Argumentation (2016) 30:527–532

DOI 10.1007/s10503-016-9393-7

Review of: Frans H. van Eemeren (2015):

Reasonableness and Effectiveness in Argumentative
Discourse: Fifty Contributions to the Development
of Pragma-Dialectics, Cham (CH), Springer
(= Argumentation Library, 27), 880 pp.

Fernando Leal1

Published online: 23 January 2016

 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

1 Introduction

This is a book I am sure many of us wanted to see. Every scholar in the world who
works in the field of argumentation studies knows the name of Frans van Eemeren
and has heard of the tag ‘pragma-dialectics’. What not everyone is aware of is the
sheer amount and variety of research associated with that name and this tag. Even
though van Eemeren and his multiple collaborators in what is known as the
Amsterdam School have been publishing a long string of books in pragma-dialectics
over the years, the fact of the matter is that at the same time van Eemeren, alone or in
collaboration, has been busy pouring forth an astounding amount of papers (over 300
actually) which either extended or deepened the pragma-dialectical research
program, and are chock full of aperçus, arguments, and results that are not contained
in those books. The book under review, almost 900 pages long, is the first publication
to allow us a glimpse into the workshop of pragma-dialectics in its full glory.
Given the sheer amount of materials (fifty chapters arranged in ten parts), the
only reasonable way to give the reader an idea of the wealth contained in this
volume is by recapitulating what pragma-dialectics as a research program really is.
First of all: although there is no shortage of researchers in argumentation studies
willing and able to theorize, I submit that there is in this field no theory of
argumentation in the standard sense of the word ‘theory’ within philosophy of
science as practised from Kant and Comte on—with the notable exception of
pragma-dialectics.

& Fernando Leal

ferlec@hotmail.com
1
Department of Education, University of Guadalajara, Av. Parres Arias 150, 45200 Zapopan,
JAL, Mexico

123
528 F. Leal

What do I mean by a theory? Nothing complicated, really, although anyone with

more than a passing aquaintance with the above-mentioned tradition will, of course,
know that the devil, as always, is in the details—about which there is and always
will be a healthy dose of disagreement among the specialists. A theory is, in a
nutshell, an analytic engine capable of (1) continuous inferential development, (2)
empirical hypothesis testing, and (3) broad application to the vagaries of the real
world, in this case the vagaries of human argumentative reality. Pragma-dialectics is
the only example I know that actually fills the bill.
To avoid misunderstandings, let me hasten to add that the abundance of
theorizing and partial theoretical models without a theory proper is not at all rare in
science, scholarship, and academia. It is nothing to be ashamed of. It is rather a fact
of life. And again, having a theory does not necessarily mean having a true theory
(whatever that may mean), it just means having an analytic engine which has the
potential to approximate reality in successive steps, starting from a very simple
model (think of Galileo Galilei, Adam Smith, or Charles Darwin) which, however
simple, has the wherewithal to grow and become increasingly complex so as to
cover ever broader areas of the relevant phenomena.
It is in that sense that pragma-dialectics is a theory, and I submit the only one in
the relatively young and exciting field of argumentation studies. And yet, strangely
enough, this fact was very difficult to perceive clearly because of the publication
choices made by Frans van Eemeren and his co-workers. They have published no
less than eight books, containing pure theoretical exposition (*1983, *1992, *2004,
*2010), methods of textual analysis (*1993), empirical research (*2007, *2009), and
even an excellent textbook presentation (*2002).1 An ideal reader might be able to
read between the lines and see in all these ‘reports of work in progress’ a consistent
and all-rounded research program; but let’s face it: readers are so rushed these days
and the literature in argumentation studies has been growing so much that many
may be forgiven if they fail to see the wood for the trees. I know this was my case
until I had the good fortune to attend a seminar Frans van Eemeren generously
offered at my university. It was listening to him that I understood that pragma-
dialectics is not just one partial theoretical model in addition to all the others on
offer in the ‘market of ideas’ of argumentation studies.
What is pragma-dialectics then? The book under review is unique in that it for the
first time shows the true extent of a research program that is firmly based on a full (if
elementary) theory in the sense sketched above, yet does not stop there. At the risk
of making some mistakes, I suggest that the pragma-dialectic research program has
gone through three phases, each one of which tries to answer two different
questions.2

