# I now duck (present simple or will)



## newname

Hi all,

I was reading this thread http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=2073127 and at post #8 George said, 'I now duck and let the pedants sort it out'

I think George should have said, 'I'll duck now' or I'm ducking now or other tenses but definitely not the presentense. What do you think?

Thank you


----------



## pops91710

I participated in that thread. I saw that post. He said it correctly. It means instead of taking part in a discussion, now he just ducks and lets the pedants work it out.


----------



## sdgraham

The construction is no different than the standard phrase used by the officiant in the standard U.S. wedding ceremony: "I now pronounce you man and wife."


----------



## newname

Thanks pops,

'I now duck' uses the simple present tense, which is not appropriate in this situation (I was taught so). He decides to duck now/this moment, so he should say I'll duck now.

I do hear people say, 'I quit' right when they decide to leave a company. Perhaps this 'now duck' is of similar use? Is it the same as 'will + infinitive' for on-the-spur-of-the-moment actions, but is used only colloquially?


----------



## Cagey

George is not telling us what he has decided to do next.  George is describing what he is doing at the moment he is doing it.  It is a lively form of narrative, the sort that is used to describe the action in a movie, for instance: 
_The hero now rides into town, and the bad men go into hiding.  _​This form of narrative is slightly humorous in this context, as is George's reference to the pedants.   It is entirely grammatical.


----------



## newname

sdgraham said:


> The construction is no different than the standard phrase used by the officiant in the standard U.S. wedding ceremony: "I now pronounce you man and wife."




Many thanks sdg, but I think it is a set phrase, else what use is it? I cannot figure out.

How about a situation like this:
 Over lunch the wife keeps on nagging the husband about his smoking. He can't stand it anymore and says, 'I now eat and let you nag'. Is this fine?


----------



## newname

Cagey said:


> George is not telling us what he has decided to do next.  George is describing what he is doing at the moment he is doing it.  It is a lively form of narrative, the sort that is used to describe the action in a movie, for instance: _The hero now rides into town, and the bad men go into hiding.  _​This form of narrative is slightly humorous in this context, as is George's reference to the pedants.   It is entirely grammatical.



Thank you for the extra info. And it's the same as when you hear commentators say in a football match on TV?
But is it fine if you say, 'I'll duck now and let ...'


----------



## Cagey

Yes, the announcing at a sporting match is a good example of this kind of narrative.  

"_I'll duck now and let ..._"  		is also fine.  It has a slightly different effect. The way George said it is much more lively in that context, in my opinion.


----------



## pops91710

newname said:


> Thanks pops,
> 
> 'I now duck' uses the simple present tense, which is not appropriate in this situation (I was taught so). He decides to duck now/this moment, so he should say I'll duck now.
> 
> I do hear people say, 'I quit' right when they decide to leave a company. Perhaps this 'now duck' is of similar use? Is it the same as 'will + infinitive' for on-the-spur-of-the-moment actions, but is used only colloquially?


If I can just add a little clarification: Things you used to do in the past that you have changed you can say "now" you do not do them anymore. 

Example: "Before, I used to stand up in a moving train car, but now I sit down whenever I can, and let the younger ones stand." 

"Now" does not necessarily mean "immediately" as you say you were taught. It can also mean "in the present", "these days", "today", or "currently".

I hope this clears it up, now.


----------



## Prower

*This is something what confuses all non-native speakers!
*I have read the thread and am not sure that this specific usage of PRESENT SIMPLE was identified.

The only answer which might be very close to the truth is *sdgraham's*



sdgraham said:


> The construction is no different than the standard phrase used by the officiant in the standard U.S. wedding ceremony: "I now pronounce you man and wife."




He categorizes this verb as a performative one. Indeed, this is how performative verbs act. The only question I have is whether *to duck *really is a performative verb. I really don't know. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_verb

The explanation given by Cagey, in this case, doesn't sound persuasive to me.





Cagey said:


> George is not telling us what he has decided to do next. George is describing what he is doing at the moment he is doing it.


That's right. However, in this case we can also use PRESENT CONTINUOUS. Another thing is that it is not so correct to say that *George is virtually doing it right now*. He can't _be ducking_ and _writing _at the same time. So, it is more that he is going to do it very soon. What gives us another reason to wonder why not use FUTURE SIMPLE? As this is exactly what FUTURE SIMPLE does. It says what will happen next. <I think I'll duck.> _With all that said above I am still left with a question why I should prefer to use PRESENT SIMPLE in this case and not use PRESENT CONTINUOUS or FUTURE SIMPLE._ 



Cagey said:


> It is a lively form of narrative, the sort that is used to describe the action in a movie, for instance:_The hero now rides into town, and the bad men go into hiding.
> _​



Exactly, in a movie. It's not easy to imagine him narrating about *(!!!)* himself at the moment of doing something. It feels like there are two *Georges. *I can imagine how he can do so provided he is telling about him doing something *in the PAST but not right NOW.

*This explanation is good, but it doesn't address the issue.





pops91710 said:


> Example: "Before, I used to stand up in a moving train car, but now I sit down whenever I can, and let the younger ones stand."
> "Now" does not necessarily mean "immediately" as you say you were taught. It can also mean "in the present", "these days", "today", or "currently".


 In the original sentence we deal with a momentary action. At least this is how I understand it. Otherwise we should understand it as if GEORGE ducks all the time.​


----------



## JamesM

I think he does mean he now ducks all the time.



> I use to coach, not train...
> I now duck and let the pedants sort it out....



He's talking about a past habitual action and a current habitual action, as I read it.

[edit]  Ah, no.  Now that I re-read it I see that the first comment is about the topic and the second is a side comment about his current action.

I still don't see a problem with it, even as a momentary action.  After a news flash it is common to hear "We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming".  It's a similar use, in my opinion.


----------



## wandle

It is true, as _sdgraham_ said, that 'I now duck' is performative. This statement brings his participation in the thread to an end.
It is also true, as _Cagey_ indicated, that George is making a humorous comment on himself as he ducks out.
This is nice idiomatic English.


----------



## Prower

JamesM said:


> I still don't see a problem with it, even as a momentary action.  After a news flash it is common to hear "We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming".  It's a similar use, in my opinion.


It all depends on how you define a problem. The problem is not with the usage as this usage is a norm. The problem is with the rule which says that a momentary action should be expressed by the use of Present Continuous. To tell the truth, it also says that sometimes PRESENT SIMPLE can be used for a momentary action, but in such cases all the verbs which can express a momentary action by means of PRESENT SIMPLE can't be used with PRESENT CONTINUOUS. (It's a petty, but in real life it is more complicated.) 

So, the real problem appears when we deal with a verb which can be used both with PS and PC. 

Now I duck - Now I am ducking - (and even Future Simple) - Now I will duck


----------



## Prower

wandle said:


> It is true, as _sdgraham_ said, that 'I now duck' is performative. This statement brings his participation in the thread to an end.
> It is also true, as _Cagey_ indicated, that George is making a humorous comment on himself as he ducks out.
> This is nice idiomatic English.


