This article was downloaded by: [Korea University]

On: 24 September 2011, At: 01:13

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,
37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Inquiry
Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/sinq20

Towards a theory of communicative competence

Jrgen Habermas
a

J. W. Goethe University, Frankfurt a. M.

Available online: 29 Aug 2008

To cite this article: Jrgen Habermas (1970): Towards a theory of communicative competence, Inquiry, 13:1-4, 360-375
To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00201747008601597

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic
reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to
anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents
will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should
be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims,
proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in
connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

Inquiry, 13, 360-75

TOWARDS A THEORY OF
COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE

Downloaded by [Korea University] at 01:13 24 September 2011

Jrgen Habermas
J. W. Goethe University, Frankfurt a. M.

In this, the second of two articles outlining a theory of communicative competence,

the author questions the ability of Chomsky's account of linguistic competence to
fulfil the requirements of such a theory. 'Linguistic competence' for Chomsky means
the mastery of an abstract system of rules, based on an innate language apparatus.
The model by which communication is understood on this account contains three
implicit assumptions, here called 'monologism', 'a priorism', and 'elementarism'.
The author offers an outline of a theory of communicative competence that is based
on the negations of these assumptions. In opposing the first two assumptions he introduces distinctions, respectively, between semantic universals which process experiences and those that make such processing possible, and between semantic
universals which precede all socialization and those that are linked to the conditions
of potential socialization. Against elementarism, he argues that the semantic content
of all possible natural languages does not consist of combinations of a finite number
of meaning components. Differences in systems of classification preclude this, and
such differences can be seen to infect all respects of intercultural comparison. Using
the notion of 'performative utterance', the author elucidates the role of dialogueconstitutive universals as part of the formal apparatus required of a" speaker's
capacity to communicate. He then notes what would be required of a general
semantics based on a theory of communicative competence; and finally points out
how this theory might be used for social analysis.
Chomsky1 starts from two experiences: the creativity of the speaker
and the grammaticalness of language. Considering the finite capacity
of human consciousness, every natural language must consist of a finite
number of elements. Irrespective of this fact, everyone who masters a
language can, with the aid of these elements, understand and produce
an infinite number of sentences, some of them unpredictably new.
Moreover, every competent speaker can decide ad hoc whether a
sequence of linguistic expressions is formed correctly or violates the
system of linguistic rules; he can differentiate 'intuitively' between

Downloaded by [Korea University] at 01:13 24 September 2011

A THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE

361

correct and deviating formulations. And with the aid of the same
capability he can also partially understand semantically senseless or
grammatically garbled sentences and classify them according to degree
of grammaticalness. For these two particular achievements the
competent speaker must possess a knowledge grossly disproportionate
to his empirical information; the competent speaker must know more
than he can have learned in his previous contacts with his linguistic
environment. Chomsky explains this asymmetry between knowledge
and experience by postulating (1) an abstract linguistic system which
consists of 'generative' rules. I shall not comment on this, but go on
directly to introduce three further assumptions that Chomsky makes.
The asymmetry evident when an adult speaker 'knows' more than
he can have learned empirically is especially conspicuous in the case
of language acquisition in infants.2 Chomsky therefore assumes (2) that
the development of the abstract system of linguistic rules is based upon
the interaction of phase-specific stimulus conveyance and organic
maturation processes. In other words, the system of linguistic rules is
innate. Chomsky further assumes (3) that this innate language
apparatus consists of linguistic universals which predetermine the form
of all potential natural languages. The difficulties he encountered in
his attempts to ascertain this system of rules by means of the usual
inductive methods of segmentation and classification led him, finally,
to the assumption (4) that the given linguistic sequences are surface
structures which result from the transformation of deep structures. The
basic assumption of a transformational grammar proves useful,
moreover, in explaining grammatical ambiguities in phrase structure.3
'Linguistic competence' is Chomsky's name for the mastery of an
abstract system of rules, based on an innate language apparatus,
regardless of how the latter is in fact used in actual speech. This
competence is a monological capability; it is founded in the speciesspecific equipment of the solitary human organism. For such a
capability to be a sufficient linguistic basis for speech, one would have
to be able to reconstruct the communication process itself as a 'monological' one. The information model of communication is suitable for
this purpose. I consider this model to be monological because it
consistently attributes the intersubjectivity of meaning that is, the
mutual sharing of identical meanings to the fact that sender and
receiver each an entity for itself are previously equipped with
the same programme. It is this pre-established code that is supposed
to make communication possible. Speech, the actual language be-

