ABSTRACT
This chapter questions the conventional distinction between “descriptive” and “normative” approaches in argumentation studies, arguing that it may obscure their interdependence and distinct goals. While normative approaches evaluate argumentation against ideal standards and prescribe improvements, non-normative (or “comprehensive”) approaches aim to understand real-world practices without external judgment. Both rely on description, but their methodologies differ: normative frameworks shape description to enable evaluation (e.g., pragma-dialectics’ reconstructions), whereas comprehensive approaches analyze implicit norms, strategies, and social functions (e.g., facework in disagreements or reported dialogues).
It is important to clarify misunderstandings that may arise from this distinction: (1) comprehensive approaches are not merely normative approaches without evaluation; (2) comprehensive approaches may also engage with argumentative norms (for instance, they may investigate how ordinary arguers employ norms strategically); (3) comprehensive approaches can carry social significance, even if not explicitly aimed at improving argumentative practices. Both normative and non-normative approaches to argumentation are vital, and their descriptive phases are inherently interpretive, guided by distinct research questions. This clarification advances argumentation studies by moving beyond misleading binaries and appreciating each approach’s unique contributions.
