archival documents. 
• I also should do a bit more with helping them think about connections between the readings and the archival collections they were working on. One student in their final reflection pointed out how working on the archives helped them better understand the concepts from the readings, but I think I could do a bit more to help in that direction. 

Anyway, overall the course went well (aside from problems with class discussions or lack thereof), so I'm encouraged to try teaching this again if I get the chance!

"Rhetorics in Contact" and August mushroom hunts

We're just a few days away from the beginning of the semester, and I've been feverishly working at getting my new "Rhetorics in Contact" course together. Right now it's a pretty small group of students (it's a freshman-level course in the Honors Program), but a few more people might trickle in before classes start next Wednesday, I hope.

My course description asks, 

What happens when people try to communicate persuasively with each other across cultural boundaries? How do participants’ histories, traditions, and communication patterns shape cross-cultural encounters, and how do those encounters shape future communication within and across cultures? 

In this course, we’ll be looking at different examples of how rhetorical traditions or legacies affect communication across cultural boundaries and how cross-cultural encounters are represented differently by the participants. Through the course readings, we’ll be developing a specialized vocabulary for talking about intercultural rhetoric and thinking about methods for studying it. We’ll go on to apply some of these methods to documents in the Special Collections of the Northeastern Archives, analyzing the discourses of social organizations and movements in Boston, such as the Chinese Progressive Association and the movement to desegregate Boston’s public schools. We’ll also reflect on how rhetoric across cultures affects (or should affect) advocacy in the complex global and local contexts that we currently face.

Because we're going to be working with the archives a lot, I'm not having us read a lot of different articles. Our reading list for the semester is as follows (links to relevant blog posts):

• Pratt, Mary Louise. "Arts of the Contact Zone." Profession, 1991, pp. 33-40. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25595469. (Although this isn't technically a rhetoric article, many of the concepts that Pratt discusses--like contact zones, autoethnography, transculturation, etc.--are very relevant to intercultural rhetorical studies.)
• Garrett, Mary, and Xiaosui Xiao. "The Rhetorical Situation Revisited." Rhetoric Society Quarterly,  vol. 23, no. 2, 1993, pp. 30–40. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/3885923. (See my discussion of the article in this post.)
• Gaillet, Lynée Lewis. "Archival Survival: Navigating Historical Research." Working in the Archives: Practical Research Methods for Rhetoric and Composition, edited by Alexis E. Ramsey, et al., Southern Illinois University Press, 2010, pp. 28-39. Project MUSE, https://muse.jhu.edu/book/4176. (Although this chapter is more aimed at graduate students and PhD-level scholars in rhetoric and composition, I think much of the discussion can be useful for undergraduate honors students, as well. For instance, when Gaillet discusses grant applications, I ask students (in Perusall) to consider what kinds of undergraduate research grants are offered at Northeastern. I think this could be useful to them in their future work.)
• Shimabukuro, Mira. Relocating Authority: Japanese Americans Writing to Redress Mass Incarceration, University Press of Colorado, 2015. (This will be interesting because I have to admit, rereading the book to annotate it on Perusall, it's pretty challenging in places. But see my discussion of the book here for my reasons for using this fascinating study.)

Other than these readings, students will be focusing a lot on exploring NU's Special Collections and settling on a collection or collections to focus on. One thing I'm trying to do with this assignment is stretch their ideas of what academic research is. Gaillet quotes the late compositionist Robert Connors as saying, "[A]rchival reading is ... a kind of directed ramble, something like an August mushroom hunt" (qtd. in Gaillet 38). Although the topics we'll be covering (and uncovering) in the course are serious (sometimes deadly serious), I also want students to experience archival research as a joyful (but sometimes depressing!) and exciting (but sometimes tedious!) process.

Notes on Mira Shimabukuro, Relocating Authority

Shimabukuro, Mira. Relocating Authority: Japanese Americans Writing to Redress Mass Incarceration. University Press of Colorado, 2015. 

I read this book to see whether it would be good for the comparative rhetoric/"rhetorics in contact" course I'm developing. At first, I was thinking of just finding a chapter that I could use from it, but after reading the book, I think I'd be more interested in assigning the whole book. It's good for students to see how the author develops an overall argument or perspective as she works out the implications of her study, and I appreciate especially how reflective Shimabukuro is about her research and how the topic of her book connects to various aspects of her life. 