Downloaded by [Korea University] at 01:13 24 September 2011

362

JURGEN HABERMAS

haviour, would then have to be explained as the result of an interaction

between linguistic competence and certain psychological, as well as
sociological, peripheral conditions which restrict the application of the
competence. While the system of linguistic rules determines, on the
one hand, whether a sequence of expressions is correct or deviant,
these restrictive conditions determine, on the other, whether a correctly
formed expression is unusual or acceptable in a given situation.4
To begin with, I would like to show some of the difficulties inherent
in this model. If general linguistics restricts itself to giving a rational
reconstruction of the abstract system of linguistic rules which the ideal
speaker has in mind, as it were, prior to all communication, and if the
theory of language performance analyses solely restrictive extralinguistic conditions for applying linguistic competence, then not only
grammar and phonetics but semantics, too, would have to be developed
independently of the pragmatic dimension of language performance as
an element of a monological ability. In this framework general
semantics has two problems in particular to solve. First, it must clarify
the apparatus of rules which help us to project lexical units into
grammatical deep structures and to maintain constancy of meaning in
transformational processes; secondly, it must reduce the lexica of
natural languages to a finite number of meaning components, out of
which the basically solitaiy speaker can construct all possible semantic
contents. The elementaristic research strategy,5 which is supposed to
reconstruct any lexical unit with the aid of general semantic markers
and reduce them in the form of deductively classified marker hierarchies to some few universals, results conclusively from the monological language model. At the same time it is assumed that language
possesses an a priori meaning-structure. Bterwisch6 introduces this
structure, matching it with the a priori phonetic structure:
Phonological markers represent acoustic properties of objects just as
little as semantic markers directly represent environmental characteristics. The universal phonological inventory is a hypothesis about
distinctions which the human being can exploit linguistically according
to the structure of his organism, i.e. the ear, the speech organs, and the
nervous systems controlling them. A universal inventory of semantic
markers would be, similarly, a hypothesis about the differentiations in
regard to his environment, which the human being can achieve with
the help of his sense organs, his nervous system, or in general, his
apperceptive constitution. In other words, a complete inventory of
semantic markers, from which each individual language makes a
specific selection, would in the end be an intrinsically exact characterization of the apperceptive apparatus by which the human being
analyses his surroundings practically and intellectually.

Downloaded by [Korea University] at 01:13 24 September 2011

A THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE

363

Bierwisch's commentary elucidates the implicit assumptions for a

programme of general semantics. We can summarize these in thesisform as follows. The thesis of monologism assumes that the universal
meaning components belong to the basic equipment of the solitary
organism of the speaking subject. The thesis is incompatible with the
proposition that semantic universals could also be parts of an intersubjectively produced cultural system. The thesis of a priorism assumes
that the inventory of ultimate meaning elements as the condition
which makes semantic differentiation possible precedes all experience. The thesis is incompatible with the proposition that universal
semantic fields can also reflect the universality of specific scopes of
experience. The thesis of elementarism assumes, finally, that the semantic
content of all possible natural languages consists of combinations of a
finite number of meaning components. This thesis is incompatible with
the proposition that semantic fields can be formed and shifted in structural association with global views of nature and society (Weltbilder).
I believe that the propositions which are incompatible with the
theses can be more credibly argued than the theses themselves.
Regarding theses (1) and (2): Universal meanings, which arise in all
natural languages, neither automatically precede all experience, nor
are they necessarily rooted in the cognitive equipment of the human
organism prior to all socialization. The universal distribution of
meanings, and even of meaning components, is not a sufficient criterion
for the a priorism and monologism of general semantics urged by the
Chomsky school of linguistics. Some meanings are a priori universal in
as much as they establish the conditions of potential communication
and general schemes of interpretation; others are a posteriori universal,
in the sense that they represent invariant features of contingent scopes
of experience which, however, are common to all cultures. For that
reason we differentiate between semantic universals which process
experiences and semantic universals which make this processing
possible in the first place (i.e. a posteriori / a priori). Furthermore, some
meanings are intersubjectively universal in the sense that they are fixed
on structures which first develop with the cultural level of linguistic
communication itself; other meanings are monologically universal in
as much as they refer to structures of the solitary human organism
prior to all communication. Therefore we differentiate between
semantic universals which precede all socialization and semantic
universals which are linked to the condition of potential socialization
(monological/intersubjective). The combination of these points of view
comprise four classes of semantic universals:

364

JURGEN HABERMAS

Downloaded by [Korea University] at 01:13 24 September 2011

Semantic universal*
a priori

a posteriori

intersubjective

dialogue-constitutive
universal

cultural universal

monological

universal cognitive
schemes of interpretation

universals of perceptive
and motivational
constitution

A few examples can suffice as illustration.7 The dialogue-constitutive

universals include personal pronouns, interrogative, imperative, and
assertive formators, modal formators and the like. In the cognitive
schemes of interpretation which have been absorbed in the linguistic
system of rules we include causality and substance, space and time
in fact the deictic formators in general which establish the system of
possible denotations. The best analysed example of cultural universals
is the system of kinship words and, correspondingly, of universals of
organic constitution of the system of colour words. Whether we can also
assume a general vocabulary of basic drives and emotional tendencies
for the motivational equipment is a more difficult question.
As for thesis (3), the a posteriori universal meanings surely make quite
evident the limits within which an elementaristic meaning-analysis can
take place. The institution of family, for instance, which is based on
the sexual privilege of the parents, i.e. on the incest barrier between
the generations, as well as between brothers and sisters, is indeed
universally distributed; 8 a system of kinship relations which is formed
around this institutional core is to be found in all cultures. But an
inter cultural comparison of the kinship vocabulary shows clearly that
this same semantic field is differently classified depending on the
prevailing status system, i.e. on the specific definition of the age-, sexand descent-linked primary roles. It is true, as the ethnological classifications themselves indicate, that we can find descriptive systems
which allow us to reconstruct any given kinship vocabulary in terms
of a small number of semantic markers. But there is no general
criterion for the selection between several conventional descriptive
systems. If we follow the standpoint of cognitive validity and choose
that descriptive system which corresponds to the relevant evaluation
criteria of a culture itself, then practically every culture demands its
own system. Even in the case of coincident vocabularies tor two
different cultures, the kinship relations can be interpreted differently;

Downloaded by [Korea University] at 01:13 24 September 2011

'A THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE

365

and in that case, which of the alternative interpretations is cognitively

'valid' depends solely on the acknowledged definition of social roles.9
The system of colour expressions is a case similar to that of kinship
vocabulary. The neuro-physiological sense organization establishes a
culturally invariable scope of experience for colour perception. The
semantic field 'colour-words' is as universal as that of kin-terms, but
again the classification of this field varies; notwithstanding the
relatively high degree of congruence, here too we find no universal
cognitively valid descriptive system, for the common patterns of
interpretation classify the colour spectrum in different intervals and
not only within the physically determinable dimensions of hue,
luminosity, and saturation.10
On the basis of ethno-linguistic evidence, we must conclude that the
fields of meaning which depend upon culturally universal institutions
or upon organically universal equipment probably do represent
semantically equivalent scopes (family, colour), but that, in addition,
the interpretation of these scopes already depends upon the sociocultural background.
The dependence of semantic analysis upon the non-exceedable
common context of the society11 to which the speakers belong is
connected with a fundamental difficulty of semantic elementarism.
The examples of semantic analysis given by Chomsky, Fodor, Katz,
and others reduce complex meanings to simple semantic markers.
These markers are usually specifications of the following type: physical
items versus non-physical, animated versus inanimate, male versus
female, old versus young. Such marker-pairs are introduced as
disjunctive specifications, which can then be classified hierarchically
or divided into new disjunctions; for example, living creatures are
divided into human beings versus non-humans (animals, plants);
human beings into male and female; male into men (adults) and
children (non-adults); men into married and unmarried (bachelor),
etc. Thus it is possible to create conceptual hierarchies with meaning
components of increasing complexity inserted in their intersections.
This procedure depends on the fundamental relations of hyponymy,
and incompatibility can be differentiated as antonymy, complementarity, and converseness.12 The vocabulary of all natural languages
is structured along these fundamental relations. That is undisputed.
An elementaristic meaning-analysis must assume, however, that there
is, in addition, a universally valid list of ultimate, i.e. independent and
irreducible, meaning components. It is the fundamental semantic

