Page 437 - Encyclopedia of Philosophy of Language

but then doesn't pay that visit next time he is in town, his aunt can justifiably chide him 'But you promised to visit!' thus accusing him of breaking his promise. This is because (8) denotes an ongoing act that can be glossed 'I will with these words make the promise to visit you next time I am in town.' In (8) the modal will is used in its root meaning 'willfully insist' and is realis, i.e., denotes an actual event, namely the illocutionary act described by the performative verb 'promise.' Con- trast the performative promise of (8) with the pre- dicted (even promised!) promise in:
Tomorrow when I see her, I will promise to visit
next time I'm in town. (9)
'Hereby' cannot legitimately be inserted between 'will' and 'promise' in (9); which confirms that 'promise' is not a performative verb. In (9) the modal 'will' is used in its epistemic intentional sense and is irrealis because it denotes an unactualized event, namely the future act of promising (to take place 'tomorrow').
The pattern established by 'will' holds generally for modal auxiliaries with performative verbs. Because by definition the performative actualizes an illocutionary act, the modal must be used in a sense which is realis, cf. the leave-taking in 'I must hereby take my leave of you'; the warning in 'Trespassers should hereby be warned that they will be prosecuted.' Example (10) is ambiguous:
I can hereby authorize you to act as our agent
from this moment. (10)
If 'can' means 'have the power to' and 'hereby' means 'in uttering this performative,' then (10) effects an authorization (I have the power by the utterance of these words to authorize you...). However, if 'I can hereby' means, e.g., 'using this telex from head-office enables me to,' then (10) is not performative and has the illocutionary point of a statement about S's ability to convey the authorization to H. Some additional examples of nonperformative verbs with modals are:
I might promise to visit you next time I'm in town. (11) I might hereby authorize your release. (12) I could hereby sentence you to ten years imprisonment.
(13)
'Might' is never realis and it is obvious that (11) states the possibility that S will promise without actualizing a promise. The 'hereby' that occurs in (12) necessarily has the sense 'using this,' and refers to something in context other than the performative utterance, e.g., a confession from another party; thus (12) is non- performative. Similarly (13) does not pass sentence; compare it with 'I hereby sentence you to ten years imprisonment.' In (13) 'could' is epistemic and irrealis, and 'hereby' once again means 'using this.'
Explicit performatives occur only in the indicative mood; though they can take either emphatic stress or
emphatic 'do.' For example, 'I do promise to come more often' makes an emphatic promise. Since com- mands and requests are themselves illocutions distinct from promises, there is no such thing as making an 'imperative promise,' or a 'requesting promise'; both are anomalous. An utterance of 'Promise to come and see me more often' would be an exhortation or plea that H make a promise; it cannot be used to (as it were) force S's promise onto H. 'Do I promise to leave soon?' is a rhetorical question about a promise; no promise is made in uttering this. And because no per- formative can be irrealis, none can occur in the sub- junctive mood. 'If I should promise to leave early, will you come to the party with me?' does not make a promise.
C5. The subject of the performative clause is con- ditioned by the fact that the speaker S is agent for either him/herself or another, whichever takes responsibility for enforcing the illocution described by the performative verb.
More often than not this controls the form of the subject noun phrase. All the explicitly performative clauses instantiated so far have had a first person singular subject T ; but 'we' makes just as good a subject for a performative, e.g., it is 'we' who make the promise in 'We, the undersigned, promise to pay the balance of the amount within ten days'; and it is 'we' who make the authorization in 'We hereby authorize you to pay on our behalf a sum not exceed- ing $500.' 'We' can be regarded as referring to joint speakers; but this is not strictly necessary, because a performative can be uttered on behalf of someone else by an authorized agent, as when an officer of the court says, 'The court permits you to stand down.' '[PJermits' is performative because it is the issuing of this utterance which actually grants the permission. Austin (1975: 57) offers the following example with a second person subject: 'You are hereby authorized to p a y . . . ' This is passive, and the authorization is made either by S him/herself, or by him/her on behalf of someone else; similarly: 'Notice is hereby given that trespassers will be prosecuted.' It is notable that when the subject of an explicit performative is not first person, the utterance is made by or on behalf of the person or persons or institution responsible for enforcing the illocution (promise, authorization, granting of permission, giving notice, warning, etc.) described in the performative verb. Just the same responsibility, in fact, is attendant on the first person subject of an explicit performative clause. The per- son^) responsible for the illocution is/are represented by the agent of the performative clause.
C6. It is often said that a performative verb necess- arily occurs in the simple aspect; and it does normally do so, perhaps for the same reason that the simple aspect is normal in on-the-spot reporting of football matches, baseball games, etc. However, there are occasions where a performative may occur in thcpro-
Performative Clauses
415