litceysel.ru
добавить свой файл
  1 ... 2 3 4 5

6Requirements and Grading

Type of grading


Type of work

1st year

Параметры **

1

2

3

4

Current

Essay




8







Written work: no less than 20 000 symbols (two weeks before final exam)

Home work

8










Oral report: with presentation in .ppt format (before last week of 1st module)

Final

Exam




9







Oral exam: critic and defense of final essay



6.1Course Grade Criteria


The sum of the grades for the presentation, the final paper (and grades associated with preparing and presenting it) and final examination will be translated into a numerical grade according to the corresponding ranges below.

Presentation. Students will prepare presentation during the 1st module. The presentation (15-20 minutes) will be based on the students’ report on a case chosen by student. Teacher estimates how full the report theme is developed, data collection and analysis is conducted etc.


Final Essay. By the end of the 2nd module each student will produce a 15-17 page (from 20 000 symbols) research paper that focuses on case study. Teacher estimates independent work of student: presentation of the essay (oral report with preliminary results of case study), how full theme is developed, data collection and analysis is conducted etc.

Final Exam. Final exam will be held in a dialogical form of discussion of final essays. Each student hands his essay in a week before final exam to chosen opponent who prepares an oral critical report (10 minutes) on the subject. Teacher asks additional questions, estimates understanding and argumentation of each pair of opponents.

7Course Description



Topic 1. Dialogue as a form of existence of discursive practices in public sphere

Rhetorical public sphere: G.Hauser. Basic concepts: dialogue, intertextuality / precedent, publicity / media. Direct and indirect forms of dialogue: interpersonal contact, mediated contact between community groups, mediatized dialogue. Discourse as a social speech. The structure of discourse: the author, the audience, the subject of speech, speech effect. Anglo-Saxon and Russian approaches to dialogue and speech study. Speech act theory: J.L.Austin, J. Searle. Logic and conversation: P. Grice. Linguistic criticism: N. Fairclough, R.Fowler. The potential of linguistic analysis.


Required readings:

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Edited and translated by Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

  • Fairclough, Norman (2003). Analysing Discourse: Textual Analysis for Social Research. London: Routledge.

  • Fowler, Roger (1996). Linguistic Criticism. Oxford University Press, USA; 2nd edition.
  • Hauser, Gerard (1998). Vernacular Dialogue and the Rhetoricality of Public Opinion. Communication Monographs 65(2): 83–107 Page.


  • Hauser, Gerard (1999). Vernacular Voices: The Rhetoric of Publics and Public Spheres, Columbia: University of South Carolina.

  • Grice, H.P. (1989). Studies in the Way of Words. Harvard University Press.

  • Van Dijk, Teun A. (1977). Text and Context. Explorations in the semantics and pragmatics of discourse. London and New York: Longman.



Optional readings:

  • Austin, John Langshaw (1962). How to do Things with Words: The William James Lectures delivered at Harvard University in 1955. Ed. J. O. Urmson, Oxford: Clarendon.

  • Halliday, M.A.K. (2002). Linguistic Studies of Text and Discourse. Continuum International Publishing Group.

  • Searle, John (summary of earlier work; 1998). Mind, Language and Society: Philosophy in the Real World.

  • Voloshinov, V. (1973). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Harvard University Press


Topic 2. Monologicality and dialogicality of public sphere

Speech distinctive features of totalitarianism and democracy. Ambiguity of the political system in modern Russia. Speech distinctive features of repressive thinking in public debate. The image of the enemy, aggression, intolerance, irresponsibility speech representation.


Required readings:

  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Edited and translated by Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

  • Fowler, Roger (1995). The Language of George Orwell. London, Macmillan.


Optional readings:

  • Sériot, Patrick (1985). Analyse du discours politique soviétique. Paris : IMSECO.

  • Sériot, Patrick (1999). Structure Et Totalité: Les Origines Intellectuelles Du Structuralisme En Europe Centrale Et Orientale. Paris: Presses universitaires de France.
  • Купина Н.А. Тоталитарный язык. Екатеринбург – Пермь, 1995.


