Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies in " What Do Talking Apes Really Tell Us?"

In this post, I will be evaluating the rhetorical strategies Jane C. Hu uses to state her claim in her article "What Do Talking Apes Really Tell Us?" I will be evaluating this rhetoric based on the categories of ethos, pathos, and logos and the information out of the textbook.

Jordan, Brett "Rhetorical (1 of 2)" 07/08/11 via flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

Ethos (Appeals to Credibility or Character)

In her article, Hu gains the reader's trust in her statements fairly effectively by using word choice, tone, acknowledging the counterarguments, linking to credible sources, and he appeal to shared values and beliefs between her and the reader.

In her word choice, she works to stay pretty formal and maintains a forcefully informative tone. By using this strategy she establishes her superiority on the subject, superiority often being linked directly to credibility. She also made sure her article contained many links to credible sources like the Gorilla Foundation as well as links to many other articles that back up the claims she is making. For the reader this instantly lends credibility to the author, because then they are assured that the author isn't just pulling facts out of nowhere or making them up.

Hu does occasionally acknowledge the counter arguments on this topic. For example, she acknowledges that the bond between the gorilla and its keeper can not be matched, and as such it is difficult to know if the keeper is changing the gorilla's "words" or if they actually can understand them. This gives her credibility because it makes her seem much more reasonable and less one-sided about the argument at hand. While she does have bias and definitely leans towards one opinion, acknowledging the opposition makes her seem far less biased about the topic.

In addition she appeals to similar beliefs that she believes she and the reader share, as seen when she brings up the fact that Patterson's manipulation of the truth is conniving. By appealing to this similar value, she immediately puts herself high in the reader's regards. People in general are much more willing to trust someone if they know that they share the same core values. Hu takes advantage of this to get the reader to trust her and her character.

These uses of ethos all lead the reader to the assumption that Hu is in fact credible and of strong character. As a result, the text becomes more effective when the reader trusts the writer, because they become more willing to accept the author's claims that way.



Pathos (Appeals to Emotion)

The author uses a moderate amount subtle emotional rhetoric in her development of this topic. By using compelling narratives, some repetition of key words, and level of formality, she leads the reader to the emotion she wants them to feel: at the very least doubt, at most skepticism of Koko and her supposed grasp of language and communication.

Hu's description of Koko's emotional capabilities leads the reader where she wants to point them: to the fact that Koko's communication is just another whimsy of human hope and fantasy. She also emphasizes the fact that Patterson has been twisting Koko's signs to seem logical to incite bitterness in the reader for being tricked. Her keeping of a forcefully informative tone also gives the effect that the reader is being told they are wrong by an authority figure, bringing the reader to doubt themselves and their beliefs. This self doubt brought about by emotional rhetoric is just what Hu needs to drive her point home to the reader. She is pretty darn effective in how she casually guides the reader to the emotional state she wants them to be in.

I think that unless the text is being analyzed in as careful and academic way as I am doing, this emotional rhetoric would not necessarily impact the credibility of the author in this case. Hu manipulates the reader subtly so the reader might not know they are even being steered a certain way. As for logic, any kind of emotional appeal will, in my opinion, impact the logicality of the article. However in this case, I think that the emotional appeal makes the piece more logical. With their emotions incited, the reader is more likely to see the points Hu makes as logical since they have already bee swayed to that way of thinking.



Logos (Appeals to Logic)

I think that Hu makes the most effective use of logos out of the three rhetorical techniques shown here. She uses historical records, interviews, effective organization, clear transitions, and arrangement for sequence and emphasis to appeal to the logical side of the reader. For me this was especially important, since she was able to effectively convince me of her way of thinking and I am a very logical person.

In my opinion, the most important use of logos rhetoric is her use of historic records. Her transcript of a past conversation with Koko was especially fascinating. In the chat are Koko (obviously), Patterson, and a chat moderator asking the questions. Through this, the reader is able to see for themselves the seemingly obscure way that Patterson translates Koko's "words". I also counted this as an interview, since the chat was in fact an interview with Koko and Patterson that showed their exact words.

The author also manages to tempt the reader into wanting to read the next paragraph with her enticing transitions. Effective organization is also an important part of this, because the way Hu organized the article makes logical sense and makes the reader come to their conclusion when the piles of logical proof add up. She also makes sure to emphasize the sneakiness of Patterson as well as the nonsense of Koko's exact signs. In this way she makes sure that the reader is unable to ignore the substantial proof for her case.

In my opinion this logical approach was extremely effective. When speaking to a scientifically interested audience like she is, logic is about the most important use of rhetoric Hu could employ. I think that she got the result she was looking for using this rhetoric, and effectively made the reader doubt Koko's actual ability to understand and communicate English.


REFLECTION

Reading Michaela and Allison's posts on rhetorical strategies, I learned they had two different experiences than me in this rhetorical analysis. Where my article is heavy on the logos and light on pathos, Allison's is heavy on the pathos and light on the logos. This makes sense due to the nature of our two topics, and made me realize just how important playing to your audience is in these articles. Michaela however had pretty balanced rhetorical usages in her article and it was harder to recognize which strategies were utilized more often/effectively. Regardless of the strategies they used, all of our authors used effective rhetoric in their articles.

From this I notice that my author seemed to use more rhetoric to prove her point than in my peers' articles. Or maybe I just over-analyzed my article? But either way I think all of our authors were effective, and that the key to effective rhetoric varies based largely on the subject matter at hand.