I've never known any explanations which would unite thise two different usages in one case. I can clearly see two different usages and I think it would be a mistake to unite them in one unless we can prove that it is fair to do so.


----------



## Loob

Prower said:


> The explanation given by Cagey, in this case, doesn't sound persuasive to me.


I'm saddened that you don't find Cagey's argument persuasive, Prower: I'd say it's spot on.

This use of the present simple is a characteristic feature of the language of radio/TV commentaries on sports matches and other events:
_Beckham runs, he takes the ball from Jones....

The Queen approaches the podium, exchanges greetings with the Prime Minister...._


----------



## wandle

It is perfectly possible for a statement to have more than one meaning.
For example, 'You can take a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink'.


----------



## lucas-sp

I would personally say "I'll now duck out of this conversation."

As for the performativity of the statement... well, George could've ducked out of the conversation _without having said anything_. But you _cannot_ get married without saying "I do." Austin does discuss one category of performatives he calls "behabitives," which "include the notion of reaction to other people's behavior and fortunes and of attitudes and expressions of attitudes to someone else's past conduct or immanent conduct." He lists "greetings" such as "welcome" and "bid you farewell" in this category. So an argument could certainly be made here, but it isn't as clear. And, as I noted in the other thread, performativity does not have any exclusive contract with the present tense non-continuous aspect. So even if the statement were performative, it doesn't necessarily follow that its performativity is a necessary and sufficient condition for its present non-continuous verb.

I would say that this is more a case of the _phatic function _of communication described by Roman Jakobson: language about establishing and negotiating the contact between the various speakers and listeners (so anything from "Hello?" to "Can you repeat that?"). Some phatic utterances are in the present non-continuous ("I can hear you now," "I bid you adieu," "We now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming"). This can be understood as a kind of meta-commentary on the communication that's going on, in the manner of a sports broadcast.


----------



## Prower

Loob said:


> I'm saddened that you don't find Cagey's argument persuasive, Prower: I'd say it's spot on.


Do you think that George was narrating about what he was going to do next?


----------



## Prower

wandle said:


> It is perfectly possible for a statement to have more than one meaning.
> For example, 'You can take a horse to the water, but you can't make him drink'.


I was talking about two usages of a TENSE but not about two meanings.


----------



## lucas-sp

It's more that the narrative speaking position implies a distance from the action, like you would take if you said "Thanks so much for the lunch, and especially for bringing those three bottles of amazing wine! And now, _I go to my office and lie down for a few hours_." It's a humorous and vivid way of commenting on current events - as if all of a sudden you're the narrator of a book starring yourself.


----------



## Prower

lucas-sp said:


> And, as I noted in the other thread, performativity does not have any exclusive contract with the present tense non-continuous aspect. So even if the statement were performative, it doesn't necessarily follow that its performativity is a necessary and sufficient condition for its present non-continuous verb.


It is interesting. What is the tense(s) with which performativity does have an exclusive contract with?


----------



## Loob

Prower said:


> Do you think that George was narrating about what he was going to do next?


I think he was, humorously, taking the role of commentator and describing what he was doing.  He could just as easily have written:
_George ducks...._
in the same way that a radio/TV commentator is describing what Beckham is doing when he says:
_Beckham runs, he takes the ball from Jones...._


----------



## Prower

lucas-sp said:


> It's more that the narrative speaking position implies a distance from the action, like you would take if you said "Thanks so much for the lunch, and especially for bringing those three bottles of amazing wine! And now, _I go to my office and lie down for a few hours_." It's a humorous and vivid way of commenting on current events - as if all of a sudden you're the narrator of a book starring yourself.



Well, what is the category to which you address this case? "I now duck and let the pedants sort it out"

1) Perfomativity
2) Narration
3) Both


----------



## lucas-sp

Loob said:


> He could just as easily have written:
> _George ducks...._


That's really the point, isn't it? That the "I" here is simultaneously the same as the "I" speaking the sentence, and understood as different from and distanced from the "I" speaking the sentence.

Prower: the performative is unassimilable to any verb structure. The performative verb doesn't even need to show up in the sentence. That's why I can perform the speech act of "warning" by saying "I warn you that that bull's about to charge!", "Be forewarned that that bull is dangerous," "The bull's about to charge!", or writing a sign that says "Beware of bull," or "Dangerous bull on premises." Or in a paper "I will now turn to Kant's critique of the same concept..."

And finally, how would I analyze the sentence? In no one particular way, a priori. The question is which mode of analysis would be most fruitful for the given set of questions and problems I want to confront through analysis. That's why I don't find "performative" too useful here, but "phatic meta-commentary that narrativizes the current communication" seems to be pretty fruitful.


----------



## Loob

Prower said:


> Well, what is the category to which you address this case? "I now duck and let the pedants sort it out"
> 
> 1) Perfomativity
> 2) Narration
> 3) Both


I know you were addressing this question to lucas.

But for me, _I duck/George ducks_ is not performative (unlike _I pronounce you man and wife_ or _I apologise_).  It's straightforwardly narrative.

PS.  I like lucas's "phatic meta-commentary that narrativizes the current communication"


----------



## Prower

lucas-sp said:


> The performative verb doesn't even need to show up in the sentence. That's why I can perform the speech act of "warning" by saying "I warn you that that bull's about to charge!"


i don't understand. You are saying that it doesn't need to show up but after that it shows up.  "I *warn *you"


lucas-sp said:


> That's why I don't find "performative" too useful here, but "phatic meta-commentary that narrativizes the current communication" seems to be pretty fruitful.


You might be right. The only problem is that I am not familiar with "phatic meta-commentary that narrativizes the current communication", I am not sure how smoothly it goes when used in practise. Is it explained somewhere properly?


Another interesting thing is that *sdgraham *took this case as a performative one. He compared it to "I now pronounce you husband and wife." which means that there must be some points in favor of performativity in this case. Apart from that I also noticed that a lot of perfomative phrases start off with

*I now 
*
I now name you ....
I now call this meeting to oder.
I now promounce you ....

Is it a coincidence or is there a hidden connection?


----------



## lucas-sp

The verb doesn't _need to_ show up. That doesn't mean it _cannot_ show up. I gave several examples of sentences without performative verbs. Another one is when the referee says "You're out!" to say "I _declare_ you out!"

The typical "performative test" is to see if "hereby" can be used in the sentence. "Now" definitely works as a rough equivalent to "hereby," so you might be on to something with your observation about "I now..."


----------



## Pertinax

Loob said:


> for me, _I duck/George ducks_ is not performative (unlike _I pronounce you man and wife_ or _I apologise_).  It's straightforwardly narrative.



I agree.  A performative clause, as I understand it, is true by virtue of being uttered.  Once the priest has pronounced you man and wife, he cannot reverse his pronouncement.  Whereas George could simply continue posting, giving the lie to his claim that he was ducking.


----------



## wandle

> George could've ducked out of the conversation without having said anything. But you cannot get married without saying "I do."


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_verb
One example of a performative verb given on this page is:
'I hereby promise to buy you some ice cream.'
The act performed by this statement is of course the promise, not the purchase.
I would understand George's 'I now duck' as meaning:
'I hereby promise to add no more posts to this thread.'
The statement is performative of that promise.


