本人最初接触英语是阅读文革期间中学的英语课本。后来，参加工作，在西北的一家国防工业工厂工作。由于地处西北无人戈壁地区，没有无线电干扰，人们能清楚接收《美国之音》的广播。广播里有一个节目《英语九百句》。我每天晚上都要听英语教学节目。后来，我参加高考。大学时代所学的专业是英国语言文学。学英语是我本人的爱好。后来，又去学社会科学。从事社会科学研究也是我的爱好。最后，我就用写英语的方法从事社会科学研究。以下就是我写英语书研究社会科学的一本样本。我的兴趣是，用英语与世界的学术界交流。这就是我的理想。

下面就是我对誓约的社会学研究。发誓（订立誓约或宣誓）是一种社会现象，也是一种语言现象。人们通过一种特殊的语言通讯过程建构社会和国家。于是，我从事有关誓约的社会学研究。我的设想是：人类使用语言互相通讯时有五种互动模式：提供信息；进行解释；表示态度；做出承诺；及发布命令。这五种互动模式建构社会和国家。在研究承诺的一章里面，我写了三节。第一节，论契约；第二节，论誓约；第三节，论给与民众和民众自己给与的承诺。认为这种承诺的语言现象是建构社会和国家的一个重要过程。誓约是其中一种。誓约就是一个特殊的语言通讯过程，另加一个仪式。仪式的本质是制造一个媒介，人们用这个媒介证明语言表述的真实性，从而建立人与人之间的信任关系。也就是说，在 原始社会里，人与人之间是互相信任的，有亲属关系做保证。在文明社会里，亲属关系解体，人与人之间就不信任了。于是，通过语言通讯过程重建人与人之间的信任。誓约是其中一种。然后，我用我自己的特定的英语表达形式述说誓约是怎样建构人类文明社会的。此文是本人的原创。

请感兴趣的读者阅读以下的文章，即本人所写的书Language and State: A Theory of the Progress of Civilization, Revised and Updated Edition中间第8章的第2节。

2. Oath

While people formed their tribe, all trusted all. While people form their state, all may not always trust all. Although making a contract is a way of building a relationship of cooperation between one person and another, or a way of establishing order in the civilized society or the state, or a way of organizing the society or the state, people need to build their trust relationship in their long-term interaction in the state. People have to use language to build mutual trust. Unlike tribal people who trusted each other naturally, humans have to make an extra effort to build their trust relationship in the state. Language is always a tool. One of the reasons is that the state is not formed due to kinship and people always seek their own private interest. As the society or the state is formed by strangers, people are not always trustworthy. Therefore, sometimes a specific person makes a special promise. This promise is usually important. This promise is so important that sometimes this promise is made in the presence of a witness or by a holy thing. This promise is usually an oath. This oath strengthens the memory of all. Strengthening the memory extends the time of communication. Taking an oath always reminds the person of the fact that he has made a promise. This is a method used by people to build a trust relationship between one another in the state. This is a particular method. Although people can also build a trust relationship by making a common contract from time to time, such a way of building a trust relationship may not always suffice. The reason is that people are going to build the society and the state. People are required to devote all their lives to the building of the society and the state. Making a promise in a contract, a person, as one party to the contract, often requires the other party to the contract to make another promise. They make a deal on the basis of equality. By contrast, taking an oath, a person is often required to make a special contribution or a great effort beneficial to the society or the state. The person who takes an oath and the person who requires the oath may play different roles. The reason is that the person who requires the oath may act as the agent of the society or the state and a person is often obligated to make a great effort conducive to the building of the society or the state. If a person is not always trustworthy, another person who represents the society or the state may require this person to take an oath. Though this oath is a contract, this is a special contract. This special contract more strongly requires a related person to be cooperative. If a person is required to tell a truth, he is especially urged to tell the truth. He may even be pressured to tell the truth. As James Endell Tyler wrote,