  • Шейгал Е. И. Семиотика политического дискурса. Москва; Волгоград, 2000. “Thinking” Russia. Carte of modern intellectual trends. M. 2006.


Topic 3. Discourse and ideology

Ideological speech, key words of ideology, ideological point of view in dialogue. Bakhtin’s notion for heteroglossia. Denotation in rhetoric of criticism: dialogue between inner and outer point of view. Radicalization of discourse as a result of communicative fail: nationalism, extremism, ecological radicalism.


Required readings:

  • Fairclough, Norman (2001). Language and Power (2nd edition). London: Longman.

  • Fowler, Roger; Bob Hodge, Gunther Kress, Tony Trew (1979). Language and Control. London: Routledge Kegan and Paul.

  • Fowler, Roger (1995). The Language of George Orwell. London, Macmillan.

  • Wierzbicka, Anna (1997). Understanding Cultures Through Their Key Words: English, Russian, Polish, German, Japanese. New York: Oxford University Press.



Optional readings:

  • Uspensky, Boris (1973). A Poetics of Composition. Translated by Valentina Zavarin, Susan Wittig. Berkeley: University of California Press.

  • Voloshinov, V. (1973). Marxism and the Philosophy of Language. Harvard University Press.

  • Васильев А. Д. Слово в телеэфире: Очерки новейшего словоупотребления в российском телевещании. Красноярск, 2000.

  • Купина Н.А. Тоталитарный язык. Екатеринбург – Пермь, 1995.

  • Шейгал Е. И. Семиотика политического дискурса. Москва; Волгоград, 2000. “Thinking” Russia. Carte of modern intellectual trends. M. 2006.



Topic 4. Public image of a party / movement / institution / social or political figure as a dialogical structure

Constructive elements of the public image. Speech aspect of the public image. Style and register in public communication. Patterns in communication. Difference as an indispensable condition for dialogue. Images interacting in public sphere.



Required readings:


  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1984). Problems of Dostoevsky’s Poetics. Edited and translated by Caryl Emerson. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.

  • Fairclough, Norman (2001). Language and Power (2nd edition). London: Longman.

  • Fowler, Roger (1995). The Language of George Orwell. London, Macmillan.

  • Halliday, M.A.K. (2002). Linguistic Studies of Text and Discourse. Continuum International Publishing Group.

  • Labov, William (1972).Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

  • Lotman, Yuri (1982). The text and the structure of its audience. New Literary History: A Journal of Theory and Interpretation 14(1): 81-87.

  • Pearce, Walter Barnett (2008). Making Social Worlds: A Communication Perspective. Wiley-Blackwell.

  • Wierzbicka, Anna (1997). Understanding Cultures Through Their Key Words: English, Russian, Polish, German, Japanese. New York: Oxford University Press.



Optional readings:

  • Васильев А. Д. Слово в телеэфире: Очерки новейшего словоупотребления в российском телевещании. Красноярск, 2000.

  • Михальская А. К. Русский Сократ: Лекции по сравнительно-исторической риторике: Учеб. пособие для студентов гуманитарных факультетов. М.: Издательский центр «Academia», 1996.

  • Хазагеров Г. Г. Политическая риторика. М.: Никколо-Медиа, 2002.

  • Шейгал Е. И. Семиотика политического дискурса. Москва; Волгоград, 2000. “Thinking” Russia. Carte of modern intellectual trends. M. 2006.


Topic 5. Rhetoric strategies in public dialog

Bakhtin’s philosophy of act. Bias of an utterance, text, discourse. Hate speech, defensive position, accusation or admission of guilt. The rhetorics of the new opposition leaders. Rhetorical model of human rights movement: language and values.



Required readings:


  • Bakhtin, M. M. (1986) Speech Genres and Other Late Essays. Trans. by Vern W. McGee. Austin, Tx: University of Texas Press.

  • Grice, H.P. (1991). The Conception of Value. Oxford University Press.

  • Fairclough, Norman (2001). Language and Power (2nd edition). London: Longman.

  • Labov, William (1972).Sociolinguistic patterns. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.

  • The Routledge Reader in Rhetorical Criticism (2012). Edited by Brian L. Ott, Greg Dickinson. To be published October, 2012 by Routledge.



Optional readings:

  • Иссерс О. С. Коммуникативные стратегии и тактики русской речи. М.: Едиториал УРСС, 2003.


Topic 6. Hegemonic discourse and opposition discourse: mediatised dialogue

Public and popular: essential distinctions. Forms of a dialogue in media: ecological movements, women rights fighters, religious discrimination. Speech as a power. The linguistics of lying. Silence in communication.


Required readings:

  • Castells, Manuel (2009). Communication Power. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Cottle, Simon (2006). Mediatized conflict: developments in media and conflict studies. Open University Press.

  • Ong, Walter J. Orality and Literacy: The Technologizing of the Word (second edition; orig. 1982). Routledge, London and New York, 2002.

  • Weinrich, Harald (2006). The Linguistics of Lying And Other Essays (Literary Conjugations). University of Washington Press.


Optional readings:

  • Васильев А. Д. Слово в телеэфире: Очерки новейшего словоупотребления в российском телевещании. Красноярск, 2000.

  • Купина Н.А. Тоталитарный язык. Екатеринбург – Пермь, 1995.
  • Левин Ю.И. О семиотике лжи // Материалы Всесоюзного симпозиума по вторичным моделирующим системам. Тарту, 1979.




Topic 7. Conflict interaction and discourse of conflict

Nature of a public conflict: created by an utterance, embodied in an utterance, embodied and enforced by an utterance. Rhetoric on the conflict. Polemics in media: subject of discussion, grounds for evaluation, types of arguments.


Required readings:

  • Cottle, Simon (2006). Mediatized conflict: developments in media and conflict studies. Open University Press.

  • Tannen, Deborah, (1999). The argument culture. Changing the way we argue, London: Virago Press.



Optional readings:

  • Иссерс О. С. Коммуникативные стратегии и тактики русской речи. М.: Едиториал УРСС, 2003.

  • Левин Ю.И. О семиотике лжи // Материалы Всесоюзного симпозиума по вторичным моделирующим системам. Тарту, 1979.

  • Михальская А. К. Русский Сократ: Лекции по сравнительно-исторической риторике: Учеб. пособие для студентов гуманитарных факультетов. М.: Издательский центр «Academia», 1996.

  • Хазагеров Г. Г. Политическая риторика. М.: Никколо-Медиа, 2002.

  • Шейгал Е. И. Семиотика политического дискурса. Москва; Волгоград, 2000. “Thinking” Russia. Carte of modern intellectual trends. M. 2006.



Topic 8. Linguistic expertise in political and social struggle

Russian school of forensic linguistic. Semantic analysis and intention analysis of media text. Public debate on conflict-inspiring expertise: case study.


Required readings:

  • Cottle, Simon (2006). Mediatized conflict: developments in media and conflict studies. Open University Press.

  • Nuyts, J. (2001). Epistemic modality, language, and conceptualization: A cognitive-pragmatic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
  • Saeed, John I. (2003). Sentence semantics 1: Situations: Modality and evidentiality. In J. I Saeed, Semantics (2nd. ed) (Sec. 5.3, pp. 135–143). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.


  • Tannen, Deborah, (1999). The argument culture. Changing the way we argue, London: Virago Press.


Optional readings:

  • Арутюнова Н. Д. Язык и мир человека. М.: «Языки русской культуры», 1999.

  • Баранов А. Н. Лингвистическая экспертиза текста: теория и практика: Учебное пособие. М.: Флинта: Наука, 2007.

  • Вольф Е. М. Функциональная семантика оценки. М.: Едиториал УРСС, 2002.

  • Жельвис В.И. Инвектива: опыт тематической и функциональной классификации // Этнические стереотипы поведения. Сборник статей. Под ред. А.К. Байбурина. Л., 1985.

  • Жельвис В. И. Психолингвистическая интерпретация инвективного воздействия. М., 1992.


Topic 9. Social networks and public policy

Personal blogging impacts. Dichotomy of the explicitly expressed views. Bipolar world in public mind as a marker of social tension. National and universal peculiarities of public political debate.


Required readings:

  • Castells, Manuel (2009). Communication Power. New York: Oxford University Press.

  • Lotman Yuri (1982). The text and the structure of its audience. New Literary History: A Journal of Theory and Interpretation 14(1): 81-87.


Optional readings:


Topic 10. Russian public rhetoric in global context

Human rights and European values rhetoric – the dialogue between Russia and West. Rhetoric of double standards. Global leader’s reaction to Russian elections 2011-2012, political debate on Russia’s own way in Russia.

“Occupy” movements all over the world – global dialogue of cultures. Network opposition movements: rhetoric of the new leadership and democracy schools (according to Manuel Castels).


Required readings:
  • Castells, Manuel (1996). The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Vol.I: The Rise of the Network Society. Cambridge MA. Oxford UK: Blackwell Publishers.


  • Castells, Manuel (1997). The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture.Vol.II: The Power of Identity. Malden MA. Oxford UK: Blackwell Publishers

  • Castells, Manuel (1998). The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. Vol.III: End of Millennium. Malden MA. Oxford UK: Blackwell Publishers.

  • Lotman Yuri M. (2001). Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. (Translated by Ann Shukman, introduction by Umberto Eco.) London & New York: I.B.Tauris Publishers, xiii+288.

  • Wierzbicka, Anna, (2006). ‘The concept of dialogue in cross-linguistic and cross-cultural perspective’, Discourse Studies, 8; pp.675-703.

  • Wierzbicka, Anna (1997). Understanding Cultures Through Their Key Words: English, Russian, Polish, German, Japanese. New York: Oxford University Press.


Optional readings:


Topic 11. Ideological opposition represented by means of comic

Types of comic. Parody, irony, sarcasm, satire. Different kinds of comic in media as a sign of protest moods rising.


Required readings:

  • Booth, Wayne C. (1975). A Rhetoric of Irony. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

  • Lee, C. J., & Katz, A. N. (1998). The differential role of ridicule in sarcasm and irony. Metaphor and Symbol, 13, 1–15.

  • Hutcheon, Linda (1994). Irony’s Edge: The Theory and Politics of Irony. London: Routledge.


Optional readings:

  • Kierkegaard, Søren. On the Concept of Irony with Continual Reference to Socrates. 1841; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1992.


Topic 12. Dynamics of public dialogue

Top-down public communication: laws and legislative acts as an initiating message from autorities. Bottom-up public communication: civil initiative, critical speech and provocation. Stages of dialogue development and participation. Rally as a dialogical form. Effects assessment.



Required readings:


  • Escobar, Oliver (2011). Public dialogue and deliberation: A communication perspective for public engagement practicioners. Edinburgh: Edinburgh Beltane -UK Beacons for Public Engagement.

  • Hauser, Gerard (1998). Vernacular Dialogue and the Rhetoricality of Public Opinion. Communication Monographs 65(2): 83–107 Page.

  • Hauser, Gerard (1999). Vernacular Voices: The Rhetoric of Publics and Public Spheres, Columbia: University of South Carolina.

  • Lotman Yuri M. (2001). Universe of the Mind: A Semiotic Theory of Culture. (Translated by Ann Shukman, introduction by Umberto Eco.) London & New York: I.B.Tauris Publishers, xiii+288.


Optional readings:

  • Хазагеров Г. Г. Политическая риторика. М.: Никколо-Медиа, 2002.

  • Шейгал Е. И. Семиотика политического дискурса. Москва; Волгоград, 2000. “Thinking” Russia. Carte of modern intellectual trends. M. 2006.




<< предыдущая страница   следующая страница >>