(in Polish) Wstęp do retoryki

obligatory courses

Knowledge of rhetorical practices and their use in Belarusian. The student knows the basic methods and rhetorical strategies, is able to critically use scientific and popular sources and works, identifies problems in the field of knowledge about theoretical and practical rhetoric.

Classroom

The aim of teaching this subject is to familiarize students with rhetoric as a science from ancient times to the present day, as well as to teach the use of rhetorical practices on the level of Belarusian culture in connection with social life and issues of mentality, human psychology, philosophy, religion. Forms of work: seminar, conducted in Belarusian and presentations prepared by students, watching videos, discussions, public performances according to rhetorical principles.

1 semester, 30 hours

The seminar lasts one semester. The primary aim of teaching this subject is to familiarize students with elements of rhetoric, as well as rhetorical theory, poetics and text criticism. One of the most important issues of this course is the development of a model of the practical use of rhetorical principles in the Belarusian language through the analysis of the philosophy of life and the way of thinking under the influence of cultural factors. The course of classes also includes the use of elements of knowledge about folklore, history of art, philosophy and music, necessary to acquire rhetorical competences.

Learning content:

- Rhetoric - history and definition; historical beginnings of rhetoric; the origins and meaning of the term "rhetoric"; orator as vir bonus dicendi peritus; practical applications and the importance of rhetoric;

- Word culture - grammatical correctness, richness in lexis and phraseology as well as stylistic diversity, correctness of pronunciation (phrase, intonation, stress), speech organs and their functions, language errors;

- Rhetoric, eristics and sophistry; persuasion versus manipulation, ethics of the word

rhetoric as art, principles of classical rhetoric;

- The art of asking questions, typology of questions, the role of the so-called rhetorical questions;

- The concept of tropes and rhetorical figures;

- Rhetoric in Belarusian culture;

- Speaker's body language, gestures and facial expressions;

- Image and personality in rhetoric;

- Techniques of persuasion, ways of conducting discussions; rhetorical manipulation;

- Contemporary rhetoric in Belarusian culture;

- building a speech and using rhetorical techniques;

- the concept of "boring" and "interesting" speech (speaker), method of rhetorical coloring.

Student workload:

Total ECTS credits = 3 (1 semester):

- seminar (contact hours) - 30 hours

Course Topics:

- rhetoric

Forms of work:

- reading and analyzing the texts discussed during classes independently at home

- discussion of rhetorical issues

- team work taking into account different roles

- text analysis

- watching videos

- going to the cinema and theater, analysis

- cognitive trips

If it is not possible to conduct classes in a stationary form, classes will be held using distance communication tools, most likely Google Meet, Zoom and others recommended by the University of Warsaw.

Work methods: activating (didactic discussion, brainstorming); programmed (using a computer), outdoor (cinema, theater, presentations, trips).

Arystoteles, Retoryka, przełożył, wstępem i komentarzem opatrzył H. Podbielski, Warszawa

1988.

Blumenberg H., O aktualności retoryki w wymiarze antropologicznym, przekł. W. Lipnik, w:

Blumenberg H., Rzeczywistości, w których żyjemy. Rozprawy i jedno przemówienie, Warszawa 1997, s.

98-129.

Bogołębska B., Studia o stylistyce i retoryce, Zgierz 2001.

Bralczyk J., Język na sprzedaż. Warszawa 1996

Bralczyk J.: Język propagandy politycznej w latach 90, Warszawa 2003

Bralczyk J., Język polityki i polityków. W: O zagrożeniach i bogactwie polszczyzny. Red. J.

Miodek. Wrocław 2004

Cichocka H., Mimesis i retoryka w traktatach Dionizjusza z Halikarnasu a tradycja

bizantyńska, Warszawa 2004.

Cooper, J. P., Sprawne porozumiewanie się. 114 scenariuszy ćwiczeń z mówienia i słuchania,

tł. Agata Tomaszewska, Warszawa 1994

Emrich B., Topika i topoi, przekł. J. Koźbiał. „Pamietnik Literacki” 1977, z. 1.

Fish S.E., Interpretacja, retoryka, polityka, Kraków 2002.

Fras J., Dziennkarski warsztat językowy, Wrocław 1999

Język w mediach masowych. Red. J. Bralczyk, K. Mosiołek – Kłosińska, Warszawa 2001

Korolko M., Sztuka retoryki: przewodnik encyklopedyczny, wyd. 2 rozsz. , Warszawa 1998.