        [T]he evil in which oaths take their rise is the prevalence of falsehood and

        wrong, and the subsequent prevalence of suspicion and distrust. It is because

        we do not place confidence in the veracity of men in general, when they

        confess to speak the truth; it is because we cannot rely upon their good faith,

        when they make a bare promise, that we are driven to seek for something

        satisfactory to ourselves, by imposing upon them a more binding responsibility

        than that of their mere word.²⁴

The oath is a special arrangement for people to build a trust relationship among themselves in the society or the state in which a trust relationship between one another is not always certain. People need to make a great effort. The reason is that people always need to rebuild their trust relationship in the state. If people form a small community, they build a trust relationship between one another in a certain way. If people form a large community, they build a trust relationship between one another in another way. While people are tribal people, they trust each other naturally. They are kin to each other. The consciousness of kinship guides them to trusting each other. All are basically trustworthy. While people are citizens in the state in the civilized society, they no longer trust each other naturally. They are not kin to each other. The consciousness of kinship no longer guides them in their mutual interaction in the building of the society or the state. Now people are guided by other types of consciousness. As we suppose that consciousness had by people is a medium in the formation of the society and the state, I also argue that in the tribe the consciousness of kinship is a medium in the organization of the tribe. By contrast, in the state some other types of consciousness function as media in the organization of the state. While people arrange for a person to take an oath to build a trust relationship in the building of the society or the state, they have to take advantage of those types of consciousness in building a trust relationship. The reason is that those types of consciousness play a part in the building of the society or the state. While people arrange for a ceremony of taking an oath, they use a medium. Using that medium, people highlight those types of consciousness. As those types of consciousness are shared by all, highlighting them is conducive to the building of a trust relationship.

First, religious consciousness functions in the building of the society. It may also play a part in the building of the state on some occasions. It is a medium in support of the building of the society or even the state. Then people sometimes take an oath highlighting religious consciousness. Then we see that in ancient times people began to make promises in the form of an oath by god or a holy thing including alter, tomb, church, spear, sword, fountain, copper coin, stone and torch. At that time people normally believed in religion everywhere. People particularly often swore an oath by or in the presence of god. According to some western scholars, after the times of Old Testament an oath which served as a formal guarantee of truthfulness or of informed intention to follow an agreed-upon course of action was, at earlier phase of cultural (and individual) development, essentially a self-fulfilling imprecation that drew its coercive power from the magic of words.²⁵  An oath is a promise made by someone and accepted by other people for the association of people, or for the organization of the society, or for the organization of the state. Yet when a promise, in the form of an oath, is made, it highlights religious consciousness. Therefore, people may often do so with god acting as a witness or a supervisor. They imply that if they break their oath, they will bear divine punishment because the power of god is formidable. In ancient times most contracts were sealed with an oath and god was called upon to witness the oath of the covenant and to help the covenanters to keep to their good intentions or to enforce the curses that were to befall the breaker of the covenant.²⁶ As David Junkin wrote, “The obligation of an oath, as we have shown, does not depend upon the form thereof, but upon the immutable principles of the moral government of God.”²⁷ In the period of time when the influence of religion is strong while the government is weak, people are particularly prone to take an oath in the presence of god because religious consciousness guides the organization of the state. They may use their hand to touch the foot or the knee of the statue of the deity. When the religious community plays a powerful role in support of the authority of the state or the organization of the society and the state, it requires those who interact with each other to take an oath to certify their trustworthiness. For example, sometimes a debtor swears an oath to the creditor to return the loan in future, and god in whose presence the oath is taken makes sure that the intention of the debtor to return the loan is truthful. The debtor is obligated or urged by god to repay the loan. The Book of Psalms even  indicates God’s distaste for all forms of debt that are not being paid timely. As all or nearly all believe in god, an oath taken this way gives extra effect to the promise made between the promisor and the promisee. 

Second, the moral idea takes part in the building of the society and the state. The moral idea guides people in their social and political activities. An oath is often taken to underline the guidance of morality in the mutual interaction between one another. Then morality can help people to build a trust relationship in the building of the society and the state. As people become strangers in the civilized society, they need faithfulness and trustworthiness in social interaction, and particularly, in the exchange of goods and services. As the exchange of goods and services is the most frequent and important mutual interaction, people are especially in need of building a trust relationship. In this regard, an oath taken by people will buttress the strength of the moral idea. As people take an oath to obey morality, it is most likely to build a trust relationship because all agree to obey morality. For example, people carry out professional ethics in pursuing their career. Some occupations are very important. Pursuing a career may require a person to take an oath. Usually people, involved in some very important occupations, need to take an oath to proclaim the obedience of professional ethics. I have not investigated how many occupations require people to take an oath. But it is well-known that the undertaking of medical treatment concerns the life and death of humans and patients are always concerned about the quality and standard of medical service. Physicians and patients need to have a good trust relationship. Therefore, a physician may make a promise in the form of a Hippocratic Oath for providing his service and pursuing his career. He takes an oath to keep confidential all that he learns about his patient. He guarantees that professional service is given to his patients. He may also promise not to give deadly drug to the patients. He may promise to prevent his patients from injustice. This is because the society requires the faithful cooperation between physicians and patients. As Steven Miles wrote,

