2026-06-08T09:33:05Zhttps://docta.ucm.es/rest/oai/request

oai:docta.ucm.es:20.500.14352/981642025-03-18T12:44:37Zcom_20.500.14352_14col_20.500.14352_15

Almagro Holgado, Manuel Bordonaba Plou, David Villauneva Fernández, Neftalí 2024-02-02T10:34:12Z 2024-02-02T10:34:12Z 2023-10-26 Almagro, M., Bordonaba-Plou, D. & Villanueva, N. Retraction in public settings. Synthese 202, 137 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04348-3 0039-7857 10.1007/s11229-023-04348-3 https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.14352/98164 1573-0964 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11229-023-04348-3 https://produccioncientifica.ucm.es/documentos/6546ed0232348009d228eacc Several recent studies (see Knobe & Yalcin, 2014; Khoo, 2015; Marques, 2018; Kneer, 2021a) address linguistic retraction from an experimental perspective. In these studies, speakers’ intuitions regarding the mandatory nature of retraction are tested. Pace MacFarlane, competent speakers (of English) do not consider retraction to be obligatory. This paper examines two methodological features of the above-mentioned studies: they do not take into consideration the difference between public and private contexts; neither do they incorporate the distinction between evaluative and descriptive statements. In this paper, we report the results of two studies conducted to empirically test the hypothesis that retraction is, above all, a public phenomenon. Our findings show that context exerts a significant effect on speakers’ attitudes toward retraction. eng http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ open access Attribution 4.0 International Retraction in public settings journal article