Downloaded by [Korea University] at 01:13 24 September 2011

366

JURGEN HABERMAS

relations holding between these components which, according to such

an analysis, determine the fundamental relations between compound
meanings. I wish to dispute this assumption.
The empirical evidence of comparative ethno-linguistics indicates
that the structures of culturally and historically changing world views
(Weltbilder) determine both (a) whether a finite number of independent and irreducible meaning components is assumed at all, or
whether, instead, a system of basic, mutually interpreting meaning
components is to be presupposed; and (b) which meaning components
are recognized to be the ultimate ones in a given case or which system
of meaning components is to be recognized as basic. The conceptual
hierarchies which the semantic analysis of a given common vocabulary
discloses change in accordance with the world view, i.e. the global
interpretation of nature and society, which is valid in a social system
at a particular stage of development. It is apparent that the examples
presented by Chomsky and his colleagues are likewise guided by a
global pre-understanding, though admittedly one that possesses a
certain plausibility for us as sharers of the ontology governing the
everyday understanding of enlightened members of our civilization
after three hundred years of modern science and the criticism of
religion, a hundred years since Darwin, and fifty years since Freud,
i.e. after a subjectivization and privatization of belief systems, together with the rationalization of social life which Max Weber has
analysed.
Only the briefest consideration suffices to show whether dichotomies
like those between physical and non-physical objects, organic and inorganic nature, and human and non-human being, which are basic for us,
could have just the same position in the conceptual hierarchy of animistic, mythical, religious, philosophical or scientifically oriented views
of the world. But then, if we are right in saying that they could not,
the programme of general semantics could only hope to succeed if the
categorial frame of reference for a structuralist analysis of alt possible
global interpretations of nature and society could be elicited systematically from the general theory of language itself.
It follows from these considerations that general semantics cannot
be adequately developed on the narrow basis of the monological
linguistic competence proposed by Chomsky. The general competence
of a native speaker does not extend merely to the mastery of an
abstract system of linguistic rules, which pre-programmed by his
organic equipment and the processes of stimulated maturation he

Downloaded by [Korea University] at 01:13 24 September 2011

A THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE

367

introduces into a communication in order to function as sender or

receiver during the transfer of information. That is, it is not enough to
understand language communication as an application limited by
empirical conditions of linguistic competence. On the contrary,
producing a situation of potential ordinary-language communication
is itself part of the general competence of the ideal speaker. In other
words, a situation in which speech, i.e. the application of linguistic
competence, becomes in principle possible, depends on a structure of
intersubjectivity which is in turn linguistic. This structure is generated
neither by the monologically mastered system of linguistic rules, nor
by the extra-linguistic conditions of its performance. On the contrary,
in order to participate in normal discourse the speaker must have at
his disposal, in addition to his linguistic competence, basic qualifications of speech and symbolic interaction (role-behaviour), which we
may call communicative competence. Thus communicative competence
means the mastery of an ideal speech situation.13
We can elucidate this, in the first instance, by studying the example
of a category of verbs to which J. L. Austin ascribed a performatory
use.14 As is well known, verbs like 'promise', 'announce', 'warn',
'report', 'desire', 'determine', etc. can be used to perform the acts they
respectively designate rather than refer to or describe them. The meaning of a 'performative utterance' includes a reference to (a) an act of
utterance in a particular and appropriate interaction relationship ('I
hereby promise . . .'), (b) the definition of a (suitable) situation which
is explicitly determined by the performance of the speech act itself, and
(c) the propositional content of the dependent clause. Austin differentiates between the levels of 'saying something' and of 'doing something'
(locutionary level v. illocutionary level). Being composed of speech
acts and dependent clauses of propositional content, utterances in
general have, in addition to the meaning of their propositional content,
a meaning which is linked to the speech situation as such. This,
following Austin, we can call their 'illocutionary force'. When they use
performative expressions, the speech acts are linguistic representations
of that illocutionary force, i.e. the universal pragmatic power of
utterances. Expressions of this kind retain no given pragmatic feature
of contingent speech situations; they explain the meaning of certain
idealized features of speech situations in general, which the speaker
must master if his competence is to be adequate for participating at all
in situations of potential speech. A theory of communicative competence can thus be developed in terms of universal pragmatics.16

