Promises, threats, and the foundations of speech act theory
Abstract
I suggest that promises and threats are similar speech acts and pose analogous problems for Speech Act Theory. After showing that they share the same formal types, I argue against there being purportedly fundamental differences between them in regard to explicitability, deontics, and illocution/perlocution. I conclude that the joint analysis of promises and threats suggests the propriety of a holistic theory of illocutionary acts.
Keywords:
Quick links
Atiyah, P.S
Beller, S
(2002) Conditional promises and threats – Cognition and emotion. Proceedings of the Twenty- Fourth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 113-118.
Beller, S. and Bender, A
(2004) Cultural differences in the cognition and emotion of conditional promises and threats – Comparing Germany and Tonga. In K.D. Forbus, D. Gentner and T. Regier (eds), Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 85-90.
Beller, S., A. Bender, and G. Kuhnmünch
Bennett, J
Blanco Salgueiro, A
Blanco Salgueiro, A et al.
Blanco Salgueiro, A
Castelfranchi, C., and M. Guerini
Conison, J
Habermas, J
Habib, A
(2008) Promises. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Ed. E.N. Zalta. URL =http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/promises/.
Harrison, J
Heath, J
Kimball, R.H
Kissine, M
(2008) From predictions to promises. How to derive deontic commitment. Pragmatics & Cognition 16.3: 471-491.
BoP
Nicoloff, F
Peetz, V
Searle, J.R
Searle, J.R., and D. Vanderveken
Verbrugge, S., K. Dieussaert, W. Schaeken, and W. Van Belle