----------



## Prower

lucas-sp said:


> "I *warn *you that that bull's about to charge!", "*Be *forewarned that that bull is dangerous," "The bull'*s* *(is)* about to charge!", or writing a sign that says "*Beware *of bull," or "Dangerous bull *(is)* on premises." Another one is when the referee says "You'*re* out!"



Seems like vebs are still there.......By the way, some of them are simply *imperative*.


----------



## Prower

wandle said:


> I would understand George's 'I now duck' as meaning:
> 'I hereby promise to add no more posts to this thread.'
> The statement is performative of that promise.


This is how my mind is inclined to understand it as well. Can't help, so far, seeing it differently.


----------



## lucas-sp

> A performative clause, as I understand it, is true by virtue of being uttered.


Incorrect. Performatives are _by definition_ not true or false, they're happy or unhappy. I can promise to pay you on Tuesday and then gamble all the money away in the meantime, making my performative "infelicitous" (inasmuch as I failed to live up to my promise, I open myself to social censure and various other ethical judgments), but not "untrue" (since it's only _because_ I "truly" promised you something that my failure to live up to that promise takes on any meaning).

Austin's point in defining the performative is that we have _many other ways - and many more important ways - _of judging an utterance besides simply saying whether it is "true" or "false." (This is the big revision of Frege and his followers, who define the value of statements _only_ in terms of their truth-value.) For Austin, if we want to look at the ethical dimension of language, we have to look at the "felicity" and "infelicity" of our utterances. In other words, breaking a promise doesn't necessarily make me a "liar," it might make me "untrustworthy," "not as good as my word," "a cheat," etc.


----------



## Pertinax

wandle said:


> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Performative_verb
> One example of a performative verb given on this page is:
> 'I hereby promise to buy you some ice cream.'
> The act performed by this statement is of course the promise, not the purchase.
> I would understand George's 'I now duck' as meaning:
> 'I hereby promise to add no more posts to this thread.'
> The statement is performative of that promise.



The difference, as I see it, is that a promise, once made, cannot be un-made just by saying something else.  It is either performed or it is broken.  Whereas George's statement might simply be a lie.


----------



## Loob

Prower said:


> i don't understand. You are saying that it doesn't need to show up but after that it shows up.  "I *warn *you"
> 
> You might be right. The only problem is that I am not familiar with  "phatic meta-commentary that narrativizes the current communication", I  am not sure how smoothly it goes when used in practise. Is it explained  somewhere properly?


I don't think I agree with lucas on the first  point.  For me, a performative verb contains the action of the verb in  the 'saying' of the verb: so the verbs in "I apologise" and "I warn you"  are performative, but the verb in "I duck/George ducks" isn't.

The reason I liked lucas's  "phatic meta-commentary that narrativizes the current communication" is  that it's a complicated/pompous-sounding way of saying something  simple.


Prower said:


> Another interesting thing is that *sdgraham *took this  case as a performative one. He compared it to "I now pronounce you  husband and wife." which means that there must be some points in favor  of performativity in this case. Apart from that I also noticed that a  lot of perfomative phrases start off with
> 
> *I now
> *
> I now name you ....
> I now call you this meeting to oder.
> I now promounce you ....
> 
> Is it a coincidence or is there a hidden connection?


I don't see  any connection between performative verbs and the use of the present  simple as "lively narration" in commentaries.


Prower said:


> wandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I would understand George's 'I now duck' as meaning:
> 'I hereby promise to add no more posts to this thread.'
> The statement is performative of that promise.
> 
> 
> 
> This is how my mind is inclined to understand it as well. Can't help, so far, seeing it differently.
Click to expand...

No, sorry, I see no promise at all - no performative element at all - in George's comment.  It's a narrative description of what he is doing.


----------



## Prower

Pertinax said:


> The difference, as I see it, is that a promise, once made, cannot be un-made just by saying something else.  It is either performed or it is broken.  Whereas George's statement might simply be a lie.


Sorry, I might be missing the point, but what does it have to do with the grammar issue? I really missed the point.


----------



## Pertinax

lucas-sp said:


> Incorrect. Performatives are _by definition_ not true or false, they're happy or unhappy. I can promise to pay you on Tuesday and then gamble all the money away in the meantime, making my performative "infelicitous" (inasmuch as I failed to live up to my promise, I open myself to social censure and various other ethical judgments), but not "untrue" (since it's only _because_ I "truly" promised you something that my failure to live up to that promise takes on any meaning).



The "truth" here is that a promise has been made, not that I shall necessarily keep the promise.



lucas-sp said:


> In other words, breaking a promise doesn't necessarily make me a "liar," it might make me "untrustworthy," "not as good as my word," "a cheat," etc.



I entirely agree.


----------



## lucas-sp

Prower said:


> Seems like vebs are still there.......By the way, some of them are simply *imperative*.


 Yes, there are _verbs_, but not necessarily _the performative verb_ ("I warn"). Another example of a performative with no verb is the _signature_, which is just your proper name in your own handwriting, and which means "I _endorse_ this utterance/document/statement."

Do you really want to read George's statement as a _promise_? To my mind, that would make him ethically-liable in iffy ways. That is, we wouldn't judge him as a scoundrel if he said "Hello again! Whoops, I forgot to mention that..." The judgment doesn't fit the performative, and for Austin the performative is meant as a tool for judging actions in language. (However, if I'm finally alone with someone I want to make out with after you have left us alone, saying "I'll leave you alone now," I might interpret _that_ as a promise if you came back - i.e., I might feel like you had betrayed your word to me, and possibly cost me my chance at a successful seduction.)


----------



## wandle

Any promise can be a lie, but the promise is still made by the utterance of it.
The parent promising to buy ice cream, or George undertaking not to post, could be lying, but they have still made the promise. If they made the promise honestly, but later went back on it, the promise has still been made and cannot be unmade.
Hence the uttering of it was performative.


----------



## Prower

Loob said:


> I don't think I agree with lucas on the first  point.  For me, a performative verb contains the action of the verb in  the 'saying' of the verb: so the verbs in "I apologise" and "I warn you"  are performative, but the verb in "I duck/George ducks" isn't.


What are the prerequisites to think so? By the way, *I duck* and *George ducks* are not the same......


Loob said:


> The reason I liked lucas's  "phatic meta-commentary that narrativizes the current communication" is  that it's a complicated/pompous-sounding way of saying something  simple.
> I don't see  any connection between performative verbs and the use of the present  simple as "lively narration" in commentaries.


Why not.... as long as it's helpful......



Loob said:


> No, sorry, I see no promise at all - no performative element at all - in George's comment.  It's a narrative description of what he is doing.


You don't have to apologize.... I just see the votes have split. 
*wandle, sdgraha and prower can see a *performative element while Loob and *lucas-sp (and some others) don't*


----------



## Loob

Loob now withdraws from this thread, which is going far too fast for her typing skills to keep up


(_Withdraws_ is narrative/commentary - not performative.)


----------



## Prower

lucas-sp said:


> Do you really want to read George's statement as a _promise_? To my mind, that would make him ethically-liable in iffy ways.


