Page 26 - Communication and the Evolution of Society

3 What Is Universal Pragmatics?

the utterance of the speaker (can trust him). Finally, the speaker
must choose an utterance that is right [rzchtzg} so that the hearer
can accept the utterance and speaker and hearer can agree with
one another in the utterance with respect to a fecognized norma-
tive background. Moreover, communicative action can continue
undisturbed only as long as participants suppose that the validity
claims they reciprocally raise are justified.
The goal of coming to an understanding [Verstandzgung] is
to bring about an agreement [Eznverstandnis} that terminates in
the intersubjective mutuality of reciprocal understanding, shared
knowledge, mutual trust, and accord with one another. Agree-
ment is based on recognition of the corresponding validity claims
of comprehensibility, truth, truthfulness, and rightness. We can
see that the word wnderstanding is ambiguous. In its minimal
meaning it indicates that two subjects understand a linguistic
expression in the same way; its maximal meaning is that between
the two there exists an accord concerning the rightness of an
utterance in relation to a mutually recognized normative back-
ground. In addition, two participants in communication can come
to an understanding about something in the world, and they can
make their intentions understandable to one another.
If full agreement, embracing all four of these components, were
a normal state of linguistic communication, it would not be nec-
essary to analyze the process of understanding from the dynamic
perspective of bringing about an agreement. The typical states
are in the gray areas in between: on the one hand, incompre-
hension and misunderstanding, intentional and involuntary un-
truthfulness, concealed and open discord; and, on the other hand,
pre-existing or achieved consensus. Coming to an understanding
is the process of bringing about an agreement on the presupposed
basis of validity claims that can be mutually recognized. In every-
day life we start from a background consensus pertaining to those
interpretations taken for granted among participants. As soon as
this consensus is shaken, and the presupposition that certain
validity claims are satisfied (or could be vindicated) is suspended,
the task of mutual interpretation is to achieve a new definition
of the situation which all participants can share. If their attempt
fails, communicative action cannot be continued. One is then