Cover not available
Article published In:
New Developments in Relevance Theory
Edited by Manuel Padilla Cruz and Agnieszka Piskorska
[Pragmatics & Cognition 28:2] 2021
► pp. 416–440

Why truth matters

When relevance meets truthfulness

| University of Geneva

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, bullshit, post-truth, fake news and lies 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.

Keywords: truth, relevance, meaning, communication, common ground
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Truth and meaning
  • 3.Truth in Gricean and neo-Gricean pragmatics
  • 4.Relevance and truth in communication
  • 5.Truth and the common ground
  • 6.The defeat of truth in verbal communication
  • 7.What does the common ground consist of?
  • 8.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgement
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 27 June 2022
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21012.moe
References
Austin, John L.
1962 How to do things with words. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Bach, Emmon
1989 Informal lectures on formal semantics. New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
Beaver, David
2021 Two minutes hate. Plenary lecture delivered at the 17th International Pragmatics Conference. Winterthur: 2 July 2021.
Beaver, David & Jason Stanley
Forthcoming. Hustle: The politics of language. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Blackburn, Simon
2017 Truth. London: Profile Books.Google Scholar
Carston, Robyn
2002 Utterances and thought: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Changeux, Jean-Pierre
2002 L’homme de vérité. Paris: Odile Jacob.Google Scholar
2004 The physiology of truth: Neuroscience and human knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University press.Google Scholar
Cohen, L. Jonathan
1971 Some remarks on Grice’s view about the logical particles of natural language. In Yehoshua Bar-Hillel (ed.), Pragmatics of natural language, 50–68. Dordrecht: Reidel. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dowty, David, Robert E. Wall & Stanley Peters
1981 Introduction to Montague semantics. Dordrecht: Reidel.Google Scholar
Fauconnier, Gilles
1985 Mental spaces: Aspects of meaning construction in natural language. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Frankfurt, Harry G.
2005 On bullshit. Oxford: Princeton University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frege, Gottlob
[1892]1948 Sense and reference. The Philosophical Review 57 (3). 209–230. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gazdar, Gerald
1979 Pragmatics: Implicature, presupposition, and logical form. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
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
Grice, H. Paul
1975 Logic and conversation. In Peter Cole & Jerry L. Morgan (eds.), Syntax and semantics 3: Speech acts, 40–58. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Gygax, Pascal, Sandrine Zufferey & Ute Gabriel
2021 Le cerveau pense-t-il au masculin? Cerveau, langage et représentations sexistes. Paris: Le Robert.Google Scholar
Karttunen, Lauri & Stanley Peters
1979 Conventional implicature. In Choon-Kyu Oh & David A. Dinneen (eds.), Syntax and semantics 11: Presupposition, 1–56. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Kecskes, Istvan
Forthcoming. The interplay of linguistic, conceptual and encyclopedic knowledge in meaning construction and comprehension. In Jesus Romero-Trillo ed. The handbook of language and context Cambridge Cambridge University Press
Lakoff, George
1987 Women, fire and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C.
2000 Presumptive meanings: The theory of generalized conversational implicature. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McConnell-Ginet, Sally
2020 Words matter: Language and power. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McIntyre, Lee
2018 Post-truth. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mercier, Hugo
2020 Not born yesterday: The science of who we trust and what we believe. Oxford: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Mercier, Hugo & Dan Sperber
2017 The enigma of reason: A new theory of human understanding. London: Allen Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moeschler, Jacques
2019 Non-lexical pragmatics: Time, causality and logical words. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2021 Why language? What pragmatics tells us about language and communication. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Forthcoming. The role of context in Gricean and neo-Gricean pragmatics. In Jesus Romero-Trillo ed. The Cambridge handbook of language and context Cambridge Cambridge University Press
Moore, George E.
1993 Moore’s paradox. In Thomas Baldwin (ed.), G. E. Moore: Selected writings, 207–212. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Origgi, Gloria
2015 La réputation: Qui dit quoi à qui. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ortony, Andrew
1979 Metaphor: A multidimensional problem. In Andrew Ortony (ed.), 1–16. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pinker, Steven, Martin A. Novak & James L. Lee
2008 The logic of indirect speech. PNAS 105(3). 833–838. [URL] cgi pnas.0707192105. DOI logo
Reboul, Anne
1992 Le paradoxe du mensonge dans la théorie des actes de langage. Cahiers de Linguistique Française 131. 125–147.Google Scholar
2013 The social evolution of language and the necessity of implicit communication. In Stephen R. Anderson, Jacques Moeschler & Fabienne Reboul (eds.), The language-cognition interface, 253–273. Geneva: Droz.Google Scholar
2017 Cognition and communication in the evolution of language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Recanati, François
2010 Truth-conditional pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Reid, Thomas
[1764]1970 Inquiry into the human mind. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Roberts, Craige
2004 Context in dynamic interpretation. In Laurence R. Horn & Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 197–220. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sadock, Jerrold M.
1978 On testing for conversational implicature. In Peter Cole (ed.), Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics, 281–297. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Searle, John R.
1969 Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1979 Expression and meaning: Studies in the theory of speech acts. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, Dan
1996 Explaining Culture: A Naturalistic Approach. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan & Deirdre Wilson
1995 Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Blackwell, 2nd ed.Google Scholar
Sperber, Dan, Fabrice Clément, Christophe Heintz, Olivier Mascaro, Hugo Mercier, Gloria Origgi & Deirdre Wilson
2010 Epistemic vigilance. Mind & Language 25 (4). 359–393. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Ronald C.
1977 Pragmatic presuppositions. In Andy 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 in Stalnaker 1999.Google Scholar
Stanley, Jason
2018 How fascism works: The politics of us and them. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre
2017 Irony, hyperbole, jokes and banter. In Joanna Blochowiak, Cristina Grisot, Stephanie Durrleman & Christopher Laenzlinger (eds.), Formal models in the study of language: Applications in interdisciplinary contexts, 201–219. Cham: Springer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Robyn Carston
2007 A unitary approach to lexical pragmatics: Relevance, inference and ad hoc concepts. In Noel Burton-Roberts (ed.), Pragmatics, 230–259. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, Deirdre & Dan Sperber
2004 Relevance Theory. In Laurence R. Horn and Gregory Ward (eds.), The handbook of pragmatics, 607–632. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
2012 Truthfulness and relevance. In Meaning and relevance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zufferey, Sandrine, Jacques Moeschler & Anne Reboul
2019 Implicatures. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Allan, Keith
2023. Why truth is necessarily pragmatic. Intercultural Pragmatics 20:3 ► pp. 251 ff. DOI logo
Moeschler, Jacques
2023. What makes inferences reliable? The unpredictable relationship between pragmatic inference and truth. Journal of Pragmatics 218 ► pp. 153 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 20 march 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.