        With the consent of the patient, a physician may inquire about virtually any

        aspect of a person’s life and may touch any part of the body. Physician may cut

        on living persons and dissect human corpses. They may disclose an impending

        death, write prescriptions for drugs that can kill, and then certify the cause of

        the death of the same persons who have taken those drugs. They are permitted

        to have a personal financial stake in treatment decisions and in the outcome of

        the research that they conduct.²⁸ 

Thus the patients will feel assured to seek his service, and believe that the physician can meet their expectations. The physician relies on such a promise to establish a good trust relationship with the patients. This promise is made as required by a moral idea. Thus, Hippocratic Oath that at least appeared first in the first century in Greece was rediscovered by the churches in medieval times. Since the eighteenth century various versions of the Oath have been widely used in medical school graduation ceremonies in Europe and the United States.²⁹ 

Third, customary thinking, traditional idea and legal spirit play a role in the building of the society and the state. People sometimes take an oath to display them. By doing so, they propagate, and stress, them in the building of the society and the state. For example, sometimes a man takes an oath because this is required by custom or tradition or law. If a man takes an oath to act in cooperation with another man, he exposes himself to the potential punishment at the time when custom, tradition and law define the punishment for failure to keep the oath. In ancient times, the Jews were accustomed to swear an oath and laid their hand upon the book of the Law.³⁰ In medieval times vassals who took an oath might also be obligated to the king by morality or god. But they might also be obligated by custom, tradition or law when they took an oath. In medieval Europe swearing on one’s sword implied the expectation that the sword itself would turn against the perjurer.³¹ Such an oath was taken under the requirement of custom or tradition or law. In early modern times the case was similar. If a man was required to take an oath, he was usually required to do so by law. Sir Edward Coke, an Englishman, stated that “Oaths that have no warrant by law, are rather nova tormenta than sacramenta; and it is a high contempt to minister an oath without warrant of law, to be punished by fine and imprisonment.”³² This situation has remained primarily unchanged ever since. One case in point is that in a state which admits immigrants, immigrants are eligible to apply for  citizenship after they have resided there for a period of time, provided that other requirements are met. Swearing an oath is promising to be loyal to the country before the state approves the conferment of citizenship. Naturalization and swearing an oath seem to be a relation of exchange. Only after swearing an oath can one gain approval to become a citizen. The act of swearing an oath is separate in time from showing allegiance in action, but as a result of swearing an oath, one undertakes the obligation of fulfilling his oath and showing allegiance in action to the relevant state in future.

Fourth, ideology plays a role in the building of the society and the organization of the state in modern times. Then people sometimes take an oath to express their attitude to adhere to that ideology. They ensure that they dedicate their lives to a cause advocated by that ideology. In these circumstances people often take an oath as a special arrangement. At the time when or at the place where the influence of religion declines, people may take an oath to spread the related ideology. For example, youngsters are sometimes arranged for to take an oath in front of a monument of the revolutionary martyrs built by the revolutionary party. Youngsters are, thus, arranged for to proclaim their devotion to the revolutionary cause. As the building of the state is interpreted as part of revolutionary cause, youngsters make clear their determination to make their contributions to the building of the state. As nationalism is also an ideology, nationalism often bolsters the cultivation of patriotism. People may also be required to take an oath in order to ensure that they are committed to the rise or revival of the nation. Thus, the state may find it easy to mobilize the citizens. The authority of the state will be buttressed. Swearing an oath, as a special promise, is a kind of behavior of guarantee, but it is different from the ordinary behavior of guarantee. This guarantee is given solemnly and the action guaranteed to be taken is often the long-term, or even the lifelong, action. The guaranteed action may reflect the lofty ideal of each and his lifelong pursuit while an ordinary guarantee may include a temporary expedient. As a result, a person, swearing an oath, is making an important promise. When he makes such a promise, he lets the related ideology play a role. One case in point provided by history is that in France in the 1850s, democrats were organized into Montagnard societies to prepare a republican uprising. To become a member, the recruit was blindfolded. Then the recruit recited an oath: “I swear to arm myself against tyranny, to defend the Democratic and Social Republic; I swear to kill a traitor if fate chooses me; I swear to die the most infamous death if I become a traitor or turncoat; I swear to help a brother in need.”³³ People, pursuing a cause through fight and under the guidance of an ideology, are often required by the organizers of the fight to take an oath to get those organizers to trust them and assign an important task to them.  