1
To save space I will be using dates preceded by an asterisk (*) to refer to the relevant publications listed
at the end of this review. This review refers throughout to the international publications in English only.
The Amsterdam School, however, has a considerable output in Dutch as well, which often precedes what
eventually appeared in English. On Dutch publications see below notes 4 and 5.
2
By the way, the author’s version of this history is the subject of Chapter 7 in the book under review. I
understand van Eemeren will soon publish a new book, titled The making of pragma-dialectics, which
will contain a fuller account of his almost 40 years-old research program.

123
Review of: Frans H. van Eemeren (2015): Reasonableness… 529

Phase 1 can be described as pure theory building on the basis of first principles.
This phase starts with *1983 and ends with *2010. It is important to see that
theorizing has not stopped, but it continues under a different shape as part of Phase
3, ‘argumentation in context’ (see below).
The first question of Phase 1 is how far can we go if we assume that arguers want
to be reasonable, just reasonable and nothing else. Of course, we know that arguers
pursue different aims, and being reasonable is only one of them. Nonetheless, if we
assume that the first and foremost aim of any full theory of argumentation is to help
resolve our disagreements by means of reasons, then we need a model of
reasonableness. The theoretical problem is thus to show that such a model is capable
of solving that task.3 Here we find ourselves at a very abstract, theoretical level. The
model of reasonableness is like the very simple models first proposed in physics.
Think of Galileo’s model of free falling bodies. A body never falls freely under
ordinary earthly conditions, but there is always a greater or lesser rubbing of the
body against a given medium. Free fall is frictionless fall, something that we do not
find ready made on earth. Think of reasonableness as frictionless argumentation,
where the medium that alters the progress of discussion is made of emotions, habits,
hidden agendas, and so on. If we for a moment idealize those away, then we get the
simple model of what has come to be called ‘standard pragma-dialectics’. With the
publication of *2004 we can consider the first question answered. For purposes that
will become clear soon, I wish here to highlight one component of the standard
model: the distinction of four stages in the process of argumentation: the
confrontation, the opening, the give-and-take of reasons and objections (‘argumen-
tation’ in the narrow sense), and the concluding stage. Even an approach as different
from pragma-dialectics as Michael Gilbert’s recognizes the importance of this
distinction (see Gilbert 2014).
Arguers undeniably cherish the ideal of reasonableness, yet that is far from the
whole story. What else do they want? This is the second question of Phase 1. And
the short answer is: arguers want to get results, they want to be effective in the real
world, they want to have an impact and make a difference. Experience teaches us,
however, that being effective is—not always but often enough—at odds with being
reasonable. Audiences do not always listen (only) to reasons. The tone, for instance,
in which reasons are conveyed, the words we pick up to express them, as well as
those we avoid using, the sequence in which we arrange our words, the issues, topics
or aspects we highlight as well as those we de-emphasize, all those things may be
vital to achieve results. This is where the insights of classical and modern rhetoric
enter stage. The above-mentioned (tone, word choice, and so on) are indeed the stuff
of inuentio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria, actio, of warrants, backings, qualifiers
and rebuttals, of quasi-logical argumentation and the like. Understanding that an
arguer must ‘strategically maneuver’ between the ideal of reasonableness and the
nitty–gritty of real-world effectiveness is what complicates the simple model we

3
One common misunderstanding of standard pragma-dialectics consists in saying that no human being
argues according to this model. Of course, they don’t. That’s why it is a model. That’s the way all models
work.That’s why they are called models in the first place. Yet even such a sagacious theorist as John
Woods (2006) has misunderstood standard pragma-dialectics in precisely this way.