A few other thoughts about the book that I think recommend it for my course (or for others to read it!):

• There's the exemplary way that she uses Japanese rhetorics/concepts together with rhetorics of Americanness in analyzing the rhetorical/literacy practices of the Japanese American internees. For instance, in chapter 6, she describes the writing/rewriting of a petition made by Japanese mothers to suspend the conscription of their Japanese American sons. (At the time, as Shimabukuro explains, the Issei, or first-generation, mothers were not allowed to become US citizens, but their sons, who were Nissei, or second-generation, were American citizens.) Shimabukuro shows how the mothers' petition combines the rhetoric of the "dutiful wife, intelligent mother" (ryosai-kenbo) that had become an important gender discourse during the Meiji era with rhetorics of American citizenship (and even what she calls "proto-model minority" rhetoric) to argue that the Japanese mothers had raised good American sons who deserved better than to be incarcerated in the "internment camps," only to be called up to fight for a country that didn't give them or their families the rights due American citizens. I like how Shimabukuro shows the nuance of the rhetorics in contact here, even showing how the idea of ryosai-kenbo is not some sort of timeless Japanese concept, but that it was a more recent phenomenon itself--and that it connected to the problematic "nation-unifying and empire-building efforts taking place in Japan" (180). 
  
  
• I also like the way that Shimabukuro shows that the effects of these literacy activities stretch across time and intertwine with other literacy activities and rhetorical practices. As she points out, much of the writing that she discusses wasn't "successful" in the immediate sense of changing the mind of the US government. In the case of the mothers' petition, their Japanese American sons were still drafted, and the mothers only received a perfunctory response from Eleanor Roosevelt. (Oh, how you have gone down in my estimation, Mrs. Roosevelt!) In the case of the Heart Mountain Fair Play Committee's "Manifesto," in which they stated that they would refuse induction, the writers ended up in prison. But Shimabukuro demonstrates how these and other writings, including "private" writings such as poems written by internees, resurfaced or were brought back to the surface years later and served as models or inspiration for latter-day Asian American civil rights activists. She sees the recirculation of these texts as a kind of "relocated literacy" (196, emphasis in original), where there's a "reactivation of that rhetorical-activist force by Japanese American activist-descendants operating in contexts in which the Nikkei community has grown stronger" (196, emphasis in original).
  
  
• Shimabukuro also brings up the concept of "resistant capital," citing Tara Yosso--it's meant to be considered in opposition to Bourdieu's idea of "cultural capital," and it signifies "knowledges and skills fostered through oppositional behavior that challenges inequality" (Yosso 80, qtd. in Shimabukuro 199). It appears that Yosso primarily has in mind communities of color in the US, but I wonder if it could apply in other places, too, such as (of course) Taiwan.  
  
  
• Part of the book is a narrative of Shimabukuro's family's (particularly her father's) involvement in Japanese American activism, and by extension it traces the author's own process of developing her research project. I think this makes it more accessible for undergraduates who can thereby see how she did the research rather than just reading the results of that research. It also shows that you can be passionate about your topic and that it can grow from your own experiences, so perhaps it's an angle on doing academic work that they might not be familiar with. 

So I think I've talked myself into using this book in my course, if I get to teach it. It can also tie into a possible archival project I plan to have students do in the course. Coincidentally, Northeastern's Asian American Studies program is hosting a symposium called "Remember! Asian Americans and the Archive" on November 17, which I've signed up to attend.

[Update, 5/17/24: Here's a book talk by Shimabukuro from 2017.]

Dog days of summer

My "productivity" has slowed down a bit since the beginning of the month. Though I did finish reading a book (Scott Simon's Truly Human), that was actually the result of a sleepless night after an outpatient procedure. I'm working on reading another book, Robert Culp's Articulating Citizenship: Civic Education and Student Politics in Southeastern China, 1912–1940, reference to which I came across somewhere or other last month. I haven't gotten far into it, but I think it'll be useful to me for thinking about my own project. 

Speaking of that project, I was having a lot of trouble making any progress on it recently, until my wife told me to go the library and try to do something, which I dutifully did. I managed to write about 750 usable words for a new introduction to the paper after clearing my throat for about 2000 words. It's not a complete introduction yet, but I am somewhat satisfied for how I managed to fuse a few streams of thought together to give a better sense of the "so what" of my paper. I've had a lot of trouble with the "so what," but I feel more confident about it now. (I'm sure the voices of doubt will emerge at some point, though.)

