Does this word have any other definitions besides the standard, assumed definition? For example, the word “start” can mean “to begin. " It can also mean “to become startled. " The sentence “He started when he heard the gun” might mean that the man began an action at the gunshot (such as beginning a race). However, it might also mean that the man became startled and scared at the gunshot. Try to keep both meanings of “start” in your head while you read. Is this word etymologically related to other words in the text? For example, the words “inspiration” and “conspiracy” are both related to the Latin root word “spirae,” meaning breath. Does this history help you find additional meaning in these words? Does the word sound like another word or phrase that is entirely unrelated to it? For example, the word “Russian” is not etymologically related to “rush in” in any way. However, because these words sound a lot alike, a reader might connect them in surprising ways, leading to additional significance in a text. Is this word used in a different way elsewhere in the text, and how might they be related? For example, perhaps the word “art” is used in one chapter to refer to a painting and “Art” is used in another chapter to refer to a person. How are “art” and “Art” alike? How are they different?
What is unconventional or strange about the text? Are there any traditions that the text is flouting? These traditions might be literary (such as using an unconventional structure) or political (such as inhabiting a feminist perspective). How would this text be different if it had been narrated from another character’s perspective? This is an especially good question to ask if the narrator is a white heterosexual man and there are minor characters who embody minority identities. What if this text had taken up the perspective of a woman, a person of color, or someone who is queer? What ideology is being supported by the text? Does the text seem to suppress any other ideologies? For example, perhaps the text anxiously supports Western imperialism. Is there anything the text leaves out in order to strengthen its imperialist position? What is the text’s relationship to seemingly universal truths? Deconstruction resists the idea that there is one single Truth to explain life and language. Does the text resist these false truths as well? For example, one generally accepted truth is that “people should follow their consciences. " Perhaps a text is arguing that people’s consciences are flawed and that morality should be sought elsewhere. What hierarchies exist in the text? Who has the power? Is there any way that the text overturns hierarchies? Could you overturn hierarchies through your reading?[3] X Research source What words could the author have chosen but did not choose? Are there any gaps or fissures in the text that you can discern?
Men vs. Women (or masculine vs. feminine) Culture vs. Nature Soul/Mind vs. Body Reason vs. Emotion White people vs. People of color Adult vs. Child “Good” literature (like Shakespeare) vs. “Bad” literature (like a romance novel)
“Even though the text appears to argue X, my reading shows that the text also argues Y. " “The text allows a reader to understand that the binaristic relationship between A and B is problematic in the following ways . . . " “The text creates a surprising connection between P and Q through the use of puns and hidden jokes. This is meaningful because . . . "