The reason that an oath assists people in building a trust relationship is also that while people arrange for one to take an oath, they hold a ceremony. A ceremony is always holy. As that ceremony is holy, the oath becomes a medium in support of linguistic communication. First, sometimes a man is required to take an oath in order to urge him to tell the truth. In other words, such an oath prevents him from giving falsified information. Thus the oath facilitates the  circulation of truthful information. Second, sometimes a person is required to take an oath in order to confirm his loyalty. Confirming his loyalty is expressing a cooperative attitude. This also includes the transmission of information from one person to another because the oath forces the person to tell what he thinks. Third, sometimes a person takes an oath to confirm his commitment to a cause. This oath emphasizes his long-term will. In all these cases, the oath strengthens the interaction between one person and another. As a result, an oath can build a trust relationship more effectively. 

Of course, an oath usually assists people in building a trust relationship between one another. It builds a personal trust relationship. Therefore, a man and a woman can swear an oath for marriage, for example. People may find a multiplicity of occasions that require them to take an oath in the society or the state. They need someone to take an oath to build a trust relationship in personal interaction from time to time. But people also need someone to take the oath to assist them in building the society and in organizing the state for a few very important occasions when and where this person is requested to perform an important duty. I believe that people come across a multiplicity of such occasions in the building of the society and the organization of the state from time to time. These occasions may not always be important. But the following occasions are often extremely important and almost always require a principal to take an oath.

First, since ancient times it has been a practice for the state to require soldiers to make a promise as an oath before they go to combat in the battlefield because they may lose their lives. The bravery and loyalty of fighters are important for victory. Soldiers are usually required to affirm their determination to fight for the state. As Tyler wrote, in ancient Greece the Athenian youth were compelled to take an oath that they would bear arms for their country whenever their services were needed; and that the oath, when they were enrolled, was to this effect—“That they would not disgrace their arms, nor desert their ranks, nor injure their country, but would defend it to their power, and would, whether alone or with their fellows, fight for their religion and the state.”³⁴ In ancient Rome, the first military oath was voluntary, and bound men to obey their officers, and execute their commands to the utmost of their power; and when the camp was formed they swore not to appropriate to themselves any of the spoils, or any property belonging to the camp.³⁵ In medieval and modern times soldiers are often arranged for to swear an oath particularly before or just before the beginning of the battle.

Second, people are sometimes required to take the oath of allegiance as a lifelong promise. As this promise is life-long, the oath is essential. This is a way used to ensure that some people are loyal to the ruler. The background is that in ancient and medieval times the allocation of the land by the ruler is an essential means in establishing the social system. In this process vassals, receiving land, are required to swear an oath of allegiance prior to the allocation of land as already noted earlier. So in ancient and medieval times a vassal took an oath before the lord feoffed land to him. Vassals might be required to swear an oath by God, and they might also do so as guided by morality, but they were often obligated to serve the ruler. This practice underlay the whole feudalist system. This system was also conducive to the organization of the state. As Mendenhall and Herbert Schlesinger told us, the Old Testament Covenant may derive in its form from suzerainty treaties of the Hittite kings, with which they established a bond with their vassals. The text of these covenants make clear that they were made by the king, who conferred certain privileges on a vassal, not because they owed to the vassal or because of any merit the vassal might possess, but as a matter of favor or grace by the king. In exchange for the explicit protection of the king and the right to hold his vassaldom, the vassal was obligated to conform to certain stipulations, chief among which were various expressions of loyalty to the true king and a prohibition against engaging in any independent foreign relations, that is, against trafficking with other kings (or gods).³⁶

