Abstracts
Abstract
This article analyzes outputs generated by three popular LLMs (ChatGPT, CoPilot, and Claude), which were prompted to produce a professional research article of literary criticism. Prior analyses of the rhetoric of literary criticism have established a rich profile of this disciplinary discourse community, allowing me to examine whether and how the LLM outputs simulate the characteristic rhetorical actions, purposes, and patterns of argument of research articles in English studies. The study demonstrates that LLMs do generate many of literary criticism’s rhetorical features, effectively signalling the genre. But I argue that, in a more fundamental sense, they fail to undertake its defining social action. For human critics, social action is tightly indexed to the specificities of rhetorical situation, including not only the individual interpreting self but also, and especially, the bounded, integral, public works of prior literary criticism and the literary text itself. LLMs, by contrast, currently generate criticism that recognizes neither that integrity nor those boundaries. I close by recommending that teachers help students recognize the grounding of genre in community, other texts’ integrity, and social action.
Keywords:
- literary criticism,
- generative AI,
- social action,
- genre,
- rhetoric
Appendices
Bibliography
- 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.

