Kensuke Ito

Our linguistic communication is, in part, the exchange of truths. It is an empirical fact that in daily conversation we aim at truths, not falsehoods. This fact may lead us to assume that ordinary, assertion-based communication is the only possible communicative system for truth-apt information exchange, or at least has priority over any alternatives. This assumption is underwritten in three traditional doctrines: that assertion is a basic notion, in terms of which we define denial; that to predicate truth of a sentence is to assert the content it expresses; and that one should, in the context of radical interpretation, try to maximize the truth of what foreigners believe or utter. However, I challenge this assumption via a thought experiment: imagine a language game in which everyone aims to exchange only falsehoods. I argue that information exchange is possible in this game, and so truth-guided communication and falsity-guided communication are conceptually on a par. As a consequence, we should reject the three doctrines, based as they are on the conceptual priority of assertion-based communication.

Our linguistic communication is, in part, the exchange of truths. It is an empirical fact that in daily conversation we aim at truths, not falsehoods. This fact may lead us to assume that ordinary, assertion-based communication is the only possible communicative system for truth-apt information exchange, or at least has priority over any alternatives. This assumption is underwritten in three traditional doctrines: that assertion is a basic notion, in terms of which we define denial; that to predicate truth of a sentence is to assert the content it expresses; and that one should, in the context of radical interpretation, try to maximize the truth of what foreigners believe or utter. However, I challenge this assumption via a thought experiment: imagine a language game in which everyone aims to exchange only falsehoods. I argue that information exchange is possible in this game, and so truth-guided communication and falsity-guided communication are conceptually on a par. As a consequence, we should reject the three doctrines, based as they are on the conceptual priority of assertion-based communication.

Sphingosine 1-phosphate plays a role in lymphocyte egress from lymphoid organs. However, it remains unclear how S1P production and secretion are regulated. We show that under inflammatory conditions, α9 integrin, which is closely associated with activated β1 integrin, and its ligand, tenascin-C, colocalize on medullary and cortical sinuses of draining lymph nodes, which is a gate for lymphocyte exit, and that inhibition of lymphocyte egress is evident by blockade of α9 integrin-mediated signaling at dLNs. Based on in vitro analysis using lymphatic endothelial cells obtained from mice embryos, we suggested the possibility that stimulation of lymphatic endothelial cells by tenascin-C enhances S1P secretion in an α9 integrin-dependent manner without affecting S1P synthesis and/or degradation. Blockade of α9 integrin-mediated signaling reduced lymphocyte egress from dLNs in several models, including experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis, where it improved clinical scores and pathology. Therefore, manipulating α9 integrin function may offer a therapeutic strategy for treating various inflammatory disorders.