Third, before a magistrate, or an administrator, or a power holder, takes office, he may be required to make a promise and confirm that he is trustworthy. This promise is an oath. This is because, granting the power of the state to someone, the state needs to ensure that the power holder can work in good faith for the state and be loyal to the state in the years to come. The background of the power holder may not be known clearly. But what is important is that the use of power is in relation to the well-being of thousands of the citizens. Thus, it is important that the power holder works always as expected. He is not supposed to seek his own private interest or unlawful interest. In ancient Greece kings were sworn in some states to be faithful in their high trust. Judges were also required to take an oath before they took office. Pollux recorded the oath of the judges of Athens that they would give judgment according to the laws in those cases on which laws existed, and in cases not determined by law, they would give the righteous judgment.³⁷ And according to James Endell Tyler, “In Rome, the consuls swore, when entering upon their office, to discharge it faithfully; and on retiring, they swore that they had discharged its duties with fidelity.”³⁸ Livy said that there was no nation that had been longer uncorrupted than the Romans. Montesquieu commented on this phenomenon that those who took public office were under the strong influence of oath in Roman Times. They were bound by oath more than by law.³⁹ In medieval times kings might swear an oath to be enthroned or to be supported by the parliament. John Locke once mentioned that in England King James the first made a speech to the parliament in 1609 that:

        The King binds himself by a double oath, to the observation of the fundamental

        laws of his kingdom; tacitly, as by being a king, and so bound to protect as well

        the people, as the laws of his kingdom; and expressly, by his oath at his

        coronation; so as every just king, in a settled kingdom, is bound to observe that

        paction made to his people, by his laws, in framing his government agreeable

        thereunto, according to that paction which God made with Noah after the

        deluge.⁴⁰

In modern times it is often seen that state leaders, senior officials and all others, taking high level office in the government, swear an oath upon taking office. In the United States, the president, the vice president, the congressmen and the justices or judges of the courts all swear an oath before taking office. For example, the president may state that “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will, to the best of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the constitution of the United States.”⁴¹

Fourth, if a case is heard by a judge in the court, witnesses may be called on to give testimonies. Before testimonies are given, witnesses may be required to swear an oath and confirm that they are trustworthy. This oath is a promise. This means that the faithfulness of the witnesses is not clear in the state as people become strangers. Certain true information is needed and a person cannot have the information concerning all the events happening in the state. Certain information must be provided by other people. To ensure that true information is gained, witnesses are required to swear an oath. Witnesses must solemnly promise to give true information. The oath enhances the probability of giving true information. The penalty of perjury often partly results from the legal requirement of an oath taken to give testimonies. In ancient times this was the method of the law courts to make a judgment in the states formed by Egyptians, Jews, Greeks, Romans and Germans. James Endell Tyler wrote that:

        There is, consequently, no department of life, neither public nor private, neither

        in forensic nor domestic affairs, in which the use of oaths is not most frequent;

        but no where more frequent than in the courts of law and trials. For whenever

        the judge cannot be directed in his decision by the evidence of witnesses, or

        documents, or other lawful proofs, the litigant parties either at the requisition

        of their opponents, or by the direction of the judge, throw themselves on an

        oath, as a kind of sacred sheet anchor.⁴²

Requesting any litigant party to take an oath to corroborate the truthfulness of the testimony is also a method used by the court to make a decision for judgment in medieval and modern times.

