2.3 Major Components of Promise
2.3.1 Propositional Content Condition
The most fundamental component of a promise is the propositional act delivering from a promiser to a promisee. The propositional act is usually an utterance or a statement which is made by the promiser to accomplish a future action (Searle, 1969). Two intrinsic parts should be included in a propositional act: the indicator of illocutionary force and the indicator of propositional content3. The illocutionary force indicative devices can be any feature of a language such as word order, intonation contour, performative verbs, etc., as long as it points out what the speaker is performing (Fraser, 1974; Searle, 1969). A promise would be considered defective if either of the two parts is missing, as shown below:
(5) I promise I‘ll be there tomorrow. (Mey, 2001:99) (6) Wo daying hui mai liwu huilai gei ni.
1SG promise will buy present back for 2SG
‗I promised to bring you presents.‘
In (5), the illocutionary force indicative device refers to the first half of the sentence ‗I promise‘, while the second half ‗I‘ll be there tomorrow‘ is the indicator of propositional content. In (6), the illocutionary force indicative device refers to the first half of the sentence wo daying ‗I promised‘, while the second half hui mai liwu huilai
gei ni ‗to bring you presents‘ is the indicator of propositional content. Sometimes,
these two parts are combined together and become difficult to distinguish in the surface structure (Searle, 1969), as in (7):(7) a. I promise that I will come.
b. I promise to come. (Searle, 1969: 30) In (7)a, the two parts are ―I promise‖ and ―that I will come‖. In (7)b, the same
3 These two terms are taken from Searle (1969:30).
illocutionary force indicative device and the indicator of propositional content lies in the deep structure, while in (7)a the boundary of the two parts is in the surface structure. However, both sentences involve the same underlying phrase marker ―I promise + I will come.‖ Similar sentences in Mandarin Chinese are shown in (8):
(8) a. Wo daying wo hui bang ni.
1SG promise 1SG will help 2SG
‗I promise that I will help you.‘
b. Wo daying bang.
1SG promise help
‗I promise to help.‘
In (8)a, the sentence can be clearly divided into the two parts wo daying ‗I promise‘
and wo hui bang ni ‗that I will help you‘. In (8)b, it is difficult to determine the boundary of the illocutionary force indicative device and the indicator of propositional content, but the same underlying phrase marker ―I promise + I will help you‖ lies in the deep structure as in (8)a.
An important element in the illocutionary force indicative device is the so-called performative verb ―promise‖. Without invoking an explicit illocutionary force indicative device, a promise may still be a promise. That is to say, without the performative verb, we can still explicitly express the speech act of a promise (Searle, 1969). Compare (9) to (7):
(9) I‘ll do it for you. (Searle, 1969:68) In (9), with the missing of the performative verb, we still can get the illocutionary force in this speech act. The main function of the performative verb is to present the satisfaction of the essentiality which is the obligation to finish a future action (Fraser, 1974; Searle, 1969). Thus, as long as the meaning of the utterance is clear and the essential condition of a promise is satisfied, the performative verb is no longer needed
in the speech act of promise. The speech act of a promise in Mandarin Chinese can also be well-interpreted without the performative verb, as in (10):
(10) Wo hui dasao fangjian de.
1SG will clean room EVI
‗I will clean up the room.‘
Unlike in (6) and (8), the performative verb of commissives daying ‗promise‘ is not uttered explicitly in (10). However, the illocutionary act is well understood with the speaker guaranteeing a future action; thus cleaning up the room, as uttered in this sentence, will be carried out. In Mandarin Chinese, it seems that the performative verb
daying ‗promise‘ is not commonly used. In Wang‘s (2009) study, the young
participants showed no sensitivities between the forms with or without the performative verb. To further prove this point, we had designed a questionnaire survey to investigate Chinese speaker‘s usage of the performative verb daying‗promise.‘ In the result, we found that among the 50 adult Chinese speakers, none of them had employed the performative verb daying ‗promise‘ to make a promise.
To make a promise, there are many effective ways, as long as the two elements mentioned above—the indicator of illocutionary force and the indicator of propositional content—are expressed either explicitly or implicitly. Sometimes, the content of the promise can be implied in the context, and the context can determine if a specific expression counts as a promise (Mey, 2001; Searle, 1969). Therefore, a simple affirmative expression, such as ―OK‖ or ―Sure‖, can be recognized as a promise, as in (11):
(11) A: Shall we meet at the theater at 7?
B: OK!
In (11), A will consider B as having made a promise since the content of the promise
―to meet at the theater at 7‖ is shown in the context. Hence, B has to take responsibility if B does not show up at the theater at 7 o‘clock.
In Mandarin Chinese, the basic form of making a promise is simply wo daying
ni ‗I promise you.‘ The subject, which is usually first person wo ‗I‘, and the object, ni
‗you‘, will not be omitted (Chang, 2007; Dong, 2010). Following the basic form, an explanation of the concrete content of the commitment will be elaborated. Therefore, a common strategy of making a promise will be the basic form adding another complete sentence: Wo daying ni + S ‗I promise you + S‘ (Dong, 2010). Nevertheless, this common form of making a promise is usually used in written language such as a fiction or a script.