123
530 F. Leal

started with, what brings it closer to the actual practice of argumentation, what in
sum gives as the ‘extended’ model of pragma-dialectics.
Phase 2 is about going from the purely or at least mainly normative-theoretical
aspect to the descriptive-empirical. Here we can distinguish two questions: (a) the
qualitative analysis of argumentative language, in particular the verbal indicators
that the partners in a discussion use to signal that they are engaged in a particular
stage or substage of argumentation; (b) the factual demonstration that the model of
reasonableness has not only problem-validity, as in standard pragma-dialectics, but
intersubjective validity as well. Although there are several papers dealing with those
two questions, we can consider *2007 and *2009 as presenting very full reports on
each.4 In the book under review there are some interesting gems, though, which very
much complement these excellent books (see specially Chapters 31, 36, and the
whole of Part IX, comprising Chapters 39–44).
Ever since the inception of the pragma-dialectical research program, there have
been voices accusing it of lack of realism. The incorporation of rhetorical
considerations into the theory during the 2000’s has done something to assuage the
accusations, but I think it is only with Phase 3 that pragma-dialectics, having the
normative-theoretical and the descriptive-empirical scaffolding firmly in place, is
coming to fruition. Phase 3 is rightly called ‘argumentation in context’. Instead of
vaguely appealing to a very complex argumentative reality (in the manner of
Perelman, Toulmin and the critical thinking tradition) or to trying to carve that
reality by means of stilted theoretical constructs (such as Douglas Walton’s
‘dialogues’), the Amsterdam school has initiated a very serious research program
looking for the concrete peculiarities and goal-oriented conventions of socially
institutionalized ways of organizing argumentation in the different spheres of our
modern world. So far, the emphasis has been on four major fields—politics, health
care, the law and the mass media—and a fifth one is being broached as I write—
academic life. The abundance of empirical detail and the new theoretical insights
being won are sure to make a mark in argumentation studies for many years to
come. A new periodical outlet (the Journal of Argumentation in Context) and a new
book series (Argumentation in Context), published with John Benjamins, have been
born in Phase 3 to mark this new venture. They are a welcome complement to the
more traditional and well-known journal (Argumentation) and book series
(Argumentation Library) at Springer which were such flagships both for pragma-
dialectics in particular and for argumentation studies in general. In the book under
review the chapters in Part X are specially relevant to this new field.
Now, if the first question of Phase 3 concerns the variegated ways of
argumentation characteristic of the different institutional arrangements of our
modern societies, the second question has to be whether and how we all—in our
very different roles as voters, defendants, doctors, patients, consumers, citizens,

4
I should perhaps also mention, as part of the empirical research done within pragma-dialectics, the
sporadic contributions to the long history of argumentation studies (see Chapter 32 of the book under
review as well as Chapter 3 of *2010). By the way, giving an account of that history has always been an
integral part of the pragma-dialectical research program, as witnessed by another string of books (starting
with *1978 and *1981 still in Dutch, continuing with *1996 already in English, and culminating in
*2014).

123
Review of: Frans H. van Eemeren (2015): Reasonableness… 531

students, teachers—can all improve our participation in those processes, how we

can be better arguers, either in the role of ‘protagonists’ or of ‘antagonists’, to use
these well-known terms of standard pragma-dialectics. This question was originally
broached quite early, in a *1989 paper on the writing of argumentative texts, and it
was the topic of the last two chapters of the *2002 textbook (see also chapter 38 of
the book under review). As far as I can see, the rightful place for a considered
treatment of this eminently practical concern is the new field of argumentation in
context. Let us hope we shall be seeing more contributions to it in this sense.5
To close this review, I can only say that there is no place like this book for
academics and practitioners to appreciate the enormous richness of the pragma-
dialectical research program in all its different phases and facets.6 Perhaps the only
thing I myself miss in this book is a list of the original sources from which the fifty
chapters were taken, although I understand that the publishers have now corrected
the mishap both for the electronic version and for newly printed copies of the book.
This is important to keep the historical record straight and also to remind us of the
sheer perseverance of van Eemeren and his collaborators. We all owe them much
more than met the eye before this publication.