Downloaded by [Korea University] at 01:13 24 September 2011

368

JURGEN HABERMAS

The performatives have been called discourse operators, i.e.

formators of the speech situation which belong to a meta-language for
the placing of linguistic expressions in speech situations. Perhaps we
should say that ordinary language contains elements which enable it
to be used as the meta-language of the speech situation as well. The
performatives are not the only elements to be included here. Deictic
elements represent the other class of universal pragmatics. In a
manuscript on 'Pragmatics, Speech Situation and Deixis', Dieter
Wunderlich has analysed six elements which serve to verbalize features
of the ideal speech situation.16 I shall mention two examples of deictic
elements. Firstly, personal pronouns. The linguistic description can
only explain why the sentence
'I apparently am hungry'
deviates from
'He apparently is hungry',
if 'I' is understood not only as one nominal pronoun among many, but
as a reflexive specification of a speaker in a particular situation. An
analogous consideration pertains, secondly, to deictic expressions of
place and time. The deviant status of a sentence such as
'I fear that it is raining here (now)'
would not be linguistically apprehensible if the pragmatic sense of
'here' and 'now' were to be ignored and the words merely understood
as some adverbial specifications among others. The choice between
definite and indefinite articles, or between different forms of pronominalization, does not express a characteristic of the nouns but,
rather, certain pragmatic relationships.
What can we learn from these considerations ? If communicative
competence meant no more than that the speaker can relate himself
reflexively to speech situations and copy speech situations metalinguistically, then the speech situation itself would have to be presupposed in turn and understood as a simple empirical state at least
a non-linguistically determined state. This is a mistaken view. The
'verbalization' of pragmatic features inherent in speech situations
simply lifts onto the level of linguistic communication that illocutionary
force which is already generated with the structure of speech situations
itself. Utterances are never simply sentences. Even if they do not
expressly make pragmatic relations their subject, they are, due to their

Downloaded by [Korea University] at 01:13 24 September 2011

A THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE

369

illocutionary force, integrated from the beginning into a form of

intersubjectivity of mutual understanding. This structure of potential
speech is, in a manner of speaking, itself of a linguistic nature, for the
speech situation already contains all of the reflexive relations. These
universal pragmatic features can be expressed in explicit discourse with
the aid of the linguistic elements mentioned. If this is the case, however,
we should assume that these elements do not serve as a subsequent
verbalization of a previously coordinated speech situation; on the
contrary, they must be the very factors which enable us to generate
the structure of potential speech.17 It is the dialogue-constitutive
universals, as we now prefer to say, that establish in the first place the
form of intersubjectivity between any competent speakers capable of
mutual understanding.18 It may be added that the structure of
potential speech is present in the speech process even if pragmatic
relations are not contained in the explicit content of the linguistic
communication, i.e. when we omit the dialogue-constitutive universal
in explicit speech. In this case understanding is incomplete on the
locutionary level. Only when the dialogue-constitutive universals
which give a sentence the status of an utterance are substituted by
non-linguistic means, e.g. by gestures and context, can an implicit
understanding on the illocutionary level be added compensatorily.
Above all, communicative competence relates to an ideal speech
situation in the same way that linguistic competence relates to the
abstract system of linguistic rules. The dialogue-constitutive universals
at the same time generate and describe the form of intersubjectivity
which makes mutuality of understanding possible. Communicative
competence is defined by the ideal speaker's mastery of the dialogueconstitutive universals, irrespective of actual restrictions under
empirical conditions. We shall disregard the question of how far the
motivation of actions involved in language-games is linguistically open
to public communication. We shall also disregard the question of
whether and to what extent a systematically distorted communication
actually takes place. Thus the idealization exists in the fact that we
suppose an exclusively linguistic organization of speech and interaction. The ideal speech situation can then be analysed according to
the functions of pure dialogue-constitutive universals.
(1) The personal pronouns (and their derivatives) form a reference
system between potential speakers. The identity of meanings, the
foundation of every communication, is based on intersubjectively
valid rules. Their validity is intersubjective, in the strict meaning of

