Deceiving without answering

  • Peter van ElswykEmail author


Lying is standardly distinguished from misleading according to how a disbelieved proposition is conveyed. To lie, a speaker uses a sentence to say a proposition she does not believe. A speaker merely misleads by using a sentence to somehow convey but not say a disbelieved proposition. Front-and-center to the lying/misleading distinction is a conception of what-is-said by a sentence in a context. Stokke (Philos Rev 125(1):83–134, 2016, Lying and insincerity, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2018) has recently argued that the standard account of lying/misleading is explanatorily inadequate unless paired with a theory where what-is-said by a sentence is determined by the question under discussion or qud. I present two objections to his theory, and conclude that no extant theory of what-is-said enables the standard account of the lying/misleading distinction to be explanatorily adequate.


Lying Misleading Lying/misleading distinction What is said Question under discussion qud 



Thanks are owed to Liz Camp, Chris Willard-Kyle, Jeff King, Nico Kirk-Giannini, Carolina Flores, Joshua Spencer, and two referees for helpful comments or conversation.


  1. Adler, J. (1997). Lying, deceiving, or falsely implicating. Journal of Philosophy, 94(9), 435–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Bach, K. (2002). Seemingly semantic intuitions. In J. C. Keim, M. O’Rourke, & D. Shier (Eds.), Meaning and truth (pp. 21–33). New York: Seven Bridges.Google Scholar
  4. Bach, K. (2010). Impliciture vs explicature: What’s the difference? In B. Soria & E. Romero (Eds.), Explicit communication: Robyn Carston’s pragmatics (pp. 126–137). Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Benton, M., & van Elswyk, P. (2018). Hedged assertion. In S. Goldberg (Ed.), Oxford handbook of assertion. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  6. Braun, D., & Sider, T. (2007). Vague, so untrue. Nous, 41(2), 133–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cappelen, H., & Lepore, E. (2005). Insensitive semantics. Oxford: Blackwell.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carlson, L. (1984). ‘Well’ in Dialogue Games: A discourse analysis of the interjection ‘well’ in idealized conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carston, R. (2002). Thoughts and utterances: The pragmatics of explicit communication. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Constant, N. (2012). English rise-fall-rise: A study in the semantics and pragmatics of intonation. Linguistics and Philosophy, 35(5), 407–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamblin, C. L. (1973). Questions in montague english. Foundations of Language, 10(1), 41–53.Google Scholar
  12. Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. King, J. C. (2018). Strong contextual felicity and felicitous underspecification. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research, 97, 631–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. King, J. C., & Stanley, J. (2005). Semantics, pragmatics and the role of semantic content. In Z. Szabó (Ed.), Semantics versus pragmatics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Lakoff, R. (1973). Questionable answers and answerable questions. In B. Kachru (Ed.), Papers in honor of Henry and Renee Kahane (pp. 453–467). Champaign: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
  16. Martin, J. (1992). English text: System and structure. Amsterdam: Benjamins.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Owens, M. L. (1983). Apologies and remedial interchanges. Paris: Mouton.Google Scholar
  18. Pagin, P. (2014). Pragmatic enrichment as coherence raising. Philosophical Studies, 168(1), 59–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Poesio, M. (1996). Semantic ambiguity and perceived ambiguity. In K. van Deemter & S. Peters (Eds.), Semantic ambiguity and underspecification (pp. 159–201). Stanford: CSLI.Google Scholar
  20. Pomerantz, A. (1984). Agreeing and disagreeing with assessments: some features of preferred/dispreferred turn shapes. In J. Atkinson & J. Heritage (Eds.), Structures of social action: Studies in conversation analysis (pp. 57–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Roberts, C. (1996/2012). Information structure in discourse: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 6, 1–69.Google Scholar
  22. Saul, J. (2012). Lying, misleading, and what is said: An exploration in philosophy of language and in ethics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Schiffrin, D. (1987). Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Schoubye, A., & Stokke, A. (2016). What is said? Nous, 50(4), 759–793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Searle, J. (1978). Literal meaning. Erkenntnis, 13, 207–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Sperber, D., & Wilson, D. (1986). Relevance. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  27. Stalnaker, R. (1978). Assertion. Syntax and semantics 9: Pragmatics (pp. 315–332). Cambridge: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  28. Stalnaker, R. (2002). Common ground. Linguistics and Philosophy, 25(5–6), 701–721.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stojnic, U., Stone, M., & Lepore, E. (2017). Discourse and logical form: Pronouns, attention, and coherence. Linguistics and Philosophy, 40(5), 519–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Stokke, A. (2013). Lying and asserting. Journal of Philosophy, 110(1), 33–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Stokke, A. (2016). Lying and misleading in discourse. Philosophical Review, 125(1), 83–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Stokke, A. (2018). Lying and insincerity. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Travis, C. (1996). Meaning’s role in truth. Mind, 100, 451–466.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. von Fintel, K., & Gillies, T. (2009). ‘Might’ made right. In A. Egan & B. Weatherson (Eds.), Epistemic modality, chapter ‘Might’ made right. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  35. Ward, G., & Hirschberg, J. (1985). Implicating uncertainty: The pragmatics of fall-rise intonation. Language, 61(4), 746–776.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Wisconsin–MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations