As has already been said, the pragmatic attitude is characterized by the fact that the meaning of discourses, of all cultural and artistic products, is reconstructed through the transposition of this meaning, an act which is performed by a human being in a situation of co-subjectivity and participation in the life of a community. This means that the transposition of pragmatic meaning is continuously controlled, amended and penalized by the community which functions, in the long run, as the ultimate definiens of meaning. The status of this community and its impact on the subject transposing the meaning of pragmatic objects will be a topic of later discussion¹. It is advisable in this chapter to give some substance to the statement that a theory of meaning is in fact a theory of the transposition of this meaning or a theory of understanding. In this way, the pragmatician gives his theory of language an orientation which is not ontological or generative but heuristic. Chomsky's grammar is a prototypical example of a grammar which privileges the generation or production of syntactically well-formed sequences, even if Chomsky himself claims that generative mechanisms are neutral and symmetrical with regard to production and understanding. Speech act theories of Austin and Searle, formulate the conditions of satisfaction of speech acts as conditions of production (the conditions of sincerity, for instance). The most representative forms of semantics determine meaning on the basis of the truth conditions of expressions, positioning themselves outside any heuristic perspective from the very beginning. The adequacy of these options will not be discussed, but an alternative position will be taken immediately: the pragmatic theory of meaning is a theory of the transposition of meaning².