Íslenskt mál og almenn málfræði - 13.07.1981, Page 233

Promises and Games 223
to do makes it clear whether the statement of intention is meant as a
threat or as a promise.
We shall later see that some threats can with linguistic propriety be
described as promises. For the time being, however, I shall confine my
attention to promises and threats that are naturally contrasted.
Robins is not quite fair in the comparison he makes between prom-
ises and threats in the passage I have quoted. In making the unsuccess-
ful threat the speaker is supposed to say that the addressee does not
fear the action. On the other hand the allegedly comparable successful
promise is meant to be accompanied by a suggestion that the speaker
has perhaps too often let the addressee down in the past, thus indicating
that the addressee would welcome performance of the act, if only he
could trust the speaker. To be fair, one must presume that the alleged
successful promiser says that he knows the addressee does not want the
act just as the addressee is said not to fear the act “threatened”. Given
these conditions the addressee will fail to take the “promise” or the
“threat” seriously. But could the utterance not be meant as a threat, if
the speaker knows or believes that the act will be detrimental to the
addressee, although the addressee does not think so? Could the corre-
sponding utterance not be meant as a promise, if the speaker believes or
knows that the act would be beneficial to the addressee? One can mean
as a threat only what one believes is detrimental to the addressee and
mean as a promise only what one believes to be beneficial. The speech
act in both cases considered fails in that the addressee does not take
seriously the statement of intention, does not fear the act threatened nor
want what is meant as a promise. But in spite of this the speech acts
have not completely failed in either case. If the “promisee” changes his
ntind and does come to want the “promised” act, he may well consider
himself to have a claim upon the promiser, if he fails to do what he said
he would do. The case is different with respect to a threat because
People in general do not want what is detrimental to them and are
consequently unlikely to claim it as their right. But when the threat is
carried out, and the person discovers that the act truly was to be feared,
11 does make a difference that it had been threatened. He had been
forewarned and, if the threat was an emphatic one, perhaps made by
^he “I promise you .. .” formula then the person issuing the threat may
well feel justified in saying “I told you so”.
The speech act of threatening and promising, in so far as one wants