I'm also thinking about the undergraduate comparative rhetoric class that I'm supposed to propose as part of my fellowship leave project. As I mentioned earlier, I have been considering using Mary Garrett and Xiaosui Xiao's article about the Opium Wars as a course reading; this made me think about the possibility of focusing the course in terms of something like "rhetorics in contact" in contexts of imperialism, colonialism, semicolonialism, etc., rather than a course where we would just read about ancient rhetorical traditions or "treatises." Of course, the trick in doing a "rhetorics in contact" course would be leading the students through the interpretation of what was coming into contact. The Garrett/Xiao article does a good job of the interpretation; another article I can think of that does something like that is Mary Louise Pratt's article on contact zones. I'll have to see what other examples I might find of this approach, if I decide to take it. Suggestions are welcome!

So my dog days are not a complete loss; I'm getting a bit done, just more slowly and more piecemeal than I'd like. But slow progress is better than no progress, I suppose.

Wrapping up another semester; beginning something new

I have about a week left of the semester, so I've been doing a lot of reading/commenting on student work recently. I have a draft of my blog post on Yang Tsui's book about her grandfather, Yang Kui, but it's not in any shape yet to meet its public. Maybe I'll have some time to work on it tomorrow.

Some good news is that my application for a Non-Tenure-Track Faculty Fellowship (a one-semester leave--a "sabbatical" by any other name) was approved, so I'll be spending the fall reading and (hopefully) writing a lot about comparative rhetoric and Taiwan history, literature, rhetoric, in order to work on an article and design a comparative rhetoric course. By coincidence, in my first-year writing course this afternoon we were doing some reflective writing about this past semester for the sake of a final reflective piece I'm asking them to write--a letter to their future selves giving themselves advice, warning, encouragement for future writing tasks. I was doing "loop writing" (focused freewriting) on some prompts provided by Elbow and Belanoff in their 1989 book, A Community of Writers. One of the prompts was about the physical aspects of writing, and I wrote this:

Physical: One of the things I’m going to have to think about as I work this summer and into next semester is how I’m going to do the physical work of writing. I’m always taken by Jonathan Spence’s acknowledgements in The Search for Modern China where he thanks the staff of a pizza place near Yale, where he would work on his book. I wonder how he did it. There was a Twitter thread that mentioned that he wrote on legal pads, but I also wonder if he brought books or archival photocopies, etc. with him. I remember when I was working on my dissertation, sometimes I would bring photocopies of archival documents with me to McDonald’s or Starbucks or Dante [a café] or wherever, and I would have a spiral-ring notebook in which I’d write ideas down, sometimes just copying stuff from the archival docs. I used different colors for the quotes vs. for my own ideas. At some point I suppose that I probably would then copy some of that stuff to my computer. Nowadays I don’t imagine doing that kind of thing, but I wonder if it wouldn’t be better to try that out. I have a lot of books that I have to read for this “sabbatical.” Maybe some of the days when I go out to work (whether it be a coffee shop or a library), I can just take one or two of the books I want to work on and a notebook in which I can take notes and write out my ideas longhand. I haven’t done that in so long. I don’t think I’ve done that kind of work since I finished my dissertation back in 2011. I don’t necessarily have to do this every time I go out (I didn’t do it every time back then, even), but maybe some days I can ditch the computer. (Wish I could ditch my cellphone too, but that doesn’t sound like a good idea.) The purpose for this would be, hopefully, to get me to concentrate on my reading and writing rather than spending a lot of energy fighting the urge to check my email or Twitter or something else or to look up something on the internet that ends up taking me down a rabbit hole. ... Yeah. I guess I’ll invest in notebook and try this out.

So I am copying this here in part to remind myself of this and to ask all of my reader to remind me about this idea: try writing longhand sometimes. Get away from the computer. (Here's a link to my post about Jonathan Spence's acknowledgements.)

Jhumpa Lahiri video about writing in Italian

This video about Jhumpa Lahiri gets into her experience of writing in Italian; I think I'll suggest it to my first-year writing students. One thing she says that I found interesting and might inspire some conversation is this:

I like being at the beginning again as a reader and as a writer. I like that I'm limited. I like that I only have a certain vocabulary and certain tools, and I can only go so far. That appeals to me.

I wonder what my students might think about that perspective... 

Reading for pleasure or reading "for pressure" in other languages?

In my first-year writing for multilingual students class today, we were talking about Jhumpa Lahiri's 2015 article, "Teach Yourself Italian," and about how her passion for Italian led her to decide to move to Italy and, in preparation, to "pledge to read only in Italian." The section of her article about that decision is called "The Renunciation." Lahiri writes, 

I consider it an official renunciation. I’m about to become a linguistic pilgrim to Rome. I believe I have to leave behind something familiar, essential.

