Paper: add Austin's speech act theory as foundational framework

Austin's How to Do Things with Words (1962) provides the most direct
theoretical grounding for Layer 4:
- Locutionary act → syntax (Layer 1)
- Illocutionary act → operational semantics (Layer 3)
- Perlocutionary act → decision trace consequences (Layer 4)
- Felicity conditions → type system (what makes a speech act valid)
- Preparatory conditions → given clause (when a branch is appropriate)

De Man extends Austin: performatives can turn on themselves (parabasis).
In 007, this is agents overriding given predicates — infelicitous but
type-safe speech acts recorded in the trace.

Also added Peirce to bibliography (pragmatist semantics).

Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 4.6 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>

Author: hyperpolymath

docs/paper/007-agent-meta-language.tex

@@ -205,6 +205,55 @@ \subsection{Layer 4: The Hermeneutic Layer}
 that agent interpretation resists formalisation entirely. Either result is
 valuable.
 
+\subsection{Austin's Speech Acts and Agent Performatives}
+
+Austin's speech act theory \cite{austin1962} provides the most direct
+theoretical foundation for Layer 4. Every 007 statement is a
+\emph{performative utterance}---it does not describe the world but acts
+upon it. \texttt{spawn Worker()} creates an agent. \texttt{send message to
+target} performs communication. \texttt{branch traced "triage"} enacts a
+decision and simultaneously records the enactment.
+
+Austin's three-part analysis maps precisely to 007's architecture:
+
+\begin{itemize}
+\item \textbf{Locutionary act} (what is said): the syntax---the parsed
+      grammar, Layer 1.
+\item \textbf{Illocutionary act} (what is done in saying it): the
+      operational semantics---spawn, send, branch---Layer 3. The
+      \emph{force} of the speech act.
+\item \textbf{Perlocutionary act} (what happens because of saying it):
+      the decision trace---the consequence observed after the fact. This
+      is Layer 4's territory. The perlocutionary effect depends on context,
+      other agents, accumulated state---it is not determined by the
+      illocutionary force alone.
+\end{itemize}
+
+Austin's \textbf{felicity conditions}---the conditions under which a
+speech act succeeds---are precisely the type system. A \texttt{send\_final}
+is only \emph{felicitous} if the handle is linear and unconsumed (L7).
+A \texttt{spawn} is only felicitous if capabilities do not escalate beyond
+the parent's. The type checker verifies felicity conditions on
+performative utterances.
+
+The \texttt{given} clause corresponds to Austin's \textbf{preparatory
+conditions}---the circumstances that should obtain for the speech act to
+be appropriate (not merely valid). The predicates in \texttt{given} are
+suggestions about when the branch is felicitous, but the agent may
+override---exactly as Austin noted that performative utterances can be
+\emph{infelicitous} (misfires, abuses) without being syntactically invalid.
+The trace records whether the felicity conditions were met or overridden,
+providing data for Layer 4 analysis.
+
+De Man \cite{deman1979} extends Austin's performatives by showing they can
+\emph{turn on themselves}---the parabasis where figurative language turns
+away from its stated meaning. In 007, this is the agent overriding a
+\texttt{given} predicate: the language game suggested one reading, the
+agent performed a different one. The types guarantee the override is safe.
+The trace records that it happened. But the act itself---the turning
+away---is de Man's authentic language operating inside Austin's
+speech act framework.
+
 The \texttt{given} clause is the bridge between Data and Control---where
 knowledge shapes action without determining it. It is Harvard-separated
 (contains only Data expressions), may include predicates that are
@@ -448,6 +497,10 @@ \section{Conclusion}
   in the Computing Process,'' \emph{IBM J.\ Res.\ Dev.}, 5(3):183--191, 1961.
 \bibitem{bruner1987} J.~Bruner, ``Life as Narrative,'' \emph{Social Research},
   54(1):11--32, 1987.
+\bibitem{austin1962} J.L.~Austin, \emph{How to Do Things with Words},
+  Oxford UP, 1962.
+\bibitem{peirce1878} C.S.~Peirce, ``How to Make Our Ideas Clear,''
+  \emph{Popular Science Monthly}, 12:286--302, 1878.
 \end{thebibliography}
 
 \end{document}