Commanding is meant to create an obligating reason for another, while requesting is meant to create a non-obligating one. Promising is meant to create an obligating reason for self. There is a natural spot in illocutionary space, then, for a speech act meant to create a non-obligating reason for self, a speech act type that stands to promising as requesting does to commanding.
We would expect that when I have a normative power, I also have the corresponding weaker powers. If a legislature can bind under pain of ten years' imprisonment, they can bind under pain of a week's imprisonment. If I can create an obligating reason for myself, I can create a non-obligating reason for myself. That's another reason to think that we would have the "weak promise" speech act that creates non-obligating reasons.
I am not sure we have good phrases to express weak promises. We can approximate the force of a weak promise by weaselly promissory wordage like "I'll try to do this" or "I'll take your needs into account".
Perhaps there is something to be said for our authority over ourselves in comparison to our authority over others? Even if a given course of action is good for someone else, I may not have the authority to command him to take that course of action; but if a given course of action is good for me, I always have the authority to oblige myself to take it.
ReplyDeleteGood point. But it would be good to be able to bind oneself less than a promise does, since every promise exposes one to the risk of not doing so.
ReplyDeleteIn Spanish the word 'tomorrow' is used sometimes in phrases to make a weak promise about future actions.
ReplyDelete"I hope to" said in a context where it's meant to offer some assurance (rather than just be a piece of autobiography) may be a weak promise, too.
ReplyDelete