Volume 26, Issue 2-3
  • ISSN 0929-0907
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9943
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Most discussions frame the Liar Paradox as a formal logical-linguistic puzzle. Attempts to resolve the paradox have focused very little so far on aspects of cognitive psychology and processing, because semantic and cognitive-psychological issues are generally assumed to be disjunct. I provide a motivation and carry out a cognitive-computational treatment of the liar paradox based on a model of language and conceptual knowledge within the (PP) framework. I suggest that the paradox arises as a failure of synchronization between two ways of generating the liar situation in two different (idealized) PP sub-models, one corresponding to language processing and the other to the processing of meaning and world-knowledge. In this way, I put forward the claim that the liar sentence is meaningless but has an air of meaningfulness. I address the possible objection that the proposal violates the , which purportedly regulates the conceptual competence of thinkers.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Allopenna, Paul D., James S. Magnuson & Michael K. Tanenhaus
    1998 Tracking the time course of spoken word recognition using eye movements: Evidence for continuous mapping models. Journal of Memory and Language. 38(4). 419–439. 10.1006/jmla.1997.2558
    https://doi.org/10.1006/jmla.1997.2558 [Google Scholar]
  2. Altmann, Gerry T. M. & Jelena Mirković
    2009 Incrementality and prediction in human sentence processing. Cognitive Science33(4). 583–609. 10.1111/j.1551‑6709.2009.01022.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1551-6709.2009.01022.x [Google Scholar]
  3. Azzouni, Jody
    2013Semantic perception: How the illusion of a common language arises and persists. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199967407.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199967407.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  4. Barsalou, Lawrence W.
    2009 Simulation, situated conceptualization, and prediction. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences364(1521). 1281–1289. 10.1098/rstb.2008.0319
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0319 [Google Scholar]
  5. 2011 Integrating Bayesian analysis and mechanistic theories in grounded cognition. Behavioral and Brain Sciences34(04). 191–192. 10.1017/S0140525X11000197
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X11000197 [Google Scholar]
  6. Barsalou, Lawrence W., Ava Santos, W. Kyle Simmons & Christine D. Wilson
    2008 Language and simulation in conceptual processing. InManuel de Vega, Arthur Glenberg & Arthur Graesser (eds.), Symbols and embodiment: Debates on meaning and cognition, 245–283. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199217274.003.0013
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199217274.003.0013 [Google Scholar]
  7. Barton, Stephen B. & Anthony J. Sanford
    1993 A case study of anomaly detection: Shallow semantic processing and cohesion establishment. Memory & Cognition21(4). 477–487. 10.3758/BF03197179
    https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03197179 [Google Scholar]
  8. Barwise, Jon & John Etchemendy
    1987The liar: An essay on truth and circularity. New York: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bašnáková, Jana, Kirsten Weber, Karl M. Petersson, Jos van Berkum & Peter Hagoort
    2014 Beyond the language given: The neural correlates of inferring speaker meaning. Cerebral Cortex. 24(10). 2572–2578. 10.1093/cercor/bht112
    https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bht112 [Google Scholar]
  10. Beall, Jc, Michael Glanzberg & David Ripley
    2019 “Liar Paradox”, The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Winter 2019 Edition). Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2019/entries/liar-paradox/. (12 March, 2020).