This is exactly the core of the issue. Are there any visual (tangible) signs which can prove (proclaim) that this sentence is definitely *not *a perfomative? (I now duck......)

If there is none, then I think we have rolled down to the level of subjective interpretations. 

I am starting to think that technically the two options are possible i.e. a) performative b) narrative


----------



## lucas-sp

Ok, a few more words on performatives (I promise!):





> a promise, once made, cannot be un-made just by saying something else.


Again, not exactly true. Since _utterances are actions_ once we have a concept of "speech-act theory," a performance _can be_ unmade by saying something. For instance, if you promise to get me a dog, but then you find out that the landlord will kick us out of the apartment if we get a dog, I could say to you "It's okay, I totally understand. You don't need to get me a dog" - which is one way of saying "I _free you_ from your promise." You can also say, "Actually I won't do that." Again, in all these situations our speech-acts open us up to ethical judgment. You might say after I free you from your obligation that I'm "reasonable" and "understanding" and "nice." I might say after you decide not to get me a dog that you're "fickle" or "you'll say anything just to get me to shut up" or "you don't really care about my feelings."





> The "truth" here is that a promise has been made, not that I shall necessarily keep the promise.


A truth-statement is defined as a _constative_. The constative "A promise has been made" is irreducible to the performative "I promise you..." For instance, imagine if you ask:

 - Will you get me a dog?

And I say:

 - I've made a promise to get you a dog! 

You might correctly assume that I'm refusing to _act in the present_ and _make a promise_ by phrasing it that way. I'm trying to weasel out of saying the important words. This is why you can't say "Yes!" or "Mmm hmm" instead of "I do" in the marriage ceremony, or "I've said it before and I'll say it again: We're getting married right now!"

A constative refers to an _anterior_ referent ("A promise has been made" - the promise has already been made). With a performative such as "I promise" there is no promise until _after _the performative has been uttered. So a performative, rigorously speaking, cannot be judged as true/false. Hence, again, why we have to judge it as "felicitous/infelicitous." And this can take years - for instance, a marriage pact can turn out to have been infelicitous after decades of marriage. This is what Cavell is talking about when he says that the performative _commits us_ to further speech and further speech-acts (and thus to the ethical problem of living together). Austin discusses this in the chapter on evaluating performatives in terms of "entailments." 





> The reason I liked lucas's "phatic meta-commentary that narrativizes the current communication" is that it's a complicated/pompous-sounding way of saying something simple.


Yup. That's theory for you!


----------



## lucas-sp

Finally:





> Any promise can be a lie, but the promise is still made by the utterance of it.


Ok. Austin rigorously says that promises _can't_ be lies, but they can be _insincere_. Again, the most important part of Austin's theory is that we judge statements in ways that are more varied, complex, and vital than true/false. "Insincerity" could be called "the falseness of performatives." Chapter 1 of Austin:





> Do we not actually, when such intention [to carry through with a promise] is absent, speak of a "false" promise? Yet so to speak is _not_ to say that the utterance "I promise that..." is false, *in the sense that though he states that he does, he doesn't, or that though he describes he misdescribes - misreports.* For he _does_ promise: the promise here is not even _void_, even though it is given _in bad faith_. His utterance is perhaps misleading, probably deceitful and doubtless wrong, but it is not a lie or a misstatement. (bolding mine, HDTW 11)


There's also the case where a promise can be _rejected_ - if you promise to break up with your wife this month so you can keep seeing me, and I don't believe you're sincere, I might just say "Whatever" and walk away. Did you successfully/felicitously make me a promise, even if I refuse to have any hold on you or to be bound by the act of promising?

No need to throw Austin away, though. We could use the doctrine of forces instead: there's an illocutionary element to George's post (he _withdraws_ from the discussion) and a perlocutionary element as well (he _amuses_ us, he is _vivid_​ - he has an effect on the emotions and mental states of his interlocutors).


----------



## Pertinax

Lucas, I think we are largely in agreement.  But in the case of the promise, there is nothing that I can say, without the consent of the other party, to release myself morally from that promise.  In your example, it is the _other_ party that has released me from my promise.  The promise cannot be "unmade" by my words alone.

At any rate, regardless of your misgivings about my characterization of "performative", I think we agree that George's statement was not performative.


----------



## wandle

Personally, I can only repeat that it is performative:  not of ducking out, but of undertaking to duck out.
The plain 'I'm going' similarly performs not the going but the undertaking to go.


----------



## lucas-sp

If words are deeds (the core tenet of speech-_act_ theory), then there would have to be a way to _renege_ on or even _annul_​ a promise by means of words. "I promise to buy you a dog!" one day, and "Actually, I'm not going to buy you a dog." the next would be reneging on a promise by speech-acts. I could also _convince you_ that you don't actually want a dog in the first place (although that's not a performative/illocutionary, but a perlocutionary, act), and thus get you to free me from the promise - entirely by means of words...

The point is, once you've made a performative, you're open to ethical judgment (you've committed yourself to moral evaluation): you "took too long" getting me a dog, or you "waited just long enough to surprise me, which was really nice!" You've made a moral commitment to live up to (or break) your word, and in a multiplicity of ways, by actions in speech or otherwise.


----------



## Prower

wandle said:


> Personally, I can only repeat that it is performative:


Agree.


----------



## Pertinax

lucas-sp said:


> If words are deeds (the core tenet of speech-_act_ theory), then there would have to be a way to _renege_ on or even _annul_​ a promise by means of words. "I promise to buy you a dog!" one day, and "Actually, I'm not going to buy you a dog." the next would be reneging on a promise by speech-acts. I could also _convince you_ that you don't actually want a dog in the first place (although that's not a performative/illocutionary, but a perlocutionary, act), and thus get you to free me from the promise - entirely by means of words...



I certainly accept that you can renege on a promise (if you are a bounder and a cad ).  I deny that I can ever annul a promise without the consent of the other party - in other words, it is his words, not mine, that void the promise.  And I am certainly within my rights to plead with him.  We could debate at length about the morality of other means of pressuring him...


----------



## Loob

Loob returns (_narrative/commentary, not performative_ - _I told you my previous "withdraws" wasn't performative!_)





Prower said:


> wandle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Personally, I can only repeat that it is  performative:
> 
> 
> 
> Agree.
Click to expand...

That's your prerogative, Prower.

But you're going to be awfully confused if you ever listen to any football commentaries.


----------



## JamesM

So, if I say "I see your point", the "see" is performative?  I don't see how the construction _requires_ it to be called performative.  I agree with Loob.  It is a commentary of some kind, a narrative.

"So I walk into the house and I see Linda sitting on the couch, eating my potato chips.  I tell her to stop."  None of this is performative, in my understanding of the term.  It is present tense narrative.


----------



## lucas-sp

That's why Austin repeats "our word is our _bond_" - it ties us to others, and to language. When we do illocutionary and perlocutionary speech-acts, we entail ourselves in an ongoing engagement with others (present and absent - think about Hamlet promising to do things for his dead father) that can only take place through language.

