The purpose of this essay to compare two articles on a similar topic but with a completely different message and corresponding rhetorical models. In order to assess the rhetorical potential of an article, the ability to distinguish between types of oratory styles is required. These articles do not match in style and ways of influencing the audience, however, they convey their ideas, albeit in different ways. Rhetorical devices are always aimed at controlling the logic of the audience, forcing them to complete their opinions in such a way that they are beneficial or at least correspond to the opinion of the authors of the article. Despite the different pathetic natures of the two compared articles about dogs in the industry, their comparison proves that the utilitarian and ethical utility of a scientific article is detectable regardless of the level of journalism in writing style.
The first article seems to focus on the chanting of a dead animal in the format of a pathetic obituary, which, although based on a true story, has a lot in common with legendization. The structure of this article is largely narrative, following the biography in a dramatizing way. The article begins with a description of the dramatic fact of the dog’s death, subsequently reconstructing his merits (Ruhoiu & Ruhoiu, 2018). The authors of the article make their own version of the story of the dog Max, recognizing it from eyewitnesses. At the same time, the article has a fairly strong academic background that makes up its logo.
The authors conduct a serious study, compiling a corpus of already existing literature on the problem of using dogs in military and counter-criminal activities. Despite the detective narrative of the article in places, they conduct a serious study to establish the status of a dog in the Romanian police, which turns out to be ethically justified.
The second article seems to be rhetorically more formal and practical, ethically serious, but the pathos is reduced. The article also uses statistical data, focusing on the performance of working dogs, showing the ranking of their inefficiencies and failures (Cobb et al., 2015). The academic intentions are expressed in academic language and scientific modeling of hypothetical situations.
Based on the classical theory of rhetorical writing compiled by the Scottish scholar Genung, it would make sense when analyzing a text to focus on the context that produced it. It makes special sense not only to focus on how to find examples of this or that style in writing, but to evaluate the tasks that the text performs or seeks to perform in the first place (Miller-Cochran et al. 2019). This stage of the analysis, in connection with the articles proposed for study, seems to be quite promising, since it makes it possible to creatively interpret articles that seem to carry only an introductory task. However, at the same time, it is noticeable that the first article chosen for analysis seeks to win over readers to its side and arouse in the reader a moral attraction and spiritual sympathy for the tragically deceased police dog. In itself, this aspect determines the nature of the writing in which the article is written, which hangs somewhere in the gray zone between academic writing based on facts, but also containing a very strong element of journalism.
Ethical understanding of the meaning of the article occurs through the author’s awareness of the importance of the contribution of the object of study in a variety of global industries. This is what constitutes the ethos of the article, that is, the justification for writing it. From a pragmatic point of view, the authors propose a modulation of a scientific theoretical and practical model of canine performance, which will strengthen this subsection of the modern industry. The scientific nature of the language of the article demonstrates its pathetic abstractness. The emotional detachment and passivity of the language is an indicator of the impartiality of the writing academician.
This article has a clear sequence from the facts about dogs in today’s industries to the need to eliminate inefficiencies in their use today. The article seeks to retain two objectives while fulfilling its informative goals. First, it seeks to eliminate the problem of high inefficiency in canines. Secondly, this effectiveness of dogs adjusts to the new ethical framework set by the humane parameters of our time. Considering that this article describes real cases from modern production, the authors find themselves forced to adjust hypothetical experiments to real ethical needs. The rhetorical model of the article is thus substantiated by scientific principles for solving an academic problem (Langaker and Walker 2019). First, the range of scientific interests within the article is outlined, then the issue is specified and its solution is proposed with all possible contextual restrictions and growth possibilities.
Speaking about the complications of efficiency in this area of working dogs, the authors of the article appeal to logos, that is, to a reasonable, meaningful perception of the problem posed. With difficulty, we can only say that a similar problem was solved rhetorically in the first article. It can be said that ethos dominates the first article, since the authors consider it morally and socially necessary to honor the honor of the famous police dog with an obituary. The ethical component is extremely strong for the authors of the first article, since the main task is to convince the audience of what a talented and skillful dog the hero of this article was.
By comparing the articles, it is clear that they both serve informative and highly ethical purposes, but the language of one of them turns out to be overly personal and humane, while the next is more scientific and abstract. In this comparative analysis, two different rhetorical mechanisms are observed, both of which, however, incline the audience to the side of the author. The academicism of one article and the publicism of the other should be emphasized, both at the level of the rhetoric of the text and in their formal design, starting with the headings and their meaning.
Works Cited
Cobb, Mia, et al. The advent of canine performance science: Offering a sustainable future for working dogs. Behavioral Processes, vol. 110, 2015, pp. 96-104.
Genung, John Franklin. Handbook of rhetorical analysis: Studies in style and invention. Wentworth Press, 2019.
Longaker, Mark, and Jeff Walker. Rhetorical analysis: A brief guide for writers. Pearson, 2019.
Miller-Cochran, Susan, et al. An insider’s guide to academic writing: A rhetoric and reader, with 2020 APA update. Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2020.
Rujoiu, Octavian, & Valentina Rujoiu. “Losing Max, the first Romanian army’s military working dog hero.” Journal of Loss & Trauma, vol. 23, no. 7, 2018, pp. 608-621.