Page 17 - Communication and the Evolution of Society

XVili Translator’s Introduction

It is only with the formulation of the basic ideas of his com-
munication theory that this declaration has assumed the more
definite form of a research program. The first essay translated
(and somewhat revised) for this volume, “What is Universal
Pragmatics?,’’ provides the best available statement of the strategy
and structure of that program.'® The central idea is introduced by
way of contrast to the usual restriction of rational reconstruction
to the syntactic and semantic features of language in abstraction
from its pragmatic dimension, which is normally brought in sub-
sequently as a domain for empirical (rather than logical or purely
linguistic) analysis. The idea of a universal pragmatics rests on
the contention that not only phonetic, syntactic, and semantic
features of sentences, but also certain pragmatic features of
utterances, not only language but speech, not only linguistic com-
petence but communicative competence, admit of rational recon-
struction in universal terms. Habermas is arguing then ‘“‘that
communicative competence has as universal a core as linguistic
competence. A general theory of speech action would thus de-
scribe that fundamental system of rules that adult subjects master
to the extent that they can fulfill the conditions for a happy em-
ployment of sentences in utterances, no matter to which individual
languages the sentences may belong and in which accidental con-
texts the utterances may be embedded.” The competence of the
ideal speaker must be regarded as including not only the ability
to produce and understand grammatical sentences but also the
ability to establish and understand those modes of communica-
tion and connections with the external world through which
speech becomes possible. Pragmatic rules for situating sentences
in speech actions concern the relations to reality that accrue to a
grammatically well-formed sentence in being uttered. The act of
utterance situates the sentence in relation to external reality
(“the” world of objects and events about which one can make
true or false statements), to internal reality (the speaker’s “own”
/
world of intentional experiences that can be expressed truthfully
sincerely or untruthfully/insincerely), and to the normative real-
ity of society (“‘our’’ social life-world of shared values and norms,
roles and rules, that an act can fit or fail to fit, and that are them-
selves either right—legitimate, justifiable—or wrong). Regarded