Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Habermas’ Universal Pragmatics: Theory of Language and Social Theory

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy

Part of the book series: Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology ((PEPRPHPS,volume 1))

Abstract

Although Habermas’ universal pragmatics has played a marginal role in studies on pragmatics, it can still make an important and meaningful contribution, precisely because it highlights the system of validity claims that lie in speech acts. This type of analysis allows one to consider the dialogic dynamics that engage speakers in the activity of reciprocal giving and asking for reasons for saying and doing things. The reasons why a speaker knows he or she can say what he or she says in the presence of other speakers constitute an essential element of the production of meaning; and reciprocally identification of the speaker’s reasons by the listener is an indispensable condition of the activity of understanding of meaning. These factors allow one to render explicit the dialogue dynamics on which the quality of the utterance and understanding, like the quality of social relationships, depend.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 129.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 169.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    See Bar-Hillel (1971, 405). See also Bianchi (2003, 7).

  2. 2.

    See Dews (1999), Honneth et al. (1989), Outhwaite (1994), Petrucciani (2000), Wellmer (1989).

  3. 3.

    See Apel (1989); according to Apel, Habermas, foregoing the transcendental point of view, enacts an idealisation of empirical reality, to which he remains bound. See also Kuhlmann (1985), Pedroni (1999, 286–287).

  4. 4.

    See Hentig (1973), Ilting (1976), Ferrara (1987).

  5. 5.

    See Rorty (1998, 293). To the contextualist Rorty Habermas’ approach appears excessively abstract, as it is based on an ideal of universal validity.

  6. 6.

    See Rasmussen (1990).

  7. 7.

    Ibidem.

  8. 8.

    On the reconstructive character of science, see Habermas (1984, 363).

  9. 9.

    Greater attention is paid to Habermas’ position by Schlieben Lange (1975).

  10. 10.

    On the link between Habermas and the Frankfurt School see the recent De Simone (2010).

  11. 11.

    Habermas uses this expression in “Vorlesungen zu einer Sprachtheoretischen Grundlegung der Soziologie” (1970–1971), published in 1984 in Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kommunicativen Handelns (from here on referred to as VE). This volume includes a big series of preparatory studies for Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns, which are important for understanding the shift in the philosophy of consciousness (Bewusstseinsphilosophie) toward linguistic pragmatics (Sprachpragmatik), as Habermas states in VE (1984, 7).

  12. 12.

    Habermas (1981) (1988 edition). From here on this work will be referred to as TKH.

  13. 13.

    Speaking and acting subject is an indivisible concept recurring in all Habermas’ work.

  14. 14.

    VE (1984, 318).

  15. 15.

    TKH (1981) (1988 edition), Band 1, 377.

  16. 16.

    See TKH (1981) (1988 edition), Band 2, 338–339.

  17. 17.

    See TKH (1981) (1988 edition), Band 2, 370–371.

  18. 18.

    TKH (1981) (1988 edition), Band 2, 390.

  19. 19.

    VE (1984, 581).

  20. 20.

    VE (1984, 581).

  21. 21.

    See Wittgenstein (1953, § 202).

  22. 22.

    Habermas often uses this expression.

  23. 23.

    The theme is abundantly present and amply discussed in Wittgenstein (1953).

  24. 24.

    See Habermas (1988, Chap. 8). See also Mead (1934).

  25. 25.

    Pandolfo (2010, 94).

  26. 26.

    TKH (1981) (1988 edition), Band 1, 56.

  27. 27.

    See Habermas (1983).

  28. 28.

    This too is a recurrent expression in Habermas’ works. See e.g. Habermas (1976, 247) and all Chap. 12 of Habermas (1985).

  29. 29.

    See VE (1984, 355).

  30. 30.

    The main texts are Was heisst Universalpragmatik? (1976), in VE (1984, 353–440), and the 4th Vorlesung Universalpragmatik—Überlegungen zu einer Theorie der kommunikativen Kompetenz, in VE (1984, 83–104).

  31. 31.

    On the reconstructive character of science see VE (1984, 363).

  32. 32.

    On the distinction between Sprache and Rede, see Was heisst Universalpragmatik? in VE (1984, 358 and 393–395).