But breaking a promise doesn't necessarily mean that I'll be judged ethically wanting. It just means that I'll be _open to ethical judgment_. For instance, if I promise to be there tomorrow, but then my wife gets hit by a car and I rush to the hospital to be with her and thus don't show up at the meeting, you would probably say that I had made the right decision by breaking my promise.


----------



## lucas-sp

JamesM said:


> So, if I say "I see your point", the "see" is performative?  I don't see how the construction _requires_ it to be called performative.  I agree with Loob.  It is a commentary of some kind, a narrative.


It's _phatic_, in other words. It comments on the situation of your communication.


----------



## JamesM

Can you give the definition of phatic as you are using it here?


----------



## wandle

> you're going to be awfully confused if you ever listen to any football commentaries


A comment on football which says: 'Beckham shoots..he scores!' is not performative but descriptive.
But the football manager who said 'I promise results, not promises' was in fact making a promise. His statement was performative of the promise, but not of the results.
'His statement was performative of the promise' does not mean 'his statement delivered the results promised'. It means 'his statement brought the promise into being'.
Likewise George's statement 'I now duck' did not deliver the act of ducking out. 
It brought into being the promise of ducking out. That is what it performed.


----------



## lucas-sp

Wow, I defined that a long time ago, didn't I?





> _I would say that this is more a case of the __phatic function of communication described by Roman Jakobson: language about establishing and negotiating the contact between the various speakers and listeners (so anything from "Hello?" to "Can you repeat that?"). Some phatic utterances are in the present non-continuous ("I can hear you now," "I bid you adieu," "We now return you to your regularly-scheduled programming"). This can be understood as a kind of meta-commentary on the communication that's going on, in the manner of a sports broadcast._


There's a wiki article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakobson's_functions_of_language

When you say "I see your point" you remark on the fact that there has been clear communication ("I got that"). There's also an _e__motive_ function, inasmuch as you express that you, the addresser, have a certain mental state or attitude at the current time.


----------



## JamesM

wandle said:
			
		

> A comment on football which says: 'Beckham shoots..he scores!' is not performative but descriptive.
> But the football manager who said 'I promise results, not promises' was in fact making a promise.



Ah!  That makes sense to me.  "I duck" falls into the descriptive category to me.  "I quit" falls into the performative category for me.  I don't see how "I duck" is not really descriptive of the action. We can't see him so he is painting a picture of what he is doing/about to do.


----------



## Loob

wandle said:


> Likewise George's statement 'I now duck' did not deliver the act of ducking out.


That's why, to me, it's not performative - unlike "I apologise", which _does _deliver the act of apologising_._


----------



## JamesM

lucas-sp said:


> Wow, I defined that a long time ago, didn't I?There's a wiki article here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jakobson's_functions_of_language
> 
> When you say "I see your point" you remark on the fact that there has been clear communication ("I got that"). There's also an _e__motive_ function, inasmuch as you express that you, the addresser, have a certain mental state or attitude at the current time.



Sorry.   I missed that.  Yes, I agree.  It matches that definition for me.


----------



## lucas-sp

I think it's most like "I bid you farewell" or "I'm hanging up now" in that it refers to and draws the boundaries of the conversation. OK, I'm talking myself into thinking that it's a performative, because he changes his status in relation to the conversation as a result of saying it. I prefer the phatic interpretation, though...


----------



## wandle

> That's why, to me, it's not performative


Still seems to miss the point that 'I now duck' creates the promise to leave. 
That act of _making_ the promise is where it is performative.


----------



## JamesM

But wouldn't that be "I promise to duck" or "I assure you I will duck"?  That's not what he's saying.  He's describing what he is doing.

If I say "I now take a step back to avoid being spit on again" I am not promising to step back.  I am describing what I am doing.  It is not a contract of some kind.  It is a description of an action I am already taking (or just about to take).


----------



## wandle

> But wouldn't that be "I promise to duck" or "I assure you I will duck"?


Those are additional ways to promise.
If he goes back on the statement 'I now duck' he is open to ethical judgement as much as if he went back on one of the longer statements.


----------



## lucas-sp

Remember, it's not "I duck" as in "I bow my head down," but "I duck out of the conversation" - "I now define myself as someone not participating in this conversation and leave you to discuss amongst yourselves." That does seem to change the ethical situation of speech, since after that we aren't necessarily obliged to take George's opinions or competencies into account, to respond to his statements, etc.

I don't get the promise. I wouldn't _judge_ George as someone who made a promise in this circumstance. (Although, as I said, there are situations where "I'm ducking out now" could be judged as a promise.)

Compare it to someone who says, on the phone, "Allright, that settles that. Goodbye! ... Oh wait! Are you still there? I wanted to ask you..." The phatic "Goodbye!" does enact something - it changes the parameters of the conversation, and brings it to a close. The next phatic "Are you still there?" attempts to be another performative, by changing the parameters of the conversation once again (bringing it back to life, as it were). But it could easily be infelicitous, if the person has already hung up. 

The original "Goodbye!" demonstrates its (slight?) performativity by having an effect on how we interpret the rest of the utterances. Compare the original line to: "Allright, that settles that. Also, I wanted to ask you..." Something happened in the original dialogue that didn't happen (or happened differently) in this one.


----------



## JamesM

I suppose I'm simply looking at it from a practical standpoint.  It may be different from a purely theoretical point of view.  If someone in a thread on a forum says "I now duck to avoid the flying tomatoes" I neither think that anyone is throwing tomatoes nor that the person is "promising" to duck.    He is painting a humorous picture of his reaction to the opposition he expects to encounter as a result of his comments.

I don't take George's "I now duck" to mean the same thing as "I now duck out".  That may be an AE/BE difference.


----------



## Loob

wandle said:


> Still seems to miss the point that 'I now duck' creates the promise to leave.
> That act of _making_ the promise is where it is performative.


Perhaps we're using different terminology, wandle. "Performative", to me, means that the use of the word creates the action - not the promise of the action, or the hint of the action, or the expectation of the action.

"I apologise" is performative: if you say "I apologise", then you are making an apology - not a promise to apologise, but an actual apology.  If you say "I resign", you are undertaking the act of resigning - you're not promising to resign or threatening to resign, you're actually undertaking the act of resigning.

If you say "I duck" or "George ducks", you're describing, not implementing....


----------



## wandle

> it's not "I duck" as in "I bow my head down," but "I duck out of the conversation"


Don't see that that makes a difference. The same point would apply to both meanings.
There is a sense in which explicit statements of promise such as 'I promise you I am ducking out' are redundant. 'I duck out' or 'I am ducking out' creates the obligation equally well.


----------



## Loob

wandle said:


> Don't see that that makes a difference. The same point would apply to both meanings.
> There is a sense in which explicit statements of promise such as 'I promise you I am ducking out' are redundant. 'I duck out' or 'I am ducking out' creates the obligation equally well.


But see my post immediately before yours, wandle....


----------



## lucas-sp

It makes a huge difference! "I duck under my desk" is constative, referring to an action. "I'm ducking out of the conversation now" is a way of saying "Goodbye!", of performing your withdrawal from a conversation, of thus modifying the parameters of a communicative situation (by removing one of its poles in a particular fashion - "gracefully" and "winkingly," perhaps, or even "teasingly"), and only in this way could it be an action itself.