Lausberg H., Retoryka literacka: podstawy wiedzy o literaturze, przeł., oprac. i wstępem

opatrzył A. Gorzkowski, Bydgoszcz 2002.

Lemmermann H.: Komunikacja werbalna. Szkoła retoryki. Wrocław 1999

Lewiński P.H., Retoryka reklamy, Wrocław 1999.

Lichański J.Z., Retoryka: od średniowiecza do baroku: teoria i praktyka, Warszawa 1992.

Lichański J.Z., Co to jest retoryka? Kraków 1996.

Lichański J.Z., Retoryka: od renesansu do współczesności: tradycja i innowacja, Warszawa

2000.

Lichański J.Z., Retoryka w Polsce: studia o historii, nauczaniu i teorii w czasach I

Rzeczypospolitej, Warszawa 2003.

Manipulacja w języku. Red. P. Krzyżanowski, P. Nowak. Lublin 2004

Nietzsche F., Przedstawienie retoryki starożytnej, przekł. Bogdan Baran, w: Nietzsche 1900-

2000, pod red. Artura Przybysławskiego, Kraków 1997, s. 15-43

Obremski K., Retoryka dla studentów historii, politologii i dziennikarstwa, Toruń 2004.

Perelman C., Imperium retoryki, Warszawa 2002.

Pisarek W., Słowa między ludźmi. Warszawa 1985

Pisarek W., Nowa retoryka dziennikarska. Kraków 2002.

Płuciennik J. Retoryka wzniosłości w dziele literackim, Kraków 2000.

Retoryka a tekst literacki 1-2, red. M. Hanczakowski, J. Niedźwiedź, Kraków 2003.

Retoryka dziś - teoria i praktyka. Pod red. R. Przybylskiej i W. Przyczyny, Kraków 2001.

Retoryka i badania literackie: rekonesans, red. nauk. J.Z. Lichański, Warszawa 1998.

Rusinek M. , Między retoryką a retorycznością, Kraków 2003.

Rusinek M., Załazińska A., Retoryka podręczna czyli jak wnikliwie słuchać i przekonująco

mówić, Kraków 2005.

Skowronek K., Reklama. Studium pragmalingwistyczne. Kraków 1993

Suchoń W., Prolegomena do retoryki logicznej, Kraków 2005.

Skwara M, O "miejscach" retorycznych, Pamiętnik Literacki LXXXIII, 1992, z. 2, ss. 138 -

155.

Skwara M., O Arystotelesowskiej teorii dowodzenia retorycznego, Pamiętnik Literacki

LXXXV, 1994, z. 4, ss. 130 - 152.

Skwara M., Entymemat - zapomniana kategoria historii i teorii literatury, w: Retoryka dziś -

teoria i praktyka. Pod red. R. Przybylskiej i W. Przyczyny, Kraków 2001, ss. 365 - 400.

Szymanek K., Sztuka argumentacji. Słownik terminologiczny. Warszawa 2001.

Tekst w mediach. Pod red. K. Michalewskiego. Łódź 2002

Turasiewicz R., Życie polityczne w Atenach V i IV w. przed n.e. Wrocław - Warszawa -

Kraków 1968.

Turasiewicz R., Demostenes, Wybór mów. Wrocław - Warszawa - Kraków 1991.

Volkmann R., Wprowadzenie do retoryki Greków i Rzymian, przekł. L. Bobiatyński,

Warszawa 1995.

Zaniewska T., Retoryka szkolna. Polskie tradycje i doświadczenia dziewiętnastowieczne,

Białystok 1991.

Ziomek J., Retoryka opisowa, Wrocław 1990.

Zwoliński A.: Słowo w relacjach społecznych. Kraków 2003

In terms of knowledge, the student:

- has a basic knowledge of the place and importance of rhetoric in the system of science (K_W01);

- knows the basic terminology of rhetoric (K_W02);

- knows the basic currents of rhetoric in contemporary and historical terms (K_W04);

- is able to carry out a comparative analysis of rhetorical texts (K_W07);

- shows knowledge of the main political events and social phenomena in Belarus (K_W04);

- knows the artistic and intellectual achievements of the periods in question. Knows the most important state and social institutions currently functioning in Belarus (K_W07);

In terms of skills, the student:

- can make cross-sectional analyzes of selected issues (K_U01);

- has elementary research skills in the field of rhetoric and culture of Belarus being the subject of research (K_U02);

- can recognize the characteristic elements of the rhetoric of Belarus and correctly interpret the ongoing socio-historical changes in relation to the area of ​​the Belarusian language (K_U05);

