Response to Seth's Question

2. How does a standardization of these variations of type and text in formal and academic papers limit the papers effective use of pathos?

I don't think pathos is the main concern of formal and academic papers. A shame, sometimes, too, because we've all fallen asleep in a book and had the splotches from the page on our foreheads when we awoke. Could've used some more pathos to keep us awake.

But as the Wysocki's article states, the purpose of formal and academic papers is to allow for focus on the content -- what the text is saying rather than how it appears. I was intrigued by that philosophy book that did include variations of type, text and design in an academic publication. That had pathos for a scholarly purpose. But I think that variations in type and text are meant simply to designate key turning points in arguments or outlines (such as headers, footnotes, bold-faced key vocabulary words) rather than establish some pathos. So in conclusion: variations in text and appearance serve a coldly organizational purpose, not flamboyantly inject pathos. Why? Maybe they worry about a distortion of meaning, a distraction from the content? Or maybe they don't want to keep readers awake.