ABSTRACT
Warnings are thus like promises and threats in that they refer to possible future actions (Fraser 1975, 1998). They are different from promises in that the future action is not in the hearer’s best interest; they are different from threats, a special type of warning (Fraser 1975, 1998), in that the future action will be the result of the hearer’s actions, not the action of the one doing the threatening. I have suggested that evidence of the close similarity between warnings and promises, if we categorize a threat as a special type of warning, is illustrated by the frequent occurrence in informal conversation of the joking rejoinder, “Is that a threat or a promise?” (Dumas 1992: 268). Warnings may be either direct or indirect and either literal or nonliteral. That is, many
warnings are highly context-dependent, and their interpretation may depend upon lesser or greater amounts of inferencing. They can also be categorized as categorical warnings or hypothetical warnings. Searle suggests that categorical warnings fulfill the function of advising, not requesting. Such warnings inform hearers or readers that certain results will follow certain modes of behavior, but the warnings do not attempt to get a given individual to modify his or her behavior. An example, tongue-in-cheek, is a statement on a menu that says, “Eating Any Selection From The Enclosed MENU Can Be Dangerously Habit Forming!”
