The current epistemic state of discourse study is marked by a high degree of methodological expertise and theoretical diversity. However, there is a constant challenge associated with the lack of a normative account. The invocation of concepts such as context, power, ideology, and practice are widely invoked in contemporary research and analysis. The principles for the assessment of an interpretation are nevertheless still implicit to a great degree and often remain under-theorized in methodological discussions. This article presents a normatively informed framework of interpretive accountability that reconsiders discourse analysis as a reason-giving activity instead of a method-centered procedure. It argues that a prioritization of methodological refinement has caused a form of epistemological lag, where claims are being made without sufficient normative definition or justification . Drawing on philosophy of language, pragmatics, and social theory, the article demonstrates that discourse analysis cannot coherently operate as a scholarly practice if reduced to a unity of expert techniques divorced from an explicit account of normativity. In this respect, the article does not propose a technologically driven innovation but rather reconceptualizes discourse analysis itself qua practice by examining linguistic description, practical inference, and critical political evaluation highlighting the limitations of methodologically driven approaches to interpretation.