References
Eemeren, Frans H. van. *2010. Strategic maneuvering in argumentative discourse: Extending the
pragma-dialectical theory of argumentation. Amsterdam-Filadelfia: John Benjamins.
Eemeren, Frans H., and Grootendorst, Rob. *1984. Speech acts in argumentative discussions: A
theoretical model for the analysis of discussions directed towards solving conflicts of opinion.
Berlı́n: de Gruyter.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Grootendorst, Rob. *1989. Writing argumentative texts. From analysis to
presentation: A pragma-dialectical approach. In: B. E. Gronbeck (Ed.), Spheres of argument:
Proceedings of the 6th SCA/AFA conference on argumentation (pp. 324–330). Annandale (VA):
Speech Communication Association.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Grootendorst, Rob. *1992. Argumentation, communication, and fallacies: A
pragma-dialectical perspective. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Grootendorst, Rob, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. *2002. Argumentation:
Analysis, evaluation, presentation. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, and Grootendorst, Rob. *2004. A systematic theory of argumentation: The
pragma-dialectical approach. Nueva York: Cambridge University Press.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Peter Houtlosser, and A. Francisca Snoeck Henkemans. *2007. Argumentative
indicators in discourse. A pragma-dialectical study. Dordrecht: Springer.

5
I may be guilty of some distortion of the general picture of the history of pragma-dialectics in that
certain things were published in English later than in Dutch. The author tells me in correspondence that
‘‘we (viz. he and Rob Grootendorst) not only started out with two Handbook publications in Dutch (*1978
and *1981), but also paid a lot more attention to the application of argumentation theory, and did so much
earlier. In fact, from the early 1980’s onwards Rob Grootendorst and I have published different kinds of
textbooks in Dutch. The *1989 paper is based on these efforts.’’
6
I became aware of the need for such a collection of papers immediately after the seminar at the
University of Guadalajara mentioned above. So I translated a selection of ten papers that is now available
as an Amazon Kindle together with a Festschrift by Spanish-speaking researchers (Leal 2015), a fact that
may be of interest to some readers of this journal. Chapter 7 of the book under review was originally
written for that other book at my request.

123
532 F. Leal

Eemeren, Frans H. van, Grootendorst, Rob, Jackson, Sally, and Jacobs, Scott. *1993. Reconstructing
argumentative discourse. Tuscaloosa (AL): University of Alabama Press.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Garssen, Bart J., van Haaften, Ton, Krabbe, Erik C. W., Snoeck Henkemans, A.
Francisca, and Wagemans, Jean H. M. *2014. Handbook of argumentation theory: An overview of
classical and neo-classical perspectives on argumentation and modern theoretical approaches to
argumentative discourse. Dordrecht: Springer.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Grootendorst, Rob, and Kruiger, Tjark. *1978, *1981. Argumentatietheorie
[Theory of argumentation]. First and second editions. Utrecht: Het Spectrum.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Garssen, Bart J., and Meuffels, Bert. *2009. Fallacies and judgments of
reasonableness: Empirical research concerning the pragma-dialectical discussion rules. Dordrecht:
Springer.
Eemeren, Frans H. van, Grootendorst, Rob, Snoeck Henkemans, A. Francisca, J.A. Blair, R.H. Johnson,
E.C.W. Krabbe, C. Plantin, D.N. Walton, C.A. Willard, J. Woods, John, and D. Zarefsky, David.
*1996. Fundamentals of argumentation theory: Handbook of historical backgrounds and
contemporary developments. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum.
Gilbert, Michael. 2014. Arguing with people. Calgary: Broadview Press.
Leal, Fernando, editor (2015). Argumentación y pragma-dialéctica: Estudios en honor a Frans van
Eemeren. Guadalajara (MX): University Press.
Woods, John. 2006. Pragma-dialectics: A retrospective. In Considering pragma-dialectics: A Festschrift
for Frans H. van Eemeren on the occasion of his 60th birthday, ed. P. Houtlosser, and A. van Rees,
301–312. New York: Routledge.

123