- is able to use the basic theoretical knowledge and obtain data to analyze specific social phenomena using authentic source texts; characterizes the basic principles of contemporary Belarusian systems; recognizes the most important figures of contemporary public life; shows knowledge of the world of Belarusian media; characterizes the basic contemporary social and religious problems of Belarus (S_U02);

In terms of attitudes, the student:

- is ready to cooperate and work in a group, assuming different roles and observing the rules of communication in Belarusian (K_K01);

- is able to properly define priorities for the implementation of a task defined by himself or others (K_K03);

- is ready to adequately identify and resolve communication dilemmas in Belarusian and Polish, caused by the asymmetry of language systems and cultural differences (K_K04);

- is open to intercultural differences and shows interest in them (K_K05).

- is ready to participate in the cultural life of Poland and Belarus for the mutual promotion of cultures through modern forms and media (K_K06);

- is aware of the responsibility for the transferred knowledge not only of the Belarusian language, but also of cultural, literary and realities of the Belarusian language area (S_K06).

Continuous assessment based on:

- presence (2 absences allowed);

The student has the right to 2 unexcused absences, each subsequent one requires a justification. The lecturer decides whether to acknowledge the absence. Exceeding the excused and unjustified absences for 50% of classes may be the basis for failing the course. The conditions for completing the course within the retake period are the same as in the period I.

- preparation for classes (reading assigned texts, openness to discussion, presentation of 1 paper);

- quality of work in the classroom (answers to questions, active discussion);

- timely delivery of commissioned works;

- mid-semester tests (2 tests) checking the knowledge of the transferred knowledge

- passing the final written test or oral discussion on the topics presented.

- final project

Assessment criteria:

1. Test grading criteria:

- satisfactory grade (3.0) after obtaining 12 out of 20 points, ie correct answers to the questions in the test (12 out of 20);

- good (4.0) after obtaining 15 out of 20 points, i.e. correct answers to the questions in the test (15 out of 20);

- very good grade (5.0) after obtaining 18 out of 20 points, i.e. correct answers to the questions in the test (18 out of 20).

2. Criteria for ongoing activity evaluation:

For active participation in each class, the student receives a partial grade "+". At the end of the semester "+" are added together.

The activity grade for the entire semester is calculated in proportion to the highest “+” number obtained by the best student as follows:

0-25% of the highest number of points - 2 (ndst)

25-50% of the highest number of points - 3 (dst)

50-75% of the highest number of points - 4 (db)

75-100% of the highest number of points - 5 (very good)

3. Assessment criteria for the semester written tests:

criteria for obtaining a satisfactory grade (3.0):

- the student answered half of the proposed problem questions;

- the answers related only to the generally asked questions, they contained numerous redundant (off-topic) elements;

- the student's position on the problem posed in the question was only indirectly indicated;

- the student provided controversial / doubtful arguments to support his answer;

- in his argumentation, the student showed knowledge of the basic facts, quoted few specific facts, names, concepts, numbers; there were numerous factual errors;

- the student's statement was formulated with numerous linguistic errors, although the message remained understandable.

criteria for obtaining a good grade (4.0):

- the student answered most of the proposed problem questions;

- the answers referred directly to the questions asked, although they also included redundant (off-topic) elements;

- the thesis shows what the student's own position is towards the problem posed in the question;

- the student supported his position with at least two arguments, not entirely accurate;

- in his argumentation, the student showed a good knowledge of the facts, cited several specific facts, names, concepts, numbers; there were factual errors;

- the student's statement was formulated with attention to the rules of linguistic correctness, although there were linguistic errors.

criteria for obtaining a very good grade (5.0):

- the student answered all the proposed problem questions;

- the answers were on the topic, related directly to the questions asked;

- the student clearly formulated his position on the problem posed in the question;

- the student supported his position with several substantive arguments;

- in his argumentation, the student showed a very good knowledge of the facts, quoted specific facts, names, concepts, numbers;

- the student's statement was formulated with the principles of linguistic correctness.

4. Criteria for obtaining a semester grade:

The course grade includes:

- 30% - continuous assessment, i.e. ongoing preparation for classes (attendance, active participation in classes, doing homework, quizzes);

- 40% - 2 control tests (each test for 20%);

- 30% - 1 final test or oral discussion.

Grading scale:

99% -100% - 5!

98% - 91% - 5

90% - 86% - 4.5

85% - 76% - 4

75% - 71% - 3.5

70% - 60% - 3

below - 2 (not passed)