Are you arguing that all future-tense statements are implicitly performatives in that a speaker _promises_ to do her utmost to make them come true? So if I say "I'm going to France next year," I'm in fact _promising_​ to go to France next year, even if I decide to go to Germany later because my uncle invited me to stay with him? I just don't think that you'd hold me to the ethical standard of a promise in that situation.


----------



## Pertinax

wandle said:


> Don't see that that makes a difference. The same point would apply to both meanings.
> There is a sense in which explicit statements of promise such as 'I promise you I am ducking out' are redundant. 'I duck out' or 'I am ducking out' creates the obligation equally well.



I don't see the obligation.  If I say "I'm going out now.", then I notice that it's raining, and I say "Oops. Not yet." then in what sense am I breaching an obligation?

Edit: cross-posted with Lucas.


----------



## lucas-sp

My sense is that to view such statements as "promises" would be to devalue the concept of "promising" by over-generalizing it. There are certainly situations where a simple future-tense sentence will be a promise ("Whatever happens, I'll be there to support you at the big game"), but it would somehow degrade the ethical notion of "promise" if every future-tense sentence is to be a promise.

Or even if we are supposed to be obligated to "promise" that our statements are constatively "true." (So that if I said "I'm gonna duck under this table!" I actually meant that I was going to duck under this table.) Then we wouldn't be able to bullshit, or be ironic, or fantasize...


----------



## wandle

> Perhaps we're using different terminology.


Two quotes from a paper by Wüstholz bring out the difference between an implicit performative utterance such as 'I now duck' and an explicit one such as 'I promise you I am ducking'.

http://www.filodoofus.ch/daten/stating_talk.pdf

"By adding a specific formula to an implicit performative utterance like ‘I will be there’, the implicit features of the speech-situation are made explicit."

"In circumstances which are explicit enough, so that both the speaker and the audience are fully aware of the utterance’s illocutionary force, there seems to be no need to add an explicit formula."


----------



## JamesM

From the same article:



> However, not every formula which comes in the first person singular present indicative active can be used in making explicit what action is thereby performed. I cannot use the formula ‘I insult you’ in order to make explicit that I am thereby insulting you, even though the circumstances may yield that by uttering something else, I am in fact insulting you. Therefore, only some formulas are in fact explicit formulas.



I think that's Loob's point.  Some utterances in this format are performative; some are not.


----------



## Loob

wandle said:


> Two quotes from a paper by Wüstholz bring out the difference between an implicit performative utterance such as 'I now duck' and an explicit one such as 'I promise you I am ducking'.
> 
> http://www.filodoofus.ch/daten/stating_talk.pdf
> 
> "By adding a specific formula to an implicit performative utterance like ‘I will be there’, the implicit features of the speech-situation are made explicit."
> 
> "In circumstances which are explicit enough, so that both the speaker and the audience are fully aware of the utterance’s illocutionary force, there seems to be no need to add an explicit formula."


Sorry, wandle, I'm too tired (it's 2:30 am for me) to really absorb the thrust of the paper you linked to.  But I still suspect that we're using different terminology.

EDIT: Oh, I've just seen James's post.  Yes, I think that is the point I'm making!

Time for bed, said zebedeee...


----------



## wandle

> Therefore, only some formulas are in fact explicit formulas.
> I think that's Loob's point. Some utterances in this format are performative; some are not.


 'Only some formulas are in fact explicit formulas.' 
This is my point. Some promises include the explicit 'I promise': some do not.


----------



## wandle

> I don't see the obligation.


There seem to be two obligations in 'I now duck'. There is the general obligation we always owe in language, and particularly language about ourselves, to let our words correspond with reality.  And, more important, there is the obligation we create by committing ourselves to do something.
In this case, George is creating the expectation among the other participants that he will not be sticking his nose into the matter again.  For what it is worth in this situation (not a lot), he is under an obligation to them to make his word good.


----------



## Loob

Right, it really is time for me to go to bed!

But before I do, I think I just want to repeat that for me, George's post is creating no obligation: it's simply a (narrative) description of a current action.

Perhaps someone should invite George to come back and explain what he meant?


----------



## JamesM

wandle said:


> There seem to be two obligations in 'I now duck'. There is the general obligation we always owe in language, and particularly language about ourselves, to let our words correspond with reality.  And, more important, there is the obligation we create by committing ourselves to do something.
> In this case, George is creating the expectation among the other participants that he will not be sticking his nose into the matter again.  For what it is worth in this situation (not a lot), he is under an obligation to them to make his word good.



As I said before, that would be "I now duck *out*" to me, not "I now duck".  They mean two very different things to me.  (Besides, I would expect it to be "I'm ducking out now" or "I'll duck out now".)

If I say "I'm ducking now" to my wife her response would most likely be "Why?  Do you think I'm going to throw something at you?"   If I say "I'm ducking out now" her response would most likely be "OK... when do you plan to be back?"  And in both cases these would be descriptive (or phatic, as lucas-sp calls it), in my opinion, not performative.


----------



## Prower

JamesM said:


> But wouldn't that be "I promise to duck" or "I assure you I will duck"?  That's not what he's saying.  He's describing what he is doing.
> 
> If I say "I now take a step back to avoid being spit on again" I am not promising to step back.  I am describing what I am doing.  It is not a contract of some kind.  It is a description of an action I am already taking (or just about to take).


It's a good point, but in this case you have to explain why you are not using PRESENT CONTINUOUS. Could you provide a context for this sentence? If it's a computer game I can see how it can fit, but it wouldn't be narrating anyway.


----------



## Prower

Loob said:


> Perhaps we're using different terminology, wandle. "Performative", to me, means that the use of the word creates the action - not the promise of the action, or the hint of the action, or the expectation of the action.


But this is exactly what George did not promised. He ducked.


----------



## Prower

Let's try to look at it from another point of view. I would like to ask those who don't find this sentence (I now duck and let the pedants sort it out') to be *performative *

Why do you think that 

1) *I now pronounce you husband and wife (is performative but not descriptive)*
while 
2) *I **now duck and let the pedants sort it out' **(is descriptive)

Why is "**I now pronounce you husband and wife" not **descriptive in your opinion?*


----------



## JamesM

Prower said:


> It's a good point, but in this case you have to explain why you are not using PRESENT CONTINUOUS. Could you provide a context for this sentence? If it's a computer game I can see how it can fit, but it wouldn't be narrating anyway.



I'm not sure where you got the idea that we _must_ use present continuous.  (And please don't use all capital letters; it is considered shouting in forum conventions and there is no need to shout.)

In a speech I can say "I leave office knowing that I did a good job for my constituents" or I can say "I am leaving office with the knowledge that I did a good job for my constituents".  Neither one is precluded.  Both describe what I am doing.  Neither is performative, in my understanding of the term.


