Linguistics and Philosophy

, Volume 32, Issue 6, pp 553–581 | Cite as

Category mistakes are meaningful

Research Article

Abstract

Category mistakes are sentences such as ‘Colourless green ideas sleep furiously’ or ‘The theory of relativity is eating breakfast’. Such sentences are highly anomalous, and this has led a large number of linguists and philosophers to conclude that they are meaningless (call this ‘the meaninglessness view’). In this paper I argue that the meaninglessness view is incorrect and category mistakes are meaningful. I provide four arguments against the meaninglessness view: in Sect. 2, an argument concerning compositionality with respect to category mistakes; in Sect. 3 an argument concerning synonymy facts of category mistakes; in Sect. 4 concerning embeddings of category mistakes in propositional attitude ascriptions; and in Sect. 5 concerning the uses of category mistakes in metaphors. Having presented these arguments, in Sect. 6 I briefly discuss some of the positive motivations for accepting the meaninglessness view and argue that they are unconvincing. I conclude that the meaninglessness view ought to be rejected.

Keywords

Category mistakes Selectional restrictions Selectional violations Compositionality Semantics Foundations of semantics Montague Grammar Type theoretic semantics Colorless green ideas sleep furiously Meaning Meaningfulness Meaninglessness Nonsense 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Barwise J., Perry J. (1990) Semantic innocence and uncompromising situations. In: Martinich A.P. (eds) The philosophy of language (2nd ed). Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  2. Beall J.C., van Fraassen B.C. (2003) Possibilities and paradox. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  3. Black M. (1962) Metaphor. In: Black M. (eds) Models and metaphors. Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NYGoogle Scholar
  4. Block, N. (1998). Semantics, conceptual role. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge encyclopedia of philosophy. London: Routledge. Retrieved December 01, 2006, from http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/ W037.
  5. Boisvert D., Lubbers C. (2003) Frege’s commitment to an infinite hierarchy of senses. Philosophical Papers 32: 31–64CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Camp E. (2004) The generality constraint and categorical restrictions. Philosophical Quarterly 54: 210–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Camp E. (2005) Critical study of Joseph Stern, Metaphors in context. Nous 39: 715–731CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Camp E. (2006) Metaphor in the mind: The cognition of metaphor. Philosophy Compass 1(2): 154–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chomsky N. (1957) Syntactic structures. Mouton, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  10. Chomsky N. (1965) Aspects of the theory of syntax. MIT Press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  11. Davidson D. (2001) On saying that. In: Davidson D. (eds) Inquiries into truth and interpretation. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Davidson D. (2001) What metaphors mean. In: Davidson D. (eds) Inquiries into truth and interpretation. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diamond C. (2001) What nonsense might be. In: Diamond C. (eds) The realistic spirit. MIT press, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  14. Drange T. (1966) Type crossings. Mouton, The HagueGoogle Scholar
  15. Dummett M. (1981) Frege: Philosophy of language (2nd ed). Duckworth, LondonGoogle Scholar
  16. Evans G. (1982) The varieties of reference. Clarendon Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  17. Fine K. (2003) The non-identity of a material thing and its matter. Mind 112: 195–234CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fogelin R. (1988) Figuratively speaking. Yale University Press, New HeavenGoogle Scholar
  19. Frege G. (1952) On sense and reference. In: Black M., Geach P. (eds) Translations from the philosophical writings of Gottlob Frege. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Haack R.J. (1971) No need for nonsense. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 49: 71–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell Publishers, LondonGoogle Scholar
  22. Hodges W. (2001) Logic. Penguin, HarmondsworthGoogle Scholar
  23. Lakoff G. (1971) Pressuposition and relative well-formedness. In: Jakobovitz A., Steinberg D. (eds) Semantics: An interdiciplinary reader. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Lambert K. (1968) On the no type theory of significance. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 46: 79–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Maddy P. (1980) Perception and Mathematical intuition. Philosophical Review 89: 163–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Magidor, O. (2007). Category Mistakes. D.Phil dissertation, University of Oxford.Google Scholar
  27. Magidor O. (2009) The last dogma of type confusions. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 109: 1–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Martinich A.P. (1984) A theory of metaphor. Journal of Literary Semantics 13: 35–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McCawley J. (1970) Where do noun phrases come from. In: Jacobs R., Rosenbaum P. (eds) Readings in English transformational grammar. GINN, Boston, pp 166–183Google Scholar
  30. McCawley J. (1971) Interpretative semantics meets Frankenstein. Foundations of Language 7: 285–296Google Scholar
  31. McDaniel, K. (unpublished manuscript). Categories of being.Google Scholar
  32. Montague R. (1974) The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In: Thomason R. (eds) Formal philosophy: Selected papers by Richard Montague. Yale University Press, New Heaven, CTGoogle Scholar
  33. Moran R. (1997) Metaphor. In: Hale B., Wright C. (eds) A companion to the philosophy of language. Blackwell Publishers, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  34. Pap A. (1960) Types and meaninglessness. Mind 69: 41–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Parsons T. (1981) Frege’s hierarchies of indirect senses and the paradox of analysis. Midwest Studies of Philosophy 6: 35–57Google Scholar
  36. Reimer M., Camp E. (2006) Metaphor. In: Lepore E., Smith B. (eds) The Oxford handbook of philosophy of language. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  37. Routley R. (1966) On significance theory. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 44: 172–209CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Routley R. (1969) The need for nonsense. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 47: 367–384CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Russell B. (1905) On denoting. Mind 14: 530–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Russell B. (1908) Mathematical logic as based on the theory of types. American Journal of Mathematics 30: 222–262CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ryle G. (1938) Categories. Proceedings of the Aristotelian Society 38: 189–206Google Scholar
  42. Searle J. (1979) Metaphor. In: Ortony A. (eds) Metaphor and Thought. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  43. Sorensen R. (2001) Vagueness and contradiction. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  44. Stanley J. (2002) Nominal restrictions. In: Peters G., Preyer G. (eds) Logical form and language. Cambridge, MA, OUPGoogle Scholar
  45. Stern J. (2000) Metaphor in context. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  46. Strawson P.F. (1950) On referring. Mind 59: 320–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Strawson P.F. (1952) Introduction to logical theory. Methuen, LondonGoogle Scholar
  48. Williamson T. (1994) Vagueness. Routledge, LondonGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Balliol CollegeUniversity of OxfordOxfordUK

Personalised recommendations