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Berkum, Jos J. van, Danielle Van den Brink, Cathelijne M. Tesink, Miriam Kos & Peter Hagoort
    2008 The neural integration of speaker and message. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience. 20(4). 580–591. 10.1162/jocn.2008.20054
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20054 [Google Scholar]
  12. Camp, Elisabeth
    2004 The generality constraint and categorial restrictions. The Philosophical Quarterly, 54(215). 209–231. 10.1111/j.0031‑8094.2004.00348.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0031-8094.2004.00348.x [Google Scholar]
  13. Carston, Robin
    2002Thoughts and Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell. 10.1002/9780470754603
    https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470754603 [Google Scholar]
  14. Casasanto, Daniel & Gary Lupyan
    2015 All concepts are ad hoc concepts. InEric Margolis & Stephen Laurence (eds.), The conceptual mind: New directions in the study of concepts, 543–566. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Chomsky, Noam
    2002Syntactic structures, 2nd edn. Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110218329
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110218329 [Google Scholar]
  16. Clark, Andy
    1998 Magic words: How language augments human computation. InPeter Carruthers & Jill Boucher (eds.), Language and thought: Interdisciplinary themes, 162–183. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511597909.011
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511597909.011 [Google Scholar]
  17. 2013 Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science. Behavioral and Brain Sciences36(03). 181–204. 10.1017/S0140525X12000477
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12000477 [Google Scholar]
  18. 2016Surfing uncertainty: Prediction, action, and the embodied mind. Oxford, New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190217013.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190217013.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  19. Dam, Wessel O. van, Margriet van Dijk, Harold Bekkering & Shirley-Ann Rueschemeyer
    2012 Flexibility in embodied lexical-semantic representations. Human Brain Mapping33(10). 2322–2333. 10.1002/hbm.21365
    https://doi.org/10.1002/hbm.21365 [Google Scholar]
  20. Dam, Wessel O. van, Eelco V. van Dongen, Harold Bekkering & Shirley-Ann Rueschemeyer
    2012 Context-dependent changes in functional connectivity of auditory cortices during the perception of object words. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience24(10). 2108–2119. 10.1162/jocn_a_00264
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn_a_00264 [Google Scholar]
  21. Davidson, Donald
    1986 A nice derangement of epitaphs. InErnest Lepore (ed.), Truth and interpretation: Perspectives on the philosophy of Donald Davidson, 433–446. Oxford: Blackwell.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Dell, Gary S. & Franklin Chang
    2013 The P-chain: Relating sentence production and its disorders to comprehension and acquisition. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences369(1634). 10.1098/rstb.2012.0394
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0394 [Google Scholar]
  23. Dutilh Novaes, Catarina
    2012Formal languages in logic: A philosophical and cognitive analysis. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139108010
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139108010 [Google Scholar]
  24. Elqayam, Shira
    2006 The collapse illusion effect: A semantic-pragmatic illusion of truth and paradox. Thinking & Reasoning12(2). 144–180. 10.1080/13546780500172425
    https://doi.org/10.1080/13546780500172425 [Google Scholar]
  25. Erickson, Thomas D. & Mark E. Mattson
    1981 From words to meaning: A semantic illusion. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior20(5), 540–551. 10.1016/S0022‑5371(81)90165‑1
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-5371(81)90165-1 [Google Scholar]
  26. Escher, Maurits C.
    1971The graphic work of M. C. Escher. New York: Ballantine.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Evans, Gareth & John H. McDowell
    1982The varieties of reference. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Fodor, Jerry A.
    1979The language of thought. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Fodor, Jerry A. & Zenon W. Pylyshyn
    2015Minds without meanings: An essay on the content of concepts. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Fraassen, Bas van
    1970 Truth and Paradoxical Consequences. InRobert Martin (ed.), The paradox of the liar, 13–23. New Haven: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Friston, Karl
    2010 The free-energy principle: A unified brain theory?Nature Reviews Neuroscience. 11(2). 127–138. 10.1038/nrn2787
    https://doi.org/10.1038/nrn2787 [Google Scholar]
  32. Gagnepain, Pierre, Richard N. Henson & Matthew H. Davis
    2012 Temporal Predictive Codes for Spoken Words in Auditory Cortex. Current Biology22(7). 615–621. 10.1016/j.cub.2012.02.015
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.02.015 [Google Scholar]
  33. Gerstenberg, Tobias & Joshua B. Tenenbaum
    2017 Intuitive theories. InMichael R. Waldmann (ed.), Oxford Handbook of Causal Reasoning, 515–548. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Goldstein, Laurence
    1981 Categories of linguistic aspects and Grelling’s paradox. Linguistics and Philosophy. 4(3). 405–421. 10.1007/BF00304403
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00304403 [Google Scholar]
  35. 1982 Linguistic aspects, meaninglessness and paradox: A rejoinder to John David Stone. Linguistics and Philosophy4(4). 579–592. 10.1007/BF00360806
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00360806 [Google Scholar]
  36. Hagoort, Peter & Jos van Berkum
    2007 Beyond the sentence given. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences362(1481), 801–811. 10.1098/rstb.2007.2089
    https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2007.2089 [Google Scholar]
  37. Hoenig, Klaus, Eun-Jin Sim, Victor Bochev, Bärbel Herrnberger & Markus Kiefer
    2008 Conceptual flexibility in the human brain: Dynamic recruitment of semantic maps from visual, motor, and motion-related areas. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience20(10). 1799–1814. 10.1162/jocn.2008.20123
    https://doi.org/10.1162/jocn.2008.20123 [Google Scholar]
  38. Hohwy, Jacob
    2013The predictive mind. Oxford, UK, New York, NY: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682737.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199682737.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  39. Kearns, John T.
    2007 An illocutionary logical explanation of the liar paradox. History and Philosophy of Logic. 28(1). 31–66. 10.1080/01445340600763321
    https://doi.org/10.1080/01445340600763321 [Google Scholar]
  40. Kripke, Saul
    1975 Outline of a theory of truth. The Journal of Philosophy72(19). 690–716. 10.2307/2024634
    https://doi.org/10.2307/2024634 [Google Scholar]
  41. Kuperberg, Gina R. & Tim F. Jaeger
    2016 What do we mean by prediction in language comprehension?Language, Cognition and Neuroscience31(1). 32–59. 10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299
    https://doi.org/10.1080/23273798.2015.1102299 [Google Scholar]
  42. Kutas, Marta, Katherine A. DeLong & Nathaniel J. Smith
    2011 A look around at what lies ahead: Prediction and predictability in language processing. InMoshe Bar (ed.), Predictions in the brain: Using our past to generate a future, 190–207. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195395518.003.0065
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195395518.003.0065 [Google Scholar]
  43. Lakoff, George & Rafael E. Núñez
    2000Where mathematics comes from: How the embodied mind brings mathematics into being, 1st edn. New York, NY: Basic Books.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Langacker, Ronald W.
    2008Cognitive grammar: A basic introduction. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195331967.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  45. Leitgeb, Hannes
    2007 What theories of truth should be like (but cannot be). Philosophy Compass2(2). 276–290. 10.1111/j.1747‑9991.2007.00070.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-9991.2007.00070.x [Google Scholar]
  46. Ludlow, Peter
    2014Living words: Meaning underdetermination and the dynamic lexicon, 1st edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198712053.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198712053.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  47. Lupyan, Gary & Andy Clark
    2015 Words and the world: Predictive coding and the language-perception-cognition interface. Current Directions in Psychological Science24(4). 279–284. 10.1177/0963721415570732
    https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721415570732 [Google Scholar]
  48. Magidor, Ofra
    2013Category mistakes. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199572977.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199572977.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  49. Martinich, Aloysius. P.
    1983 A pragmatic solution to the Liar Paradox. Philosophical Studies43(1). 63–67. 10.1007/BF01112522
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01112522 [Google Scholar]
  50. Michel, Christian
    2020 Concept contextualism through the lens of predictive processing. Philosophical Psychology. 33(4). 624–647. 10.1080/09515089.2020.1742878
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2020.1742878 [Google Scholar]
  51. Paivio, Allan
    1990Mental representations: A dual coding approach. Cary: Oxford University Press. Retrieved frompublic.eblib.com/choice/publicfullrecord.aspx?p=3052439. (12 March, 2020). 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195066661.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195066661.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  52. Peacocke, Christopher
    1992A study of concepts. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Penrose, Lionel S. & Roger Penrose
    1958 Impossible objects: A special type of visual illusion. British Journal of Psychology49(1). 31–33. 10.1111/j.2044‑8295.1958.tb00634.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.2044-8295.1958.tb00634.x [Google Scholar]
  54. Pickering, Martin J. & Simon Garrod
    2013 An integrated theory of language production and comprehension. Behavioral and Brain Sciences36(04). 329–347. 10.1017/S0140525X12001495
    https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X12001495 [Google Scholar]
  55. Priest, Graham
    1984 Logic of paradox revisited. Journal of Philosophical Logic13(2). 153–179. 10.1007/BF00453020
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00453020 [Google Scholar]
  56. 2006In contradiction: A study of the transconsistent. Oxford: Clarendon Press. 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263301.001.0001
    https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199263301.001.0001 [Google Scholar]
  57. Rayo, Agustin
    2013 A plea for semantic localism. Noûs47(4). 647–679. 10.1111/j.1468‑0068.2011.00846.x
    https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0068.2011.00846.x [Google Scholar]
  58. Rice, Collin
    2016 Concepts as Pluralistic Hybrids. Philosophy and Phenomenological