  33. 33.

    See VE (1984, 386).

  34. 34.

    See VE (1984, 437–439).

  35. 35.

    See Searle (1969).

  36. 36.

    VE (1984, 406).

  37. 37.

    See VE (1984, 407).

  38. 38.

    Habermas’ revisiting in a linguistic key of the modern notion of reflection is amply dealt with in the fine volume by Swindal (1999).

  39. 39.

    See Habermas (1988, Chap. 5).

  40. 40.

    See VE (1984, 339).

  41. 41.

    On the massive presence of the implicit in communication see Sbisà (2007).

  42. 42.

    Sometimes Habermas oscillates between three and four validity claims; I find most convincing the list of the four claims contained in VE (1984), for the reasons that I will explain.

  43. 43.

    On the extendibility of the validity claims see Leist (1977, 106), Cooke (1997, 80–81).

  44. 44.

    TKH (1981) (1988 edition), Band 1, 412–413.

  45. 45.

    VE (1984, 420).

  46. 46.

    Rather enlightening on the pervasive character of the rule of truth are the observations by Lo Piparo (1998), formulated in a context of Wittgensteinian analysis.

  47. 47.

    The theme of the blend of gaze on the world and gaze to other speakers is amply dealt with in Habermas (1999).

  48. 48.

    VE (1984, 422).

  49. 49.

    VE (1984, 432).

  50. 50.

    TKH (1981) (1988 edition), Band 1, 400–401.

  51. 51.

    On the pragmatic component of commitment in the theory of meaning see Brandom (2000, Chap. 6). For a comparison between Habermas and Brandom see Giovagnoli (2003).

  52. 52.

    Pandolfo (2010, 134).

  53. 53.

    For an efficacious criticism of the myth of the given see Sellars (1997).

  54. 54.

    In order to know more about Peirce’s heritage in Habermas’ work see Habermas (1968).

  55. 55.

    See VE (1984, 382).

  56. 56.

    See Wahrheitstheorien, VE (1984, 127–183).

  57. 57.

    Ambiguity is explicitly referred to by Dal Canton (2002, 20–21).

  58. 58.

    Cunico (2006, 33) clearly explains Habermas’ need to save the perspectivist point of view without falling into relativism.

  59. 59.

    See VE (1984, 177–178).

  60. 60.

    See Habermas (1988, Chap. 4).

  61. 61.

    Habermas (1981) (1988 edition), Band 1, 128.

  62. 62.

    See Habermas (1983, 1991).

  63. 63.

    See Habermas 1992.

References

  • Apel, Karl Otto. 1989. Normative Begründug der “Kritischen Theorie” durch Rekurs auf lebensweltliche Sittlichkeit? Ein transzendeltalpragmatisch orientierter Versuch, mit Habermas gegen Habermas zu denken. In Zwischenbetrachtungen: Im Prozess der Aufklärung. J. Habermas zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Honneth, Mc Carty, Offe, Wellmer. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bar-Hillel, Yehoshua. 1971. Out of the pragmatic waste-basket. Linguistic Inquiry 2: 401–407.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bianchi, Claudia. 2003. Pragmatica del linguaggio. Laterza: Roma-Bari.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brandom, B. Robert. 2000. Articulating reasons. An introduction to inferentialism. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooke, Maeve. 1997. Language and reason. A study of Habermas’s pragmatics. Cambridge: The MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cunico, Gerardo. 2006. Oltre Saturno. Dialoghi per il tempo plurale. Reggio Emilia: Diabasis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dal Canton, Ilaria. 2002. Conflitto e comunicazione. Per una critica di Jürgen Habermas. Milano: Mimesis.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Simone, Antonio. 2010. Passaggio a Francoforte. Attraverso Habermas. Perugia: Morlacchi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dews, Peter (ed.). 1999. Habermas. A critical reader. Oxford: Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferrara, Alessandro. 1987. A critique of Habermas’s consensus theory of truth. Philosophy and Social Criticism XIII 1: 39–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giovagnoli, Raffaela. 2003. On normative pragmatics: A comparison between Brandom e Habermas. Teorema XXIII: 51–68.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1968. Erkenntnis und Interesse. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1976. Zur Rekonstruktion des Historischen Materialismus. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1983. Moralbewusstsein und kommunikatives Handeln. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1984. Vorstudien und Ergänzungen zur Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1985. Der philosophische Diskurs der Moderne. Zwölf Vorlesungen. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1988. Nachmetaphysisches Denken. Philosophische Aufsätze. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1991. Erläuterung zur Diskursethik. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1992. Faktizität und Geltung. Beiträge zur Diskurstheorie des Rechts und des demokratischen Rechtsstaats. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1999. Wahrheit und Rechtfertigung. Philosophische Aufsätze. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Habermas, Jürgen. 1981 (ed. 1988). Theorie des kommunikativen Handelns. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hentig, von Hartmut. 1973. Konsenstheorie. Über die Schwierigkeit, gemeinsam nützlichen Wahrheite näherzukommen. Neue Sammlung 13: 265–283.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honneth, Axel, Thomas Mc Carty, Claus Offe, Albrecht Wellmer (herausgegeben von). 1989. Zwischenbetrachtungen: Im Prozess der Aufklärung. J. Habermas zum 60. Geburtstag. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilting, Karl Heinz. 1976. Geltung als Konsens? Neue Hefte für Philosophie X: 20–50.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlmann, Wolfgang. 1985. Reflexive Letztbegründung. Untersuchungen zur Transzendentalpragmatik. Freiburg/München: Alber Verlag.

