Introduction to rhetoric 3221-S2-FBA-WR11

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)

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

Additional information (registration calendar, class conductors, localization and schedules of classes), might be available in the USOSweb system:

• Description of 3221-S2-FBA-WR11 in USOSweb