6.7 Discussion 187with the development of performative I promise discussed by Traugott and
Dasher ( 2002 : 205– 206). As they note, “Recruiting a verb designating a cer-
tain kind of locution (itself ultimately derived from an originally spatial lex-
eme) to performative use involves recruiting it from the domain of content
semantics to function also as a procedural indexing the kind of discourse being
engaged in” (2002: 209). As a performative, I admit functions as the speaker’s
acknowledgment of the validity of the complement clause (often despite some
reluctance or reservation on the part of the speaker in doing so). The later
appearance of non- performative you admit shows the rise of a similar proce-
dural meaning ; here the speaker claims the hearer’s agreement to the validity
of the complement clause (again with the recognition of some hesitancy on
the part of the hearer in doing so). Both show a shift from truth- conditional >
non- truth- conditional and from content > content/ procedural meaning with
increasing subjectivity / intersubjectivity , all of which is expected in semantic
change (Traugott and Dasher 2002 : 40).
The development of the epistemic parentheticals I/ you (modal) admit must
be seen as a direct line from the procedural uses (performative and non- per-
formative) of admit. I admit is analogous to the case of parenthetical I prom-
ise (see Traugott 1993 , 1997 ; Traugott and Dasher 2002: 204– 214). There is
no evidence that adverbial structures such as as I admit (contra Fischer , see
above, 6.5.1) contributed to the rise of the parenthetical. Traugott and Dasher
argue that “[t] he most likely source of the epistemic parenthetical I promise
thee/ yow is in the illocutionary use of promise” (2002: 209).^17 Promise origi-
nates as a control verb with a clausal/ nominal complement. It then develops
speech act uses carrying commissive illocutionary force (e.g., she promised
to come back ). In the late fi fteenth century, fi rst- person performative uses
arise (e.g., I promise I will help/ to help ). Finally, I promise develops into a
“formulaic epistemic parenthetical” (e.g., I will help, I promise you ). The
parenthetical is “subjective and modal in character. At the same time there
is some intersubjectivity , because its use suggests is an acknowledgment by
the speaker that the hearer may doubt “the veracity of what is being said”
(Traugott and Dasher 2002 : 206). Epistemic parentheticals thus function
“somewhat like epistemic speech act adverbials” (Traugott and Dasher 2002 :
207). Syntactically, this supports the matrix clause hypothesis , with loss of
the complementizer that leading to indeterminate structures where the ori-
ginal main clause can be reanalyzed as parenthetical. The earlier appearance
of full structures with that , followed by deletion of that , would appear to be
evidence supporting Thompson and Mulac ’s ( 1991 ) scenario for the origin
17 Performatives and parentheticals have traditionally been equated (see Ifantidou 2001 : 120–
124); both are “illocutionary force indictors,” are non- truth- conditional, and do not contribute
to the propositional content. However, while performatives “do,” parentheticals “orient.”