    Google Scholar 

  • Leist, Anton. 1977. Was, was heisst Universalpragmatik? Germanistische Linguistik 5–6: 79–112.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lo Piparo, Franco. 1998. Cosa accade quando capiamo una frase. La verità come regola generatrice di senso. Siculorum Gymnasium, Rassegna semestrale della Facoltà di Lettere e filosofia dell’Università di Catania, nn. 1–2, gennaio-dicembre, Catania.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mead, Georg Herbert. 1934. Mind, self and society. Chicago: Chicago University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Outhwaite, William. 1994. Habermas. A critical Introduction. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pandolfo, Alessandra. 2010. Le regole dell’intesa. Attraverso Habermas uno studio sulla normatività umana. Pisa: ETS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedroni, Virginio. 1999. Ragione e comunicazione. Pensiero e linguaggio nella filosofia di Karl-Otto Apel e Jürgen Habermas. Milano: Guerini e Associati.

    Google Scholar 

  • Petrucciani, Stefano. 2000. Introduzione a Habermas. Laterza: Roma-Bari.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, David. 1990. Reading Habermas. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rorty, Richard. 1998. Truth and progress. Philosophical papers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sbisà, Marina. 2007. Detto non detto. Le forme della comunicazione implicita. Laterza: Roma-Bari.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schlieben Lange, Brigitte. 1975. Linguistische Pragmatik. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, John R. 1969. Speech acts. An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sellars, Wilfrid. 1997. Empiricism and the philosophy of mind. Cambridge: President and Fellow of Harvard College.

    Google Scholar 

  • Swindal, James. 1999. Reflection revisited: Jürgen Habermas’s discursive theory of truth. New York: Fordham University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wellmer, Albrecht. 1989. Was ist eine pragmatische Bedeutungstheorie. Variationen über den Satz Wir verstehen einen Sprechakt, wenn wir wissen, was ihn akzeptabel macht. In Zwischenbetrachtungen: Im Prozess der Aufklärung. J. Habermas zum 60. Geburtstag, ed. Honneth, Mc Carty, Offe, Wellmer. Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, Ludwig. 1953. Philosophische Untersuchungen. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy

    Alessandra Pandolfo

Authors
  1. Alessandra Pandolfo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Alessandra Pandolfo .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Barcellona PG ME, Italy

    Alessandro Capone

  2. University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy

    Franco Lo Piparo

  3. University of Palermo, Palermo, Italy

    Marco Carapezza

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Pandolfo, A. (2013). Habermas’ Universal Pragmatics: Theory of Language and Social Theory. In: Capone, A., Lo Piparo, F., Carapezza, M. (eds) Perspectives on Pragmatics and Philosophy. Perspectives in Pragmatics, Philosophy & Psychology, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-01011-3_28

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation