Skip to main navigation menu Skip to main content Skip to site footer

Did Samuel Bronston Commit Perjury? A Study in Discourse Semantics


In the landmark case Bronston v. US, the Supreme Court put forward a reading of the perjury statute according to which one could only be tried for perjury on the basis of what one had stated, not what was implicated. This decision has given rise to a number of theoretical and practical problems, best detailed in Tiersma (1990) and Douglis (2018). This article argues that a formal investigation of discourse structure, of the type developed in Asher and Lascarides (2003), coupled with an understanding of the role of ellipsis in discourse, allows us to develop a framework that captures those instances of perjury that seem to fall through the cracks of the literal truth condition without introducing speaker’s intent on the solution. The crucial idea that the analysis hinges on is the notion that an indirect answer to a question is a two-node discourse with an elliptical polarity answer. Approaches based on Grice’s implicatures or speaker’s communicative intent are discussed and shown to be inadequate.

Cite as: López, JLL 10 (2021), 1–23, DOI: 10.14762/jll.2021.001

صندلی اداری سرور مجازی ایران Decentralized Exchange


perjury, implicature, Segmented Discourse Representation Theory, discourse structure



  1. Asher, Nicholas & Lascarides, Alex (2003). Logics of Conversation. Cambridge: University Press.
  2. Asher, Nicholas & Lascarides, Alex (2013). Strategic conversation. Semantics and Pragmatics, 6, 1–62.
  3. Borg, Emma (2012). Pursuing Meaning. Oxford: University Press.
  4. Carson, Thomas (2006). The definition of lying. Noûs 40(2), 284–306. DOI: 10.1111/j.0029-4624.2006. 00610.x
  5. Carston, Robyn (2002). Thoughts and Utterances. The Pragmatics of Explicit Communication. Oxford: Black-well.
  6. Douglis, Allison (2018). Disentangling Perjury and Lying. Yale Journal of Law and Humanities, 29(2), 339–374. Available at
  7. Green, Stuart (2005). Lying, Misleading and Falsely Denying: How Moral Concepts Inform the Law of Perjury, Fraud and False Statements. Hastings Law Journal 53(1), 157–212. Available at repository.
  8. Grice, Paul (1975). Logic and Conversation. In Cole & Morgan (Eds.), Syntax and Semantics 3: Speech Acts (pp. 41–58). New York: Academic Press.
  9. Hirschberg, Julia (1985). A Theory of Scalar Implicature. PhD dissertation, University of Pennsylvania.
  10. Horn, Laurence (2016). Conventional Wisdom Reconsidered. Inquiry, 59(2), 145–162. DOI: 10.1080/ 0020174X.2015.1125133.
  11. Perry, John (1986). Thought without Representation. In Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society sup. Vol. 60 (pp. 137–151).
  12. Potts, Christopher (2015). Presupposition and implicature. In Lappin & Fox (Eds.), Handbook of Contem-porary Semantic Theory (pp. 168–202). Hoboken: Wiley-Blackwell.
  13. Recanati, François (2010). Truth Conditional Pragmatics. Oxford: University Press.
  14. Rooth, Mats (2016). Alternative Semantics. In Féry & Ishihara (Eds.), Oxford Handbook of Information Structure (pp. 19–40). Oxford: University Press.
  15. Saul, Jennifer (2002). Lying, Misleading and What is Said. An exploration in Philosophy of Language and Ethics. Oxford: Blackwell.
  16. Sennet, Adam (2011). Unarticulated Constituents and Propositional Structure. Mind and Language 26(4), 412–435. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0017.2011.01423.x.
  17. Solan, Lawrence & Tiersma, Peter (2005). Speaking of Crime: The Language of Criminal Justice. Chicago: University Press.
  18. Tiersma, Peter (1990). The Language of Perjury: Literal Truth, Ambiguity and the False Statement Re-quirement. Southern California Law Review 63, 373–431.
  19. van Deemter, Kees (2010). Not Exactly: In Praise of Vagueness. Oxford: University Press.
فروشگاه اینترنتی صندلی اداری