In debates on public policy and deliberative democracy, the conceptual distinctions of communicative vs. strategic action and of arguing vs. bargaining play a prominent role. In many contributions to the deliberative turn these distinctions have often been interpreted and treated almost like synonyms. Understood as equivalent dichotomies projected on a one-dimensional scale, people taking the deliberative turn seemed to have only one way to go: from bargaining to arguing, from strategic to communicative action. Yet the distinction of strategic vs. communicative action stems from the theory of action of Jrgen Habermas, while the juxtaposition of bargaining vs. arguing was introduced by Jon Elster as a distinction of two modes of communication. These different theoretical backgrounds and perspectives notwithstanding, one finds converging references to both distinctions when authors tried to get a clue as to what it means to be 'truly deliberative'. Still, in many cases the conceptual relation of the two distinctions seems to be far from clear. The article discusses the interrelations of these different theoretical backgrounds and perspectives with conceptual and methodological problems that matter when one tries to use the two distinctions in empirical studies of deliberation or suggests possible practical perspectives for deliberative democracy.