Abstract
Although the term "linguistic turn" has specific meanings in different approaches, it generally refers to the fact that in the 20th century, "language" became the center of attention of thinkers. Discussions about language caused these thinkers to take analytical and critical positions towards each other. Habermas, with the criticisms he made to two philosophical traditions, hermeneutic and analytical; He has established his pragmatist position on language. By following the works of Habermas, it becomes clear that the origin of his interest in language should be considered in "Humboldt's linguistic theory". Humboldt's theory presents a three-level division of language and provides Habermas with the possibility that he can first criticize other approaches to language-thought and reveal the inadequacy of their interpretation of language; Secondly, by highlighting the pragmatic level of language, he built a social theory that can understand and criticize the realized state of modernity. The origin of Habermas's "linguistic turn" is rooted in Humboldt's linguistic theory, a thinker who is on the fringes of the philosophical stream, but by highlighting his linguistic theory, Habermas shows that the interpretation and understanding of the two main thinkers of twentieth century linguistic thought, namely Heidegger and Wittgenstein about language can be analyzed in Humboldt's three-level division.
 
Keywords: Linguistic turn, Habermas, Humboldt, linguistic theory, cognitive interests, pragmatism, critical social theory.
 
Introduction
Among the contemporary thinkers who have tried to criticize the contemporary situation from two philosophical and social aspects; The name of Habermas is seen the most. He has tried to expand the scope and territory of scientific knowledge by maintaining its credibility. In fact, "his goal is to emphasize that science should be put in a better state in a more philosophically conscious way, and also with stronger epistemological criteria" (Piozi, 1384: 18 ). Such a critique of science by philosophy strengthens the foundation of this epistemic structure even more; Because it shows how the formation of science and especially social theory is rooted in human linguistic existence. "Language" in Habermas' thought is central in such a way that without understanding language from Habermas' perspective, his thought will not be understood either.
What this article aims to express is a reflection on Habermas's thought, centered on the "linguistic turn". In fact, the article claims that Habermas, while engaging and debating with contemporary philosophical currents - "analytical philosophy" and "hermeneutic philosophy" - It has its own unique thought; And he understands the language in a way that is unique to him. Of course, such an understanding of language is rooted in the German intellectual tradition and goes back to Humboldt. Habermas's interpretation and use of Humboldt's linguistic theory allows him to liberate philosophy and science from subject-centered domination, and at the same time, shows that "intersubjectivity" and critical social theory are possible with language. to be As McCarthy said: "The key to Habermas's approach is the rejection of the "paradigm of consciousness" and the "philosophy of the subject" related to it in favor of the intersubjective paradigm of "communicative action". (McCarthy, 1990, x).
 
Materials & Methods
In order to answer the question of what is the relationship between Habermas' social theory and the issues related to language and linguistic turn, an attempt has been made to formulate the linguistic foundations of his social theory by using the descriptive-analytical method and referring to the works of this thinker. Therefore, the main materials that have been analyzed are books and articles by Habermas that have an epistemological orientation and reveal Habermas' understanding of social theory. Also, those works in which Habermas has shown attention to language have been considered in order to clarify the relationship between social theory and linguistic turn in this thinker.
 
 
Discussion & Result
Language has a central place in Habermas's thought. In order to understand this central position, on the one hand, it is necessary to identify and analyze the roots of Habermas's linguistics, and on the other hand, to examine the importance and role of language in the entire intellectual project of Habermas. But these two lines of analysis should be followed in the term that Habermas himself specifies and acknowledges, that is, "linguistic turn".
For this purpose, Habermas through rereading the philosophical thinking before him and by analyzing the terms "Paradigm of Consciousness" and "Philosophy of the Subject"; He tries to introduce his criticism to "subjectivity" and take a step towards overcoming and erasing subjectivity. The said criticism is not only negative, and what Habermas pursues is to reach a critical social theory. A theory that can, while understanding the realized state of modernity, improve its direction and reveal its shortcomings through criticism. In order to come up with such a theory, Habermas has tried to show that critical social theory can be followed along with modern epistemology by relying on the discussions of Kant and Fichte about "interests of reason".
For this reason, Habermas, after explaining the technical interest and the practical interest, each of which has produced knowledge according to itself and has been beneficial to human kind in some way; It speaks of liberating interest. The mentioned interest clarifies the meaning of the previous two interests and on the other hand, through rethinking, it provides the possibility of criticism. Habermas explains liberating interest with special attention to Freud's theory. That is, by looking at an example of realized knowledge, Habermas can claim that the design of a critical social theory is not only possible but also necessary for reason. Because the liberating interest is the interest of reason, which, through reflection and rethinking in its conditions, gives the possibility of criticizing and overcoming the situation of oppression and domination.
Rethinking or reflection is a special feature of Habermas's thinking, which is emphasized in liberating interest; This feature caused him to become aware of its shortcomings by reflecting on his initial plan. Habermas had criticized the "paradigm of consciousness" or "philosophy of the subject" and believed that such a paradigm is not possible for critical social theory; But now, in explaining the formation of critical social theory, he found himself along the "philosophy of the subject". In other words, Habermas saw himself under "subjectivity", that is, the basic principle of the philosophical discourse of modernity. For this reason, in the continuation of his intellectual path, he tried to enter in such a way that the project of subjectivity becomes impossible. This particular way of entering to reach critical social theory (which should be called communicative action theory); It has been done by following the language issues and in more precise terms "language rotation". Therefore, understanding the "linguistic turn" is necessary to understand Habermas's critical social theory.
 
Conclusion
Habermas explains the "linguistic turn" and the importance of linguistic topics with reference to Humboldt. Therefore, the "linguistic turn" in the sense that Habermas intends - which is the basis of critical social theory - is understood by "Humboldt's linguistic theory". He highlights three levels of language analysis in Humboldt:
• World-forming character of speech: in the sense that the limits of the world or the ontological horizon should be searched for in language. Language is not just a instrument, it is in the structure of the world.
• Pragmatic structure of speech and communication: language, without everyday applications, essentially does not exist; Any meaning of language that is considered starts from this level: that humans use language in their relationships to achieve their goals and to establish reasons.
• Representation of facts: that is, the language has a cognitive aspect and say about the facts of the world.
Identifying the three mentioned levels allows Habermas to enter into dialogue with the schools of analytical philosophy and hermeneutic philosophy. In other words, with these three levels, Habermas criticizes Wittgenstein's and Heidegger's discussion about language. He believes that according to Heidegger, the world-forming character of speech and the revealing aspect of the world is prominent, which shows itself in pre-understanding; But Heidegger has ignored the relationship between linguistic knowledge and knowledge of the world, that is, the representation of facts. According to Habermas, the entire hermeneutic tradition, including Heidegger, does not provide a convincing analysis of the function of the representation of fact by language. Habermas criticizes Wittgenstein, who, like Heidegger, relies on the background of understanding the world, which does not contain truth and falsity by itself. According to Habermas, Wittgenstein has placed the criterion of truth and falsity of propositions outside the propositions, that is, he has reduces truth and falsity to function. The term truth-functional that Habermas used to describe Wittgenstein implies this criticism. Although Habermas admits that Wittgenstein also paid attention to the pragmatic aspect of language, he believes that he did not place this aspect in the context of social relations and everyday actions.