----------



## JamesM

Prower said:


> Let's try to look at it from another point of view. I would like to ask those who don't find this sentence (I now duck and let the pedants sort it out') to be *performative *
> 
> Why do you think that
> 
> 1) *I now pronounce you husband and wife (is performative but not descriptive)*
> while
> 2) *I **now duck and let the pedants sort it out' **(is descriptive)
> 
> Why is "**I now pronounce you husband and wife" not **descriptive in your opinion?*



In my understanding of performative, speaking the words is the only action required to change the state of things.  If the minister says "I now pronounce you man and wife" (or "husband and wife" or something similar) the act is completed by the speaking of the words.  If I say "I resign/quit", the action is completed simply by speaking the words.  Once I speak those words I have resigned from/quit the job.  There is no promise of some future action.  The words themselves are the action.

If I say "I now duck" the words in themselves do not complete the action.  I then also have to duck.  I am describing what I am doing or about to do.


----------



## Prower

JamesM said:


> I'm not sure where you got the idea that we _must_ use present continuous.  (And please don't use all capital letters; it is considered shouting in forum conventions and there is no need to shout.)


If you try to draw a line between the usages of present continuous and present simple you will undertand it. _(I used all the capital letters only to describe the name of the tense, by the way.)
_


JamesM said:


> In a speech I can say "I leave office knowing that I did a good job for my constituents" or I can say "I am leaving office with the knowledge that I did a good job for my constituents".  Neither one is precluded.  Both describe what I am doing.  Neither is performative, in my understanding of the term.


Defenitely you can! However, in this case you must be saying that there is no difference between 

1) "I leave office knowing that I did a good job for my constituents" 
2) "I am leaving office with the knowledge that I did a good job for my constituents".

Is it what you mean? There is no difference between the 1 and 2, is there?


----------



## JamesM

No, there is no difference between the two, in my opinion.  1) is more formal and less conversational but it communicates the same information as 2).

I think somehow you have formed the false impression that there *must* be a difference in meaning simply because there is a difference in tense.  Present continuous and present simple sometimes overlap.

I feel tense.
I'm feeling tense.

The present continuous has more of a sense of immediacy but there isn't any substantive difference between these two sentences.


----------



## Prower

JamesM said:


> In my understanding of performative, speaking the words is the only action required to change the state of things.  If the minister says "I now pronounce you man and wife" (or "husband and wife" or something similar) the act is completed by the speaking of the words.  If I say "I resign/quit", the action is completed simply by speaking the words.  Once I speak those words I have resigned from/quit the job.  There is no promise of some future action.  The words themselves are the action.
> 
> If I say "I now duck" the words in themselves do not complete the action.  I then also have to duck.  I am describing what I am doing or about to do.


It is not exactly the truth. In most of the cases it is not enough just to pronounce someone husband and wife. It is also necessary to make some records in some books and papers. 
Speaking of "resigning", I think you can imagine yourself how long it may take to really resign. I think that any performative verb entails a certain "tail" which can be classified as an action or the lack of the action which is also an action.

*I now promise not to smoke again. 

*As you see a person is going to perform the action of refraining from smoking.


----------



## Prower

JamesM said:


> No, there is no difference between the two, in my opinion.  1) is more formal and less conversational but it communicates the same information as 2).
> 
> I think somehow you have formed the false impression that there must be a difference between meanings simply because there is a difference in tense.  Present continuous and present simple sometimes overlap.
> 
> I feel tense.
> I'm feeling tense.


It's not my opinion this is how all grammarians teach. 

So you are saying that

*Why do you laugh = Why are you laughing (now)?
*


----------



## JamesM

In many contexts, yes.  

"I'm taking ballet."  (Friend laughs) "Why do you laugh?"
"I'm taking ballet." (Friend laughs) "Why are you laughing?"

Both are possible.  Both mean the same thing, in my opinion.  I don't think there's any point in continuing with endless variations on the theme.


----------



## Prower

JamesM said:


> In many contexts, yes.


I would say the contrary. In a very few contexts they may mean the same not in many.


JamesM said:


> "I'm taking ballet."  (Friend laughs) "Why do you laugh?"
> "I'm taking ballet." (Friend laughs) "Why are you laughing?"



Both are possible.  Both mean the same thing, in my opinion.  I don't think there's any point in continuing with endless variations on the theme.[/QUOTE]

It's kind of strange as Thomas Tompion doesn't seem to share this idea with such an ease.

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1927422
*TT says: *I'm afraid I think _Why do you laugh? in such circumstances would be rather an old-fashioned way of speaking, or at least a self-consciously literary one._


----------



## JamesM

Prower said:


> It is not exactly the truth. In most of the cases it is not enough just to pronounce someone husband and wife. It is also necessary to make some records in some books and papers.



This is true.  However, they perform those actions as husband and wife now.  Their state has changed, even though the legal niceties must be observed. (This example is not as clear as "I quit".)

Speaking of "resigning", I think you can imagine yourself how long it may take to really resign. [/quote]

Yes, "resigning" is more of a lengthy process.  Quitting isn't.  That's why I prefer it as an example.  The fact of the matter is, once I speak those words my state has changed.  I am no longer an employee of that firm.  I can't say "I quit and I'll come back tomorrow and sign those sales agreements before I fill out my termination papers and collect my check."  I am no longer in the state of "employee in good standing", if you will. 

It is different from something like "I'm divorcing you", for example.  I can't say "I divorce you" and then at that moment change states to being a divorcee.  I can only describe/state my intentions.  The words themselves don't do anything in regard to our state of marriage.

I think we're talking at cross purposes here.  Perhaps Loob was right: we have different definitions for the terms.  I'm not sure I see any value in continuing the discussion.


----------



## JamesM

Prower said:


> I would say the contrary. In a very few contexts they may mean the same not in many.
> 
> It's kind of strange as Thomas Tompion doesn't seem to share this idea with such an ease.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1927422
> *TT says: *I'm afraid I think _Why do you laugh? in such circumstances would be rather an old-fashioned way of speaking, or at least a self-consciously literary one._
Click to expand...


He doesn't say it means anything different or that it is not possible.  He only expresses an opinion on the character of its use.  This seems more like an argument than a discussion at this point.  I'm bowing out of the thread.  (You're welcome to argue about whether "I'm bowing out of the thread" is performative or descriptive to your heart's content.   )


----------



## lucas-sp

*1. *About the Wusthölz thing: there are obvious errors in that article, like viewing "I threaten you" as a performative, when in fact it is a perlocutionary and not an illocutionary act. (Which means, the sentence "I threaten you!" is absolutely not a performative, just like the sentence "I convince you" is not performative - I can't necessarily perform "convincing" by saying "I convince you," while I can usually, except in cases of infelicity, perform naming/warning/announcing/welcoming/concluding by saying "I n/w/a/w/c." To threaten/convince/persuade/seduce/excite your interlocutor, you can't just say "I t/c/p/s/e you," you have to do it by unsystamatizable, unformalizable means. I can threaten you by saying anything at all, in fact. Cavell calls this speech, speech which acts on the affects of the interlocutor, "passional" speech - and its function is different than, if in some ways similar to, performative speech.) 

