"pathotic" meaning in English

{
  "etymology_templates": [
    {
      "args": {
        "1": "en",
        "2": "pathos",
        "3": "-otic"
      },
      "expansion": "pathos + -otic",
      "name": "af"
    }
  ],
  "etymology_text": "From pathos + -otic.",
  "forms": [
    {
      "form": "more pathotic",
      "tags": [
        "comparative"
      ]
    },
    {
      "form": "most pathotic",
      "tags": [
        "superlative"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "head_templates": [
    {
      "args": {},
      "expansion": "pathotic (comparative more pathotic, superlative most pathotic)",
      "name": "en-adj"
    }
  ],
  "lang": "English",
  "lang_code": "en",
  "pos": "adj",
  "senses": [
    {
      "categories": [
        {
          "kind": "other",
          "name": "English entries with incorrect language header",
          "parents": [],
          "source": "w"
        },
        {
          "kind": "other",
          "name": "English terms suffixed with -otic",
          "parents": [],
          "source": "w"
        },
        {
          "kind": "other",
          "name": "Pages with 1 entry",
          "parents": [],
          "source": "w"
        },
        {
          "kind": "other",
          "name": "Pages with entries",
          "parents": [],
          "source": "w"
        }
      ],
      "examples": [
        {
          "bold_text_offsets": [
            [
              602,
              610
            ]
          ],
          "ref": "2015 January 1, Paula Olmos, “Story Credibility in Narrative Arguments”, in Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, editors, Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory, Berlin: Springer, →DOI, pages 155–167:",
          "text": "All the discussed proposals seem to be based on the collection and ordering of a list of different criteria that a story told in an argumentative discourse should fulfil in order to be credible and accepted as evidence of some sort. If we sum up and try to arrange what we have so far seen, starting from the most inner (intra-diegetic) to outer (extra-diegetic) criteria, we have a much more complicated framework than the dyadic theory we started with and which referred to roughly numbers 1 and 9 on our list, equivalents of which are mentioned by practically all authors: […] 8. Audience-related, “pathotic” assessment: previous beliefs of audience. Relative to argumentative practice involved (Cicero).",
          "type": "quote"
        },
        {
          "bold_text_offsets": [
            [
              73,
              81
            ],
            [
              360,
              368
            ],
            [
              478,
              486
            ]
          ],
          "ref": "2020 May 15, Lungile Augustine Tshuma, “ZANU–PF Women’s League and the (Re)configuration of Political Power in Influencing Succession Politics in Zimbabwe”, in Women's Political Communication in Africa. Issues and Perspectives, Berlin: Springer, →DOI, pages 61–76:",
          "text": "The modes of argumentation which work through persuasion are ethotic and pathotic with former being act of persuading an “audience through the character of the arguer wherein someone of good character, expertise or experiential knowledge is seen as standing a good chance of convincing an audience” (Richardson 2007: 159). The second mode of persuasion uses a pathotic argument which uses emotion implicitly or explicitly as a persuasive tool. Richardson (2007: 160) adds that “pathotic arguments can anger people, instil in them fear, pity or even calm them down”.",
          "type": "quote"
        },
        {
          "bold_text_offsets": [
            [
              72,
              80
            ]
          ],
          "ref": "2024 June 21, Barbara Konat, Ewelina Gajewska, Wiktoria Rossa, “Pathos in Natural Language Argumentation: Emotional Appeals and Reactions”, in Argumentation, volume 38, →DOI, pages 369–403:",
          "text": "We observe how speakers appeal to emotions in two ways: first, by using pathotic Argument Schemes [for example Fear Appeal, as described by Walton (2013)], second, by using emotion-eliciting language [for example words such as “war” or “children”, see Wierzba et al. (2021)].",
          "type": "quote"
        }
      ],
      "glosses": [
        "Being of an argumentative style directed to elicit pathos in the audience."