Fifth, the establishment of social or political organizations is part of the organization of the state as those social or political organizations participate in the organization of the state. If a social or political organization requires that its members must be absolutely trustworthy, this organization may require its members to make a promise in the form of an oath. Thus before someone acquires the membership of an organization or a political party, he may be required to swear an oath. This is because the identity of each becomes unknown after the dissolution of the tribe and the formation of the state. People, proving their trustworthiness, have to guarantee that all pursue the same goal in good faith. They must guarantee that all intend to realize the same goal and the same ideal. All must be trusted by an organization or a political party which requires loyalty from all. In order to prove that all are trustworthy, all are required to make a promise in the form of an oath. So in China anyone who is prepared to join the Communist Party of China is required to swear an oath in a ritual before he joins that party. By the same token, the state may also require its citizens to swear an oath to confirm that they can be trusted by the state. In some immigration states, immigrants are required to swear an oath of loyalty to the head of the state in a ceremony in order to become the citizens as already mentioned earlier. This oath is designed to show one’s trustworthiness. If the trustworthiness of a certain citizen is doubted, he may also be required to swear an oath. For example, in 1947 the president of the United States Harry Truman established the Loyalty-Security Program to impose a loyalty test on all federal employees and screen out those who had or had previously had connections with subversive organizations. This order encouraged loyalty oaths.⁴³ That is, the oath is a promise made by the person who takes the oath. After this promise is accepted, the person who takes the oath is trusted.

All of these cases show that an oath is a reinforced promise. It is a holy promise. One, taking an oath, is very much obligated as a result. He undertakes a special obligation. As he undertakes a special obligation, he sometimes, in some sense, exposes himself to a threat and then he may make every effort to avert this threat. Particularly, swearing an oath is a kind of ritualized linguistic behavior of promise for future cooperation. A ritual is adopted to confirm the promise. This means that, in the state, the relationship between one person and another in some aspects is uncertain. A trust relationship between one another in some aspects may not be ensured. Consequently, people adopt the form of oath to ensure a trust relationship in the organization of the society or the state. Thus people design such a procedure in which the authorities or the agent of the authorities can force those who swear an oath to honor their promise. That is, people, taking an oath, are obligated to honor that oath. If the oath is broken, dire punishment will befall the breaker. In ancient times a part of the oath ceremony might be that of dividing an animal. The ceremony was bloody. This was a threat. In order to avoid this threat, a person,  having taken an oath, made his best effort to keep the oath.

Herbert Schlesinger opined that “The oath, like other forms of promise . . . is an act begun, and suspended, and (conditionally) fulfilled in due course.”⁴⁴ My view is that the oath is a process of linguistic communication which is extended so as to emphasize the importance of the related promise. As people are able to use language, they can use a promise to establish a trust relationship. The person who takes an oath as a promise tends to reckon with the cost of giving or not giving a truthful declaration or making or not making a promise when he considers both his private interest and the interest of the public because he lives in the state in which he often has to seek his private interest and to defend the interest of the state at the same time. It is unlike the situation in a tribe. The interest, sought by people in the tribe, is the interest of the tribe only. But since the formation of the state people have not only had to take care of the interest of the state but also had to take care of the interest of their families. They are often involved in the conflict of interest. Will a man make a promise and then wholeheartedly honor that promise? Will a man make a faithful declaration as required by another man or an organization or the law court or the constitution and later prove that the declaration is faithful? Language is skillfully used. That is, a person is required to make a promise and then gains the trust from others or the authorities. The person may give a false testimony or make a promise he never intends to honor. Yet the authorities can set a condition that failure to tell the truth or to honor a promise will lead to severe punishment. Falsehood and cheating tend to be discovered in future because it is highly probable to discover falsehood and cheating in the long run. Perjury or cheating can cover up the truth or the real intention of the promisor in the short run. However, it is difficult to cover up the truth or the real intention of the promisor in the long run. If punishment is very severe, the cost of covering up the truth or cheating will be very high. For example, in England, excommunication was recognized in the statute of Elizabeth, as a punishment to be visited on one who had been guilty of perjury in the ecclesiastical court.⁴⁵ And the statute of Elizabeth inflicted the penalty of perpetual infamy and a fine of forty pounds on the suborner. Perjury was thereby punished with six ‘months’ imprisonment, perpetual infamy, and a fine of twenty pounds, or to have both ears nailed to the pillory.⁴⁶ Being deterred by the possible severe punishment, one tends to act as guided by the authorities or a body in charge of organizing the state.  Because of this, people make a promise sincerely and faithfully if they decide to make a promise.

