The distinction between truth-conditional meaning ("what is said") and non-truth-conditional pragmatic meaning ("what is meant") may not be as clear-cut as I claimed above. Let's consider another example:
Imagine that I'm driving on a street in a countryside where there aren't many people, and I see someone whose car is stopped on the side of the road. I stop and talk to him, and he tells me his car is broken down. Then I tell him, "There's a shop around the corner." What are the meanings of this utterance?
The abstract meaning, as always, is all the possible meanings that syntax and semantics could create by putting together these words. There are several sources of ambiguity here. "Is", as mentioned before, is deictic. "Shop" is also ambiguous; it could mean a store that sells stuff, or it could mean a place that repairs cars.
Based on the context, we can probably infer that the speaker meant the second kind of shop, because that's what would be relevant here. Hence we get the utterance meaning, "what is said". But furthermore, if we assume the speaker is trying to be helpful, we might also infer that the shop is open now (or, more accurately: as far as the speaker knows, the shop is open—i.e., the speaker has no reason to believe the shop is closed). This latter meaning is part of "what is meant", the force of the utterance.
As we've seen above, it's hard to distinguish between what is said and what is meant based on what information we use to derive them: both are derived by thinking about the context, assuming the speaker is trying to be helpful, and reasoning about what would be a helpful thing to say.
What about truth conditions? "What is meant" is clearly not truth-conditional: the speaker could say, "There's a shop around the corner... oh, but it's closed", and they will not have contradicted themself, they would not have made the first part of the utterance false (although they might come off as unhelpful or annoying).
Part of "what is said" is clearly truth-conditional: "There's a shop around the corner, but there isn't a shop around the corner" is clearly a contradiction. But what about the idea that the "shop" is an auto shop (i.e., a place that repairs cars)? Is that truth-conditional? Imagine that the speaker is a total jerk, and he stops to say, "There is a shop around the corner......but it's a candy shop! Hahahahaha, loser!" and then speeds away. Clearly this speaker is being deceptive, uncooperative, and an asshole. But it doesn't feel to me like his statement "There is a shop around the corner" has been made false... just misleading.
Classic pragmatic analysis would say that figuring out the meaning of "shop" is part of figuring out "what is said", and "what is said" is truth-conditional. But this suggests to me that either (a) interpreting "shop" as "auto shop" is part of what is meant, not what is said; or (b) "what is said" is not necessarily truth-conditional. In fact, either (or both) of these may be true; there are lots of different approaches to pragmatics, and many of them reject the distinctions that I'm raising here. Recently I discussed this example with several of my friends who are pragmatics experts, and they suggested many different things, but one thing everyone agreed on was that the distinction between "what is said" and "what is meant" is not as obvious as pragmatics textbooks make it sound, and that it's not totally clear whether "what is said" comes from semantics, pragmatics, general logic, or something else.
Given all that, what do you think about an example like this (or similar examples you can think of)? Is the asshole in this example saying something false, or just misleading? How could you characterize the difference between this kind of false/misleading statement and others?