Barbara Konat offers in Emotional Appeals in Argumentation an helpful synthesis of many years of research on emotional appeals in argumentation, notably the project "Computational Pathos", supported by the Polish National Science Centre, of which she was the principal investigator.Although the title unsurprisingly echoes, given the series in which the volume appears, the terminology of argumentation theory and of so-called fallacies of "appeals to emotion", the central concern of this 160-page book, published in 2025 in the Argumentation Library series, is more specifically-and more appropriately-the rhetorical question of pathos.The volume crowns the work carried out by the group behind the "Computational Pathos" project, but it also perfectly illustrates, through its alignment with contemporary research orientations, the renewal of the field that has become visible in recent years and that rests on at least three foundations.First-and this has become self-evident, although it still struggles to penetrate certain mindsemotions should not be reduced to fallacious appeals, but should be regarded as an integral part of the means of persuasion, inseparable from reason and comparable in this respect to the construction of self-image (ethos).Second, especially when a computational dimension is introduced, analyses and models need to be grounded in texts as they actually occur, rather than in fabricated, stylized, or simplified examples.Third, due attention must be paid to the emergence of innovative methods capable of investigating fields that were once largely inaccessible.The book, however, does more than testify to the modernity of its research agenda.Across three parts, it establishes a descriptive model for the analysis of pathos, moving, as the subtitle indicates, from Aristotle to generative artificial

AbstractThis paper argues that some words are so highly charged with meaning by a community that they may prevent a discussion during which each participant is on an equal footing. These words are indeed either unanimously accepted or rejected. The presence of these adjectival groups pushes the antagonist to find rhetorical strategies to circumvent them. The main idea we want to develop is that some propositions are not easily debatable in context because of some specific value-bearing words (VBWs), and one of the goals of this paper is to build a methodological tool for finding and classifying these VBWs (with a focus on evaluative adjectives). Our study echoes the importance of “cultural keywords” (as reported by Wierzbicka, Understanding cultures through their key words: English, Russian, Polish, German, and Japanese, 1997) in argument (as reported by Rigotti & Rocci, Argumentation in practice, 2005), but is rather based on a German approach developed by (as reported by Dieckmann, Sprache in der Politik: Einführung in die Pragmatik und Semantik der politischen, 1975), (as reported by Strauss and Zifonun, Der politische Wortschatz, 1986), and (as reported by Girnth, Sprache und Sprachverwendung in der Politik: Eine Einführung in die linguistische Analyse öffentlich-politischer Kommunikation, 2015) about “Miranda” and “Anti-Miranda” words that is expanded and refined here. In particular, our study tries to understand why some statements, fueled by appreciative (Tseronis, 2014) or evaluative adjectives, have such rhetorical effects on a pragmatic level in the particular context of a vote on the Swiss popular initiative called “for more affordable housing”. This context is fruitful since two parties offer reasons for two opposing policy claims: namely, to accept or to reject an initiative. When one party uses arguments containing such universally unassailable adjectival groups to defend a “yes” vote (in our example, pleading for more affordable housing rents), the opposing party cannot use a symmetrical antonym while pleading for the “no” vote. The methodological tool that is proposed here could shed light on the use of certain rhetorical and referential strategies in conflicting policy proposition contexts.