Volume 28, Issue 2
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



This article is about truth and relevance. It first discusses the concept of truth in formal semantics and pragmatics, mainly the Gricean, neo-Gricean and post-Gricean approaches to meaning. What is particularly crucial is the relationship between pragmatic meaning and truth, since, from a Gricean perspective, meaning is defined as non-truth-conditional, which in turn raises the question of how truth can be a pragmatic issue. A second issue is the relationship between truth and relevance, as developed in relevance theory. A third key point is how truth matters as regards the common ground. In order to illustrate how truth is connected to the common ground, and are discussed, which raise the issue of how truth can be defeated in verbal communication, and mainly how false assumptions can be entertained as true.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Austin, John L.
    1962How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bach, Emmon
    1989Informal lectures on formal semantics. New York: SUNY Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Beaver, David
    2021Two minutes hate. Plenary lecture delivered at the17th International Pragmatics Conference. Winterthur: 2 July 2021.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Beaver, David & Jason Stanley
    . Forthcoming. Hustle: The politics of language. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Blackburn, Simon
    2017Truth. London: Profile Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Carston, Robyn
    2002Utterances and thought: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  7. Changeux, Jean-Pierre
    2002L’homme de vérité. Paris: Odile Jacob.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. 2004The physiology of truth: Neuroscience and human knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Cohen, L. Jonathan
    1971 Some remarks on Grice’s view about the logical particles of natural language. InYehoshua Bar-Hillel (ed.), Pragmatics of natural language, 50–68. Dordrecht: Reidel. 10.1007/978‑94‑010‑1713‑8_3
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-010-1713-8_3 [Google Scholar]
  10. Dowty, David, Robert E. Wall & Stanley Peters
    1981Introduction to Montague semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Fauconnier, Gilles
    1985Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Frankfurt, Harry G.
    2005On bullshit. Oxford: Princeton University Press. 10.1515/9781400826537
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9781400826537 [Google Scholar]
  13. Frege, Gottlob
    [1892]1948 Sense and reference. The Philosophical Review57 (3). 209–230. 10.2307/2181485
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2181485 [Google Scholar]
  14. Gazdar, Gerald
    1979Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Green, Mitchell S. & John N. Williams
    (eds) 2007Moore’s paradox: New essays on belief, rationality, and the first person. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Grice, H. Paul
    1975 Logic and conversation. InPeter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 40–58. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Gygax, Pascal, Sandrine Zufferey & Ute Gabriel
    2021Le cerveau pense-t-il au masculin? Cerveau, langage et représentations sexistes. Paris: Le Robert.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Karttunen, Lauri & Stanley Peters
    1979 Conventional implicature. InChoon-Kyu Oh & David A. Dinneen (eds.), Syntax and semantics 11: Presupposition, 1–56. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Kecskes, Istvan
    . Forthcoming. The interplay of linguistic, conceptual and encyclopedic knowledge in meaning construction and comprehension. InJesus Romero-Trillo ed. The handbook of language and context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Lakoff, George
    1987Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226471013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  21. Levinson, Stephen C.
    2000Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/5526.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  22. McConnell-Ginet, Sally
    2020Words matter: Language and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108641302
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108641302 [Google Scholar]
  23. McIntyre, Lee
    2018Post-truth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 10.7551/mitpress/11483.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11483.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  24. Mercier, Hugo
    2020Not born yesterday: The science of who we trust and what we believe. Oxford: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Mercier, Hugo & Dan Sperber
    2017The enigma of reason: A new theory of human understanding. London: Allen Press. 10.4159/9780674977860
    https://doi.org/10.4159/9780674977860 [Google Scholar]
  26. Moeschler, Jacques
    2019Non-lexical pragmatics: Time, causality and logical words. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110218497
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218497 [Google Scholar]
  27. 2021Why language? What pragmatics tells us about language and communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110723380
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110723380 [Google Scholar]
  28. . Forthcoming. The role of context in Gricean and neo-Gricean pragmatics. InJesus Romero-Trillo ed. The Cambridge handbook of language and context. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Moore, George E.
    1993 Moore’s paradox. InThomas Baldwin (ed.), G. E. Moore: Selected writings, 207–212. London: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Origgi, Gloria
    2015La réputation: Qui dit quoi à qui. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. 10.3917/puf.origg.2015.01
    https://doi.org/10.3917/puf.origg.2015.01 [Google Scholar]
  31. Ortony, Andrew
    1979 Metaphor: A multidimensional problem. InAndrew Ortony (ed.), 1–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Pinker, Steven, Martin A. Novak & James L. Lee
    2008 The logic of indirect speech. PNAS105(3). 833–838. www.pnas.orgcgipnas.0707192105. 10.1073/pnas.0707192105
    https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.0707192105 [Google Scholar]
  33. Reboul, Anne
    1992 Le paradoxe du mensonge dans la théorie des actes de langage. Cahiers de Linguistique Française13. 125–147.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. 2013 The social evolution of language and the necessity of implicit communication. InStephen R. Anderson, Jacques Moeschler & Fabienne Reboul (eds.), The language-cognition interface, 253–273. Geneva: Droz.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. 2017Cognition and communication in the evolution of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747314.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198747314.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  36. Recanati, François
    2010Truth-conditional pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226993.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199226993.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  37. Reid, Thomas
    [1764]1970Inquiry into the human mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Roberts, Craige
    2004 Context in dynamic interpretation. InLaurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 197–220. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Sadock, Jerrold M.
    1978 On testing for conversational implicature. InPeter Cole (ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics, 281–297. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Searle, John R.
    1969Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
  41. 1979Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511609213
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511609213 [Google Scholar]
  42. Sperber, Dan
    1996Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
    1995Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell, 2nd ed.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi & Deirdre Wilson
    2010 Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language25 (4). 359–393. 10.1111/j.1468‑0017.2010.01394.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0017.2010.01394.x [Google Scholar]
  45. Stalnaker, Ronald C.
    1977 Pragmatic presuppositions. InAndy Rogers, Bob Wall & John P. Murphy (eds.), Proceedings of the Texas conference on performatives, presuppositions and implicatures, 135–147. Arlington: Center for Applied Linguistics. Reprinted inStalnaker 1999.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Stanley, Jason
    2018How fascism works: The politics of us and them. New York: Random House.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Wilson, Deirdre
    2017 Irony, hyperbole, jokes and banter. InJoanna Blochowiak, Cristina Grisot, Stephanie Durrleman & Christopher Laenzlinger (eds.), Formal models in the study of language: Applications in interdisciplinary contexts, 201–219. Cham: Springer. 10.1007/978‑3‑319‑48832‑5_11
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48832-5_11 [Google Scholar]
  48. Wilson, Deirdre & Robyn Carston
    2007 A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. InNoel Burton-Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics, 230–259. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. 10.1057/978‑1‑349‑73908‑0_12
    https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-349-73908-0_12 [Google Scholar]
  49. Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber
    2004 Relevance Theory. InLaurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 607–632. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. 2012 Truthfulness and relevance. InMeaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139028370.005
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139028370.005 [Google Scholar]
  51. Zufferey, Sandrine, Jacques Moeschler & Anne Reboul
    2019Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316410875
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316410875 [Google Scholar]
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): common ground; communication; meaning; relevance; truth
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error