Hostname: page-component-76d6cb85b7-rxvq6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-07-25T08:04:15.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Truth is a Linguistic Question

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Dwight Bolinger
Dwight Bolinger*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Truth is the most fundamental of all questions of appropriateness in language. Communication presupposes non-concealment between interlocutors, which logically excludes all forms of deception, not merely propositional lies. The lie, broadly conceived, is therefore a proper object of study for linguists, and a necessary one at a time when lying is cultivated as an art. As members of society, we have an obligation to contribute our skills in this as much as in other ways. Happily, a number of linguists have begun to respond by investigating the lies implicit in presuppositions, deletions, indirections, and loaded and jargonesque elements in the lexicon.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , September 1973 , pp. 539 - 550
Copyright
Copyright © 1973 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, Lloyd B. 1970. Journalism and linguistics: some mutual interests. Talk at student–faculty seminar, School of Journalism, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, October.Google Scholar
Andreski, Stanislav. 1972. Social sciences as sorcery. London: Andre Deutsch. (Cited in Time magazine, 25 September 1972, p. 67.).Google Scholar
Bolinger, Dwight. 1962. The tragedy must go on. American Liberal, November, p. 26.Google Scholar
Commager, Henry Steele. 1972. The defeat of America. New York Review of Books, 5 October, pp. 7–13.Google Scholar
Drinan, Robert F. 1972. The rhetoric of peace. College Composition and Communication 23.279–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gowers, Sir Ernest. 1948. Plain words. London: His Majesty's Stationery Office. (Cited by Joseph Jones, American Speech 24:121, 1949.).Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1972. Language in context. Lg. 48.907–927.Google Scholar
Lakoff, Robin. 1973. Language and woman's place. Language in Society 2.45–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langendoen, D. T. 1970. A study of the linguistic practices of the Federal Trade Commission. Paper read at LSA, 29 December.Google Scholar
Osgood, Charles E. 1971. Conservative words and radical sentences in the semantics of international politics. Social psychology and political behavior: problems and prospects, ed. by Abcarian, Gilbert and Soule, J. W., 101–129. Columbus, Ohio: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
Quiller-Couch, Sir Arthur. 1916. On the art of writing. Lectures delivered in the University of Cambridge, 1913-14, pp. 83–103. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Sissman, L. E. 1972. Plastic English. Atlantic Monthly, October, p. 32.Google Scholar
Smith, Donald. 1972. Experiencer deletion. MS.Google Scholar
Stanley, Julia. 1972a. The semantic features of the machismo ethic in English. Paper read at South Atlantic Modern Language Association.Google Scholar
Stanley, Julia. 1972b. Syntactic exploitation: passive adjectives in English. Paper read at Southeastern Conference on Linguistics VII, 21 April.Google Scholar
Stanley, Julia. 1972c. Passive motivation. MS.Google Scholar
Thurber, James. 1955. The psychosemanticist will see you now, Mr. Thurber. New Yorker, 28 May, pp. 28–31.Google Scholar
Zimmer, Karl E. 1971. Some general observations about nominal compounds. Working papers in language universals, Stanford University, 5.Google Scholar