But overall, there are some good points, most notably the one which makes me wonder about "performative" in this discussion at all (*here's the important part, for those of you who are in the TL;DR mindset and I completely understand that*): _there is absolutely no rule stating that the performative verb must appear in the performative statement (or utterance) in the present simple tense non-continuous aspect first person active voice._ You can "promise" without saying "I promise," you can "warn" without saying "I warn," you can "conclude" without saying "I conclude." You can even "promise" by saying "I'm promising you, I won't miss it." So the _tense, aspect, person, and voice of the verb _are completely up for grabs, even when a performative statement is in question.

Basically, even if we decide that George made a performative statement (and now I kindof think he did), that would not suffice as an explanation for the _tense, person, aspect, and voice_ of the verb he used to do so.

*2. *As to entailment: Yes, Austin discusses precisely this. This is the point of performatives: they tie us into future acts, whether speech acts or otherwise (and remember, signature is a speech act - so signing your name to the marriage license counts). This is also why your future actions after a promise will decide the "felicity" of that promise.

*3. *As to leaving your office: "resign" is the performative verb. I can resign by saying "I resign," I can resign by saying "I now leave office...", I can resign by saying "I am now leaving office...", etc. The particular phrasing will decide which phrases are constative and which performative.

Politicians have to say "I resign" in some manner or other, just as they have to take oaths of office before they're actually endowed with their job. They then say "I'm leaving to spend more time with my family" (or whatever). At that point, the action has already been accomplished, and they're in the vagaries of entailment, trying to define the ethical status of their action(s).

*4. *And finally:





> There is the general obligation we always owe in language, and particularly language about ourselves, to let our words correspond with reality.


Is this at all an obligation? There's a big problem here, and one that Austin's theory runs into very quickly. Austin was unable to cope with any "insincere" or "contrafactual" uses of language in HDTW (as Jacques Derrida points out, a bit too simplistically, in "Signature Event Context"). Austin just condemns all such speech - plays, poems, irony, bullshitting, metaphors, playing make-believe, telling jokes, etc. - to what he calls "parasitism" on "ordinary" language. I don't personally think that Austin would say that we always have an ethical obligation to "tell the truth" or to phrase our statements in accordance with any "reality," whether metaphysical or social. (My justification for thinking that he's actually kindof okay with such "parasites" is based on his reading of Euripides in Lecture 1 of HDTW and in his constant and colorful metaphorical language.) I don't particularly think that we have such an obligation to always "make our speech correspond with reality." In fact, I feel like such a claim is precisely what Austin's theory is supposed to explode or render uninteresting. 

There are so many other things we do when speaking that the Fregeian claim that "the function of speech is to tell the truth, i.e., to conform to preexisting facts" is rather boring and philosophically incomplete inasmuch as it refuses to deal with all kinds of human experience (those in which "not telling the truth" is not the most important judgment we can make about a speech-act), according to Austin. The theory of performatives is one step in the direction of establishing a philosophical vocabulary for dealing with speech that doesn't _comply_ with facts, but instead _creates and interacts with_ them.

Basically, what ends up happening is that Austin separates the forces of language into three categories (locutionary, illocutionary, and perlocutionary) that roughly correspond to the three categories of philosophical judgment (epistemological, ethical, and aesthetic). The performative corresponds to the second of these categories.


----------



## Prower

JamesM said:


> He doesn't say it means anything different or that it is not possible.


I think he says that it is not idiomatic. But even nonidiomatic things are possible. I agree.



JamesM said:


> This seems more like an argument than a discussion at this point.  I'm bowing out of the thread.


Well, if I hadn't been giving some sound reasoning than it would have been arguing, otherwise it is a discussion. It's fair to say that even every discussion has an elemnt of arguing. Maybe others would profit from your abiding here, but alas!


----------



## Pertinax

lucas-sp said:


> Incorrect. Performatives are _by definition_ not true or false, they're happy or unhappy. I can promise to pay you on Tuesday and then gamble all the money away in the meantime, making my performative "infelicitous" (inasmuch as I failed to live up to my promise, I open myself to social censure and various other ethical judgments), but not "untrue" (since it's only _because_ I "truly" promised you something that my failure to live up to that promise takes on any meaning).
> 
> Austin's point in defining the performative is that we have _many other ways - and many more important ways - _of judging an utterance besides simply saying whether it is "true" or "false." (This is the big revision of Frege and his followers, who define the value of statements _only_ in terms of their truth-value.) For Austin, if we want to look at the ethical dimension of language, we have to look at the "felicity" and "infelicity" of our utterances. In other words, breaking a promise doesn't necessarily make me a "liar," it might make me "untrustworthy," "not as good as my word," "a cheat," etc.



Hi Lucas

I see where we differ on the underlying philosophy.  Performatives can also be understood as "self-verifying assertions", i.e. as utterances which are true by virtue of being uttered.  By this account, for example, the statement "I promise..." is always true, in the same way that "I pronounce you man and wife" is always true - at least if uttered by a qualified priest. Its "truth" is merely that the speaker has made a promise. This explanation preserves classical logic intact - i.e. that every sentence is either true or false.

There is a reference here (Searle was Austin's student):
_Searle (1989) mounts an argument against analyses of explicit performative utterances as self-verifying assertions. He takes the argument to show that an assertoric account is impossible. Instead, we take it to pose a challenge that can be met, provided one supplies the right semantics for the verbs involved._
http://universaar.uni-saarland.de/monographien/volltexte/2011/30/artikel/Condoravdi_Lauer_sub15.pdf

I don't think the philosophy affects the ultimate outcome.  I believe that we would in general agree on whether a statement is performative or not.


----------



## ribran

Prower said:


> I think he says that it is not idiomatic. But even nonidiomatic things are possible. I agree.



I don't agree that it's not idiomatic. Like James, I find it completely natural.


----------



## wandle

'Duck out'
If 'I now duck and let the pedants sort it out' is not saying 'I duck out', that is 'I withdraw and leave it to others', then what is it saying?
Since it does seem clearly to mean 'I withdraw and leave it to others', it is a performative utterance because the mere saying of it creates an undertaking by George to leave. 
It does not automatically bring into being his departure: it does automatically bring into being his _promise to depart_. That is where it is performative. It creates a promise.
Obligation
The general obligation we owe to each other to let our words correspond with reality seems to be universal (it applies to all communication, even non-verbal), vague (it shades off into humour, fantasy, error and lies), low-level (it does not create a strong binding duty - that is done by promises, solemn undertakings etc.) and non-specific (it is not determined by particular contexts).  If we did not credit each other with the intention to observe this obligation, we could not carry on this discussion or any other.
Continuous 
The present continuous is not a different tense from the present simple, it is just an aspect of the present tense, used for emphasis. Hence, the meaning of the continuous form is _already included_ in the meaning of the simple form.  The simple form includes other aspects as well as the continuous, but it includes all the continuous. Thus it is always possible to replace the continuous form by the simple form without any loss of meaning, but not _vice versa_.


----------



## Prower

wandle and ribran, I invite you to join this thread for the purpose of discussing *Present Simple = Present Continouos*. I think the main theme of this thread is about performative verbs. I think we shouldn't go astray. I have already posted my arguments and questions.

http://forum.wordreference.com/showthread.php?t=1927422&p=11772909#post11772909


----------