      ],
      "id": "en-pathotic-en-adj-XgnZk8Hq",
      "links": [
        [
          "argumentative",
          "argumentative"
        ],
        [
          "style",
          "style"
        ],
        [
          "pathos",
          "pathos"
        ],
        [
          "audience",
          "audience"
        ]
      ]
    }
  ],
  "word": "pathotic"
}

{
  "etymology_templates": [
    {
      "args": {
        "1": "en",
        "2": "pathos",
        "3": "-otic"
      },
      "expansion": "pathos + -otic",
      "name": "af"
    }
  ],
  "etymology_text": "From pathos + -otic.",
  "forms": [
    {
      "form": "more pathotic",
      "tags": [
        "comparative"
      ]
    },
    {
      "form": "most pathotic",
      "tags": [
        "superlative"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "head_templates": [
    {
      "args": {},
      "expansion": "pathotic (comparative more pathotic, superlative most pathotic)",
      "name": "en-adj"
    }
  ],
  "lang": "English",
  "lang_code": "en",
  "pos": "adj",
  "senses": [
    {
      "categories": [
        "English adjectives",
        "English entries with incorrect language header",
        "English lemmas",
        "English terms suffixed with -otic",
        "English terms with quotations",
        "Pages with 1 entry",
        "Pages with entries"
      ],
      "examples": [
        {
          "bold_text_offsets": [
            [
              602,
              610
            ]
          ],
          "ref": "2015 January 1, Paula Olmos, “Story Credibility in Narrative Arguments”, in Frans H. van Eemeren, Bart Garssen, editors, Reflections on Theoretical Issues in Argumentation Theory, Berlin: Springer, →DOI, pages 155–167:",
          "text": "All the discussed proposals seem to be based on the collection and ordering of a list of different criteria that a story told in an argumentative discourse should fulfil in order to be credible and accepted as evidence of some sort. If we sum up and try to arrange what we have so far seen, starting from the most inner (intra-diegetic) to outer (extra-diegetic) criteria, we have a much more complicated framework than the dyadic theory we started with and which referred to roughly numbers 1 and 9 on our list, equivalents of which are mentioned by practically all authors: […] 8. Audience-related, “pathotic” assessment: previous beliefs of audience. Relative to argumentative practice involved (Cicero).",
          "type": "quote"
        },
        {
          "bold_text_offsets": [
            [
              73,
              81
            ],
            [
              360,
              368
            ],
            [
              478,
              486
            ]
          ],
          "ref": "2020 May 15, Lungile Augustine Tshuma, “ZANU–PF Women’s League and the (Re)configuration of Political Power in Influencing Succession Politics in Zimbabwe”, in Women's Political Communication in Africa. Issues and Perspectives, Berlin: Springer, →DOI, pages 61–76:",
          "text": "The modes of argumentation which work through persuasion are ethotic and pathotic with former being act of persuading an “audience through the character of the arguer wherein someone of good character, expertise or experiential knowledge is seen as standing a good chance of convincing an audience” (Richardson 2007: 159). The second mode of persuasion uses a pathotic argument which uses emotion implicitly or explicitly as a persuasive tool. Richardson (2007: 160) adds that “pathotic arguments can anger people, instil in them fear, pity or even calm them down”.",
          "type": "quote"
        },
        {
          "bold_text_offsets": [
            [
              72,
              80
            ]
          ],
          "ref": "2024 June 21, Barbara Konat, Ewelina Gajewska, Wiktoria Rossa, “Pathos in Natural Language Argumentation: Emotional Appeals and Reactions”, in Argumentation, volume 38, →DOI, pages 369–403:",
          "text": "We observe how speakers appeal to emotions in two ways: first, by using pathotic Argument Schemes [for example Fear Appeal, as described by Walton (2013)], second, by using emotion-eliciting language [for example words such as “war” or “children”, see Wierzba et al. (2021)].",
          "type": "quote"
        }
      ],
      "glosses": [
        "Being of an argumentative style directed to elicit pathos in the audience."
      ],
      "links": [
        [
          "argumentative",
          "argumentative"
        ],
        [
          "style",
          "style"
        ],
        [
          "pathos",
          "pathos"
        ],
        [
          "audience",
          "audience"
        ]
      ]
    }
  ],
  "word": "pathotic"
}