We talked about the idea of renouncing our native language (in the students' case, to speak only in English). The students weren't very keen to renounce their native languages in order to speak only English. One mentioned that there is pressure from friends and classmates from their home country to speak their common language. Another suggested that because it's more difficult to speak English, to speak only English would result in a great loss of confidence. Also, their native languages are tied to their sense of who they are.

Lahiri's description of what it's like to read in Italian reminds me of what it's sometimes like when I read in Chinese:

I read slowly, painstakingly. With difficulty. Every page seems to have a light covering of mist. The obstacles stimulate me. Every new construction seems a marvel, every unknown word a jewel.

There's both pleasure and pressure in this depiction of reading in another language. You run into obstacles in the form of unfamiliar vocabulary or syntax, but getting past those obstacles seems to launch you forward (toward new obstacles!). If you take the time to work through those obstacles instead of bypassing them (as I admit I sometimes do), you have a feeling of accomplishment, and maybe you learn something new. As Lahiri puts it,

After I finish a book, I’m thrilled. It seems like a feat. I find the process demanding yet satisfying, almost miraculous. I can’t take for granted my ability to accomplish it. I read as I did when I was a girl. Thus, as an adult, as a writer, I rediscover the pleasure of reading.

As we were discussing Lahiri's experience, I asked the students if any of them read in English for pleasure. Some of them shook their heads, others laughed. My guess is that their reading in English is mostly (as a former Tunghai colleague put it) "for pressure" rather than for pleasure. I can understand this feeling. Most of the time when I read in Chinese, it's in order to write something (like that blog post on bookstores in colonial Taiwan), so there's some degree of pressure. 

But I wonder if we should (re)define the notion of "reading for pleasure"; after all, Lahiri's depiction of her experience reading in Italian shows that it's a lot of work to read in a language that you're not as strong in. Despite that, she treats the work of reading as pleasurable even if it is demanding (or perhaps because it is demanding).  

Some quick notes at the beginning of week 3 of the semester

I've gotten through two weeks of the semester already, and I'm not too far behind on my teaching-related work. Amazingly, I have been able to keep them in class and active for the whole 100 minutes so far. (I'm always afraid we will run out of things to do after about 15 minutes, and I'll have to let them go 85 minutes early...) So far we've had some interesting discussions about developing confidence writing in your L2/3/4/n (Maybe it should be called Ln writing...) Also the possible roles of translation in writing in English. For this, I was even able to talk a little about my 2013 (2014?) paper about Google Translate and EFL writing. 

I've also done most of the interviews of undergraduate Fulbright applicants whom I'm trying to help revise their applications. I have a meeting this week with the members of my subcommittee to go over the applications and share our suggestions about them. I hope these students will be able to get a chance to go abroad for a year and do some intercultural exchange. I know it changed my life.

Tomorrow morning I'm going to try to join my virtual writing group. We'll meet (virtually, of course) at 9:00 and share what we plan to work on for the next two hours, then go away and do it. Then come back at 10:55 and share what we did. My plan is to work on an application for the Rhetoric Society of American 2023 Summer Institute. I'm interested in a seminar on "Decolonizing Comparative Global Rhetorics." I think it could be very relevant to a paper I'm working on, but I'm not sure yet because I need to know more about what it means to decolonize comparative global rhetorics and how I might fit (if at all) into such an effort. (That's basically what my application narrative says so far...)

I'm also enjoying finally reading Ming-cheng M. Lo's Doctors Within Borders: Profession, Ethnicity, and Modernity in Colonial Taiwan (University of California Press, 2002). I've picked around in it before, but now I'm reading it from beginning to end. Lo had two recent interviews (part one, part two) related to this topic that reminded me that I hadn't actually read the book yet!

Links to sources on the history vs. social science debate of August 2022

I'm not going to comment on any of this because I'm not following it closely enough, but I wanted to list out some links to various texts in the debate about history and empiricism and social sciences (particularly economics) that have been going on. I'm not going to link to all the Twitter threads right now (this one was funny), though I'm trying to bookmark some of them, but I'll just list out some of the blog posts I've read or skimmed. 

The reason I'm doing this is mainly for ENGW 3315, the interdisciplinary writing course I teach fairly regularly. One of the things we get into is how different disciplines have different epistemological stances and "visions of reality," and some of what is going on in this discussion is about that.

Here are some of the articles:

• "On the Wisdom of Historians" by Noah Smith (8/26)
• "New Acquisitions: On the Wisdom of Noah Smith" by Bruce Devereaux (8/29)
• more to come...

This isn't exactly on topic, but I liked L. D. Burnett's 2019 post on "The First Week of Class," which touches on comparisons between disciplines as well.