I read Brandom and Gadamer in such a way that while I appreciate the considerable overlap between their thinking, I imagine that each would launch a substantial critique of the other. Brandon would fault Gadamer’s for not given diffident attention to rational accountability. Authority must be answerable to justificatory practices. For his part Gadamer would argue that language isnt primarily a structure of assertions and inferential commitments. It is the medium in which world-disclosure occurs prior to reflective justification.
We do not first stand outside language and then undertake normative scorekeeping practices within it; rather, language already carries historically sedimented meanings, prejudices, traditions, tonalities, and possibilities of disclosure that exceed explicit inferential articulation. Understanding is not fundamentally an achievement of rational bookkeeping but participation in an event of meaning. Where do you stand in this debate? Are you more partial to one side over the other, or would you split the difference?
I side with Gadamer, and find Rouse quite useful here. He inserts himself into the debates among Brandom, McDowell, Dreyfus and Rorty, revealing the limitations of their thinking with respect to Gadamer , Barad, Merleau-Ponty and Foucault.