Why truth matters

References

1. Austin, John L.
   1962 How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   [Google Scholar]
2. Bach, Emmon
   1989 Informal lectures on formal semantics. New York: SUNY Press.
   [Google Scholar]
3. Beaver, David
   2021 Two 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
   2017 Truth. London: Profile Books.
   [Google Scholar]
6. Carston, Robyn
   2002 Utterances and thought: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
   https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
7. Changeux, Jean-Pierre
   2002 L’homme de vérité. Paris: Odile Jacob.
   [Google Scholar]
8. Changeux, Jean-Pierre
   2004 The 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
    1981 Introduction to Montague semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel.
    [Google Scholar]
11. Fauconnier, Gilles
    1985 Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
12. Frankfurt, Harry G.
    2005 On 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
    1979 Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
15. Green, Mitchell S. & John N. Williams
    (eds) 2007 Moore’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
    2021 Le 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
    1987 Women, 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.
    2000 Presumptive 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
    2020 Words matter: Language and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781108641302
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108641302 [Google Scholar]
23. McIntyre, Lee
    2018 Post-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
    2020 Not born yesterday: The science of who we trust and what we believe. Oxford: Princeton University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
25. Mercier, Hugo & Dan Sperber
    2017 The 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
    2019 Non-lexical pragmatics: Time, causality and logical words. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110218497
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218497 [Google Scholar]
27. Moeschler, Jacques
    2021 Why 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. Moeschler, Jacques
    . 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
    2015 La 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. Reboul, Anne
    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. Reboul, Anne
    2017 Cognition 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
    2010 Truth-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]1970 Inquiry 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.
    1969 Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139173438
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139173438 [Google Scholar]
41. Searle, John R.
    1979 Expression 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
    1996 Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
43. Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
    1995 Relevance: 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
    2018 How 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. Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber
    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
    2019 Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/9781316410875
    https://doi.org/10.1017/9781316410875 [Google Scholar]