Downloaded by [Korea University] at 01:13 24 September 2011

370

JURGEN HABERMAS

the word, if at least two speakers understand the meaning of a symbol

on the basis of reciprocal recognition. For only in that case is it possible
for both speakers to comprehend and identify the meaning from their
own position and from that of the other at the same time. Only this
interlacing of perspectives makes an intersubjectively valid meaning,
and thus identity of meaning, possible. The system of personal pronouns enables every participant to assume incompatible roles simultaneously, namely that of the I and that of the You. Every being, who
says T to himself asserts himself towards the Other as absolutely
different. And yet at the same time he recognizes himself in the latter
as another I, and is conscious of the reciprocity of this relationship;
every being is potentially his own Other. These dialogue roles of I and
You are reproduced on the level of We and You, while He, She, and
They describe roles of virtual or potential participation in the dialogue.
(2) The deictic expressions of space and time, as well as articles and
demonstrative pronouns, form the reference system of possible denotations. They link the levels of intersubjectivity on which the
subjects converse and interact reciprocally with the levels of objects
about which the subjects make propositions. This linking of levels is
possible because the cognitive content of the deictic expressions is
ambiguous; they contain, respectively, two different schematisms of
each underlying category (space and time, substance and causality).
We relate articles and demonstrative pronouns to persons just as to
things; space and time deixes refer to 'experienced' as well as to
measured spaces and times.
(3) Forms of address (vocative), forms of social contact (greeting),
of speech introduction and speech conclusion, indirect discourse,
questions and answers, are performatory in that they are directed at
the act of speaking as such. They determine the structure of potential
speech in as much as they explain the pragmatic meaning of speaking
itself. Speech is the medium of communication which already presupposes a tacit consensus about what it means to communicate and
an awareness of the possibility of misunderstanding, as well as of error
and deception.
(4) The further performatory speech acts form a system which
finally enables us to mark the basic differentiations which are fundamental for any speech situation.19
(a) Being and appearance. Expressions which refer to the truth
value of utterances (not of statements) according to the prototype of
'to claim' and 'to dispute' form the dimension of being and appearance

Downloaded by [Korea University] at 01:13 24 September 2011

A THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE

371

(assure, confirm, deny, certify, testify, doubt, question). All speech

acts imply an intended consensus on that which really is, as distinct
from that which subjectively only appears to be (the propositional
content). This presupposes a differentiation between a public world of
intersubjectively acknowledged interpretations and a private world of
personal feelings and impressions.
(b) Being and essence. Expressions which refer to the self-representation of persons according to the prototype of 'to reveal' and 'to hide'
form the dimension of being and essence (expose, present, allude,
express, conceal, obscure, betray, symbolize, virtualize, take at one's
word, deceive, etc.). In all speech acts the subjects in their speech-act
performances unavoidably express their own selves at the same time
as they converse with one another on some propositional topic. This
presupposes a differentiation between a communication'on objects and
a meta-communication on the level of intersubjectivity.
(c) What is and what ought to be. Expressions which refer to the
normative status of rules according to the prototype of 'to prescribe'
and 'to follow' form the dimension of the 'ought' (order, obey, allow,
demand, refuse, resist, recommend, advise, warn, oblige, violate, call
to account, etc.). All speech exists in a context of actions and intentions. The mutual recognition of the subjects who communicate
with one another includes the certainty that they can conduct themselves reciprocally towards one another's expectations, i.e. act according
to valid norms. This presupposes the differentiation between valid
rules, which are intentionally followed, and regularities of observable
events, which can be stated empirically.
If one thus analyses the structure which we generate and describe
by means of pure dialogue-constitutive universals, one arrives at a
number of symmetrical relations for the ideal speech situation. Pure
intersubjectivity is determined by a symmetrical relation between I
and You (We and You), I and He (We and They). An unlimited
interchangeability of dialogue roles demands that no side be privileged
in the performance of these roles: pure intersubjectivity exists only
when there is complete symmetry in the distribution of assertion and
dispute, revelation and concealment, prescription and conformity,
among the partners of communication. As long as these symmetries
exist, communication will not be hindered by constraints arising from
its own structure.
(1) In the case of unrestrained discussion (in which no prejudiced
opinion cannot be taken up or criticized) it is possible to develop

Downloaded by [Korea University] at 01:13 24 September 2011

372

JURGEN HABERMAS

strategies for reaching unconstrained consensus; (2) on the basis of

mutuality of unimpaired self-representation (which includes the
acknowledgment of the self-representation of the Other as well) it is
possible to achieve a significant rapport despite the inviolable distance
between the partners, and that means communication under conditions of individuation; (3) in the case of full complementarity of
expectations (which excludes unilaterally constraining norms) the
claim of universal understanding exists, as well as the necessity of
universalized norms. These three symmetries represent, incidentally, a
linguistic conceptualization of what are traditionally known as the
ideas of truth, freedom, and justice.
A speech situation determined by pure intersubjectivity is an
idealization. The mastery of dialogue-constitutive universals does not
itself amount to a capacity actually to establish the ideal speech
situation. But communicative competence does mean the mastery of
the means of construction necessary for the establishment of an ideal
speech situation. No matter how the intersubjectivity of mutual
understanding may be deformed, the design of an ideal speech situation
is necessarily implied in the structure of potential speech, since all
speech, even of intentional deception, is oriented towards the idea of
truth. This idea can only be analysed with regard to a consensus
achieved in unrestrained and universal discourse. Insofar as we master
the means for the construction of an ideal speech situation, we can
conceive the ideas of truth, freedom, and justice, which interpret each
other although of course only as ideas. On the strength of communicative competence alone, however, and independent of the empirical structures of the social system to which we belong, we are quite
unable to realize the ideal speech situation; we can only anticipate it.
It should be possible to demonstrate the deformations of pure
intersubjectivity, induced by the social structure, on the basis of
asymmetries in the performance of dialogue rules. The uneven
distribution of dialogue-constitutive universals in standard communication between individuals and social groups indicates the
particular form and deformation of the intersubjectivity of mutual
understanding which is built into the social structure. But here I am
afraid I must leave the matter at that. The considerations I have
spoken of can only claim to be a first attempt to grasp communicative
competence in terms of linguistic theory. Let me, however, draw two
conclusions, the first of which will lead back to the problem of general
semantics.

Downloaded by [Korea University] at 01:13 24 September 2011

A THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE

373

I imagine that the particular form of intersubjectivity of mutual

understanding that is, the particular structure of potential speech
is the basic linguistic framework which also determines the scope and
structure of corresponding world views. Then, the classification of
semantic fields is predetermined by the question of how far the net of
intersubjectivity must be spread in order to stabilize the identity of the
individuals, as well as that of the social group in a given culture or
subculture at a given time. The structural differences between the
animistic, the mythical, the religious, the philosophical, and the
scientistic views of life lie clearly in this dimension. The range of those
global interpretations of nature and society extend from the case of
total identification of the individual and his group with all non-human
phenomena, within an all-embracing association of motivated actions,
to the case of total reification of all intersubjective relationships within
the framework of objectifying sciences. At this time I cannot pursue
this topic further. However, one consequence seems to me to be
important in our context. If we could succeed in describing deformations of pure intersubjectivity in the dimension in which dialogueconstitutive universals are applied; and if it were possible, moreover,
to distinguish also the categorial frameworks of potential views of life
in terms of distributions of dialogue-constitutive universals, then
general semantics could be developed on the basis of a theory of
communicative competence.
The second and final point is how that theory of communicative
competence might be employed for social analysis. As already mentioned, the 'idealization' of the concept of the ideal speech situation
does not consist simply in the fact that we disregard contingent
empirical limitations. It consists rather of the supposition that the
motivational base of all actions is organized linguistically, i.e. within
the structure of potential speech. By this idealization we imagine the
actual motivations of the actor being identical with the linguistically
apprehensible intentions of the speakers. This model of pure communicative action is included in the design of pure intersubjectivity.
Now we have reason enough to assume, however, that social action is
not only and perhaps not even primarily controlled by motives
which coincide with the intentions of the actor-speaker, but rather by
motives excluded from public communication and fixed to a prelinguistic symbol organization. The greater the share of pre-linguistically fixed motivations which cannot be freely converted in public
communication, the greater the deviance from the model of pure

374

JURGEN HABERMAS

communicative action. I would propose to make the empirical

assumptions, first, that these deviations increase in proportion to the
degree of repression which characterizes theinstitutional system within
a given society; and secondly that the degree of repression depends in
turn on the developmental stage of the productive forces and on the
organization of authority, that is of the institutionalization of political
and economic power.

Downloaded by [Korea University] at 01:13 24 September 2011

NOTES
1. N. Chomsky, Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass.
1965.
2. D. McNeill, 'Developmental Psycholinguistics', in F. Smith and G. A. Miller
(Eds.), The Genesis of Language, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1966, pp. 15-84.
3. N. Chomsky, Language and Mind, Harcourt, Brace & World, New York
1968.
4. J. Fodor and M. Garret, 'Some Reflections on Competence and Performance',
in J. Lyons and R. J. Wales (Eds.), Psycho-linguistic Papers, Edinburgh University
Press, Edinburgh 1966, pp. 135-63; R. J. Wales and J. C. Marshall, 'The
Organization of Linguistic Performance', ibid., pp. 29-80; C. B. Cazden, 'On
Individual Differences in Language Competence and Performance', in Journal
of Special Education, Vol. I (1967) No. 2.
5. J . J . Katz and P. M. Postal, An Integrated Theory of Linguistic Description, M.I.T.
Press, Cambridge, Mass. 1964.
6. M. Bierwisch, 'Strukturalismus', Kursbuch, Vol. 5, Frankfurt a.M. 1966, pp. 97 f.
7. J. H. Greenberg (Ed.), Universals of Language, M.I.T. Press, Cambridge, Mass.
1963, 1966.
8. C. Lvi-Strauss, Les Structures lmentaires de la Parent, Mouton & Co., Paris
1967.
9. A. Romney, 'Cognitive Aspects of English Kin-terms', in American Anthropologist (1946), pp. 36-170.
10. H. C. Conklin, 'Hanunvo Color Categories', in D. Hymes (Ed.), Language in
Culture and Society, Harper & Row, New York 1964, pp. 189-92.
11. J . Lyons, Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics, Cambridge University Press,
London 1969, pp. 419 f. and pp. 470 ff.
12. Lyons, Introduction, op. cit., pp. 446 ff.
13. I propose to use this term in a way similar to that in which Chomsky uses
'linguistic competence'. Communicative competence should be related to a
system of rules generating an ideal speech situation, not regarding linguistic
codes which link language and universal pragmatics with actual role systems.
Dell Hymes, among others, makes use of the term 'communicative competence'
in a socio-linguistically limited sense. I don't want to follow this convention.
14. J. L. Austin, How to do Things with Words, Clarendon Press, Oxford 1962.
15. J . R. Searle pursues a similar approach with his theory of speech acts: Speech
Acts, Cambridge University Press, London 1969.
16. Manuscript T.U. Berlin, Sept. 1969.

Downloaded by [Korea University] at 01:13 24 September 2011

A THEORY OF COMMUNICATIVE COMPETENCE

375

17. This is why Searle conceives the linguistic rules which govern speech acts as
what he calls 'constitutive rules'. 'Constitutive rules do not merely regulate, they
create or define new forms of behavior' (op. cit., p. 33). 'The hypothesis of
this book is that speaking a language is a matter of performing speech acts
according to systems of constitutive rules' (ibid., p. 38).
18. Searle puts the same argument in the following way: 'If I am trying to tell
someone something, t h e n . . . as soon as he recognizes that I am trying to tell him
something and exactly what it is I am trying to tell him, I have succeeded in
telling it to him. Furthermore, unless he recognizes that I am trying to tell him
something and what I am trying to tell him, I do not fully succeed in telling it
to him . . . In the case of illocutionary acts we succeed in doing what we are
trying to do by getting our audience to recognize what we are trying to do.
But the "effect" on the hearer is not a belief or response, it consists simply in
the hearer understanding the utterance of the speaker. It is this effect that I
have been calling the illocutionary effect. The way the reflexive intention
works then . . . is: the speaker S intends to produce an illocutionary effect IE
in the hearer H by means of getting H to recognize S's intention to produce IE'
(ibid., p. 47).
19. Austin claims that there are about a thousand performatives in English. The
classification proposed by Austin himself is not convincing. Searle, who presents
the most penetrating analysis of the structure of the speech act (cf. op. cit.,
Ch. 3, pp. 22-71) does not give a systematic account of the classification of
speech acts. My proposal is intended to have the role of such an account, but
the three criteria offered still lack a reasonable explication.