HU Credits: 4

Degree/Cycle: 1st degree (Bachelor)

Responsible Department: political science

Semester: Yearly

Teaching Languages: Hebrew

Campus: Mt. Scopus

Course/Module Coordinator: Prof. Shaul Shenhav

Coordinator Email: shaul.shenhav@mail.huji.ac.il

Coordinator Office Hours: Monday: 10:15-11:30

Teaching Staff:
Prof Shaul Shenhav

Course/Module description:
The course deals with the various meeting points between texts and politics. From the theoretical and methodological perspectives the course will focus on the study of political discourse and rhetorical criticism.

Course/Module aims:
Theoretical and analytical discussions about the use of language in the political arena; Systematic analysis of political texts.

Learning outcomes - On successful completion of this module, students should be able to:
1. Analyze the role of language in the political arena.
2. define key concepts in the study of political discourse and political rhetoric
3. analyze political texts based on different approaches of discourse analysis and rhetorical criticism
4. Integrate textual analysis in the study of the political arena.
5. Interpret political texts based on discourse analysis and rhetorical criticism.

Attendance requirements(%):

Teaching arrangement and method of instruction: The course combines lectures, theoretical and methodological discussions, joint analysis of political texts, presentation of student projects and individual or small group meetings to formulate research projects.

Course/Module Content:
Part I: Language and Politics

- Introduction
- Key concepts: rhetoric, discourse and politics
- Rhetoric, philosophy, language and politics

Part II: Approaches and arenas

- Exploration discourse and rhetoric Review: approaches to analyzing the political texts
- Arguments and poetically
- Logos, ethos, pathos and the neo-Aristotelian
- bereavement discourse
- International Stories
- Speech acts in political discourse
- Critical Discourse Analysis
- Metaphors, similes and parables in the political arena
- Words, numbers and messages
- Writers and speakers

Part C: Presentation of the students' assignments

Required Reading:
Abraham Lincoln, Gettysburg Address
http://rmc.library.cornell.edu/gettysburg/good_cause/transcript.htm

רועה, יצחק. (1994). "הכל סיפורים – והאגדה על "רק העובדות" בתוך: י. רועה. (עורך). אחרת על התקשורת: שבע פתיחות לעיון בתקשורת ובעיתונות. אבן-יהודה: הוצאת רכס, עמ' 152-129.

Foss, Sonja K. Rhetorical Criticsm. 4th edition. Long

Grove, Illinois: Waveland Press, 2009, pp. 3-6. )Foss, Rhetorical (להלן .

אריסטו, רטוריקה, תרגום
גבריאל צורן, תל-אביב: ספרית פועלים, 2002, ספר ראשון, פרקים א'-ג', עמ' 57-47.

צורן, גבריאל, "מבוא", בתוך אריסטו, רטוריקה, תרגום גבריאל צורן. תל-אביב: ספרית פועלים, 2002, מבוא, עמ' 44-1.

Foss, Rhetorical, pp. 9-20.

Foss, Rhetorical, pp. 21-29.

תמר ברוש, מלים בסוף הדרך: הספדים ישראליים, 24-15.

Stow, Simon (2007). "Pericles at Gettysburg and Ground Zero: Tragedy, Patriotism, and Public Mourning." American Political Science Review, pp 195-208.
http://www.greece.org/blogs/scholars/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Pericles-Gettysburg-GroundZero-APSR.pdf

Shenhav, Shaul. R. (2015). Analyzing Social Narratives. Routledge, pp. 1-9, 77-79.

Deborah Schiffrin, Approaches to Discourse, Oxford: blackwerr, 1994, pp. 49-50, 89-91.

Teun van Dijk, 'Principles of Critical Discourse Analysis', Discourse and Society, 1993, 4 (2), 249-283.

Foss, Rhetorical, pp. 267-276.

Sheafer, T., Shenhav, S. R., Takens, J., & van Atteveldt, W. (2014). Relative political and value proximity in mediated public diplomacy: The effect of state-level homophily on international frame building. Political Communication, 31(1), 149-167

Additional Reading Material:
http://www.history.com/topics/american-civil-war/gettysburg-address
Kupers, Jim A. and King Andrew, “What is Rhetoric?”, Rhetorical Criticism: Perspective in Action, edited by Jim A. Kuypers, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2009, pp. 1-12.
רועה, יצחק. (1994). "הכל סיפורים – והאגדה על "רק העובדות" בתוך: י. רועה. (עורך). אחרת על התקשורת: שבע פתיחות לעיון בתקשורת ובעיתונות. אבן-יהודה: הוצאת רכס, עמ' 152-129.
לנדאו, רחל, הרטוריקה של משלב הנאום הפוליטי בישראל (תל-אביב: עקד, 1986) עמ' 111-89.
פרלמן, חיים, ממלכת הרטוריקה, תרגום יוסף אור. ירושלים: מאגנס, תשמ"ד, עמ' 22-1.
Chaïm Perelman, L'Empire rhétorique, Paris: Vrin, 1977, pp. 1-25.
Quintilian, Institutes of Oratory, translated by J. S. Watson, London: G. Bell, 1892-95; book 1, chapter 6; book 2, chapter 4.

Antony Weston, A Rulebook for Arguments, 3rd edition Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing Company, 2000, pp. xi-xiv, 32-39.
Foss, Rhetorical, pp. 35-65.

Shenhav, S. R. (2009). Communication of the Israeli Leadership with Families of Fallen Soldiers. Middle Eastern Studies, 45(5), 691-707.
Foss, Rhetorical, pp. 307-319.
Patterson, M., & Monroe, K. R. (1998). Narrative in political science. Annual Review of Political Science, 1, 315-331.
Clandinin, Jean D. The Handbook of Narrative Inquiry: Mapping a Methodology, Sage: 2007.
Shlomith Rimmon Kenan, Narrative Fiction, 2nd edition, London: Routledge, 2002.
רמון-קינן, שלומית, הפואטיקה של הסיפורת בימינו, תרגום חנה הרציג, תל-אביב: ספרית פועלים, 1984.

Schiffrin, 91-49.

Foss, Rhetorical, pp. 209-224.

Foucault, Michel. L'ordre Du Discours: Lecon Inaugurale Au College De France Prononcee Le 2 Decembre 1970. Paris: Gallimard, 1994.

מישל פוקו, סדר השיח, תרגום נעם ברוך, תל-אביב: בבל, 2005.

Foss, Rhetorical, pp. 253-297.

Lakoff, George and Johnson, Mark, Metaphors we live, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980.

The King’s Speech (DVD), http://hufind.huji.ac.il/Record/HUJ001575470
ניר, רפאל, רטוריקה אלקטורלית בישראל - אנטומיה של סיסמת בחירות, תל-אביב: האוניברסיטה הפתוחה, 1993.
גרץ, נורית, שבויה בחלומה, תל-אביב: עם עובד, 1996.
"פתאום פלאום: על שרת והשפה העברית", עת-מול, יב (2), כסלו תשמ"ז, עמ' 21.
עזריהו, מעוז, "סוכני העברות", פוליטיקה: כתב עת ישראלי: חברה/מדיניות/תרבות, מס' 46, נובמבר 1992, עמ' 49-47.
שפירא, אניטה, "בן-גוריון והתנ"ך: יצירתו של נרטיב היסטורי?", אלפיים, 14, תשנ"ז 1997, עמ' 231-207.
Herzog, Hanna, Ben-Rafael, Eliezer, “The Study of Language and Communication in the Israeli Social Sciences”, Language and Communication in Israel, edited by Herzog H., Ben-Rafael E., New Brunswick and London: Transaction Publishers, 2001, pp. 3-27.
Blum-Kulka, Shoshana, Liebes, Tamar, “Peres Versus Nethanyahu: Television Wins the Debate”, Televised Election Debates: An International Comparison, edited by Coleman S, London: McMillan, 1999.
Burke, Kenneth , A rhetoric of Motives, Berkley and Los Angeles: The University of California Press, 1969.
Chilton, Paul, Schaffner, Shristina, “Discourse and Politics”, Discourse as Social Interaction, vol. 2, edited by Van Dijk T., London: Sage, 1997, pp. 206-230.
Chilton ,Paul, A. 2004, Analysing political discourse : theory and practice, New York: Routledge
Goffman, Erving, Forms of Talk, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1981.
Goffman, Erving, Frame Analysis, New-York:, Harper and Row, 1974.
Jaworsky, Adam, Coupland, Nikolas, The Discourse Reader, New York : Routledge, 1999.
Kennedy, George A., A New History of Classical Rhetoric, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1994.
Kennedy, George A., The Art of Persuation in Greece, London: Routladge, 1963.
Pocock, John Greville, Politics, Language and Time, London: Methuen & Co, 1972.
Shenhav, Shaul. R. Showing and Telling in Parliamentary Discourse: The case of repeated interjections to Rabin’s speeches in the Israeli Parliament, Discourse & Society, forthcoming, 19 (2), Spring, 2008.
Shenhav, Shaul. R. Detecting Stories: Revealing the Hidden “Voices” in Public Political Discourse, Journal of Language and Politics, 2007 6 (2), pp. 177-200.
Shenhav, Shaul. R. Political Narratives and Political Reality, International Political Science Review. Vol. 27, No. 3, 2006, pp. 245-262.
Sorning, Karl, “Some remarks on Linguistic Strategies of Persuation” Language, Power ans Ideologiy, ed. by R.Wodak, John Benjamins Publishers Company, Amsterdam and Philadelphia, 1989, pp. 95-113.
Schiffrin, Deborah, Tannen, Deborah, Hamilton, Heidi E., The Handbook of Discourse Analysis, edited by Schiffrin D., Tannen D., Hamilton H.E., Oxford: Blackwell, 2001.

Course/Module evaluation:
End of year written/oral examination 0 %
Presentation 0 %
Participation in Tutorials 10 %
Project work 90 %
Assignments 0 %
Reports 0 %
Research project 0 %
Quizzes 0 %
Other 0 %

Additional information:
Participation (10% of the final grade) includes the following components:
- Attendance at lectures, presentation of final assignments, reading report.
- A research proposal
- Presentation of work.

* A full and complete version of the syllabus will be available in the course website at the beginning of the academic year