That means that taking an oath is very solemn.  It is ritualized. In ancient times, a man, required to take an oath, might be required to perform a certain religious rite. He might be required to cloth himself in a special way. He might be required to hold something in his hand such as a burning torch or a piece of straw or a sword or a stone. Since medieval times, a person to swear an oath may be especially required to do so in a church or in the law court or in front of a national flag or a monument. When a person swears an oath, he needs a setting. When he takes an oath, he does so solemnly, sincerely and faithfully. The oath involves a ritualized process of linguistic communication. Ritualizing the process of linguistic communication results in the creation of a medium in support of the related process of linguistic communication. A rite renders a strong impression on the person who takes the oath. The rite emphasizes the importance of the process of linguistic communication. The rite extends the process of linguistic communication. The process of linguistic communication will be remembered by the related person and the process of linguistic communication connects him with the person or the body that requires the oath. In the meantime, each of the authorities in the presence of which the oath is taken takes this chance to promote its consciousness or value or spirit. As people are required to take an oath everywhere from time to time, the authorities are enabled to promote their consciousness or value or spirit continuously and widely through the process of linguistic communication. The related authorities can also function as a medium as a result because people scattered in the state are unable to spread the related consciousness, value or spirit across the state easily and hence the authorities are better positioned to spread those consciousness, value and spirit. Each of those authorities is an organization. An organization is, in some sense, a medium that facilitates linguistic communication performed by those who act on behalf of the authorities as already mentioned earlier. In terms of linguistic communication that goes on in taking an oath, I argue that a church is a medium in support of the linguistic communication that spreads the religious doctrine. I also argue that a law court is a medium that facilitates the spread of the spirit of law among people. Thus people bolster the status of those authorities in charge of organizing the state and disseminate the related consciousness, value and spirit. As the organization of the state relies on the support of the related consciousness, value and spirit, swearing an oath bolsters the authority of those people or organizations or the government in charge of organizing the state.

Swearing an oath, as a promise, requires the display of honesty indeed. An oath is a promise or a presentation of a promise, and people tend to establish a trust relationship through an oath. Though the juror is threatened or forced to carry out or keep the promise made by him, people can cooperate on the basis of honesty and faithfulness. Though sometimes those who fail to keep their promise are punished, people can realize cooperation based on honesty to the effect that they organize the state effectively. People establish and buttress the authority of those in charge of organizing the society or the state. All faithfully submit to the directives of those organizers. People establish, maintain and strengthen the authority of those organizing the society or the state on the basis of honesty. They enhance the level of morality. To put it differently, the requirement of taking an oath encourages people to be honest and trustworthy. Thus people enhance the authority of those in charge of organizing the society or the state on the basis of enhancing the level of morality among themselves. Conversely, if the authorities do not give people any chance to display their honesty, people will feel that it is useless to be honest. Swearing an oath is part of a traditional culture in many countries. In those countries people show the high level of morality. By contrast, there may be some other countries in which swearing an oath is not a traditional culture. As a result, the authorities fail to foster the morality of people in this important aspect. For example, in ancient China, though people might be required to take an oath between individual persons or among gangsters, people were seldom required by any religious organization or the government to swear an oath. When the suspect of a criminal case was arrested by the government, the magistrate usually tortured the suspect in an attempt to force the suspect to confess the truth and plead guilty. The magistrate would not believe whatever the suspect confessed until the suspect was tortured. Thus the magistrate would not let the suspect to swear an oath. Thus it was useless to be honest. Though people propagated the idea of morality in the mutual interaction of people as required by the formation of the society or the state, the low level of morality among Chinese in ancient times was, I believe, substantially due to the failure of the despotic state to encourage ordinary people to be honest and faithful. In early modern times Westerners were astonished to find that Chinese businessmen often cheated each other in business. As the authorities could not rely on the sincere cooperation of ordinary people in the organization of the state, the authorities further resorted to severe oppression. By contrast, people were often required to make a promise in the form of an oath when the authorities needed the cooperation of ordinary people in many countries in Europe. This case indicates this truth: the authorities trust ordinary people if they are honest. Enhancing the level of morality of people ensures the wholesome governance of the state. The oath, after all, is a form of promise. As a promise, in the form of an oath, is a process in which language can be especially exploited to build a relationship of mutual trust between the two sides with the presence of a third party as a witness, or by a holy object, seen or unseen, language plays a remarkable role in the formation of the society and the organization of the state in many countries because an oath can function as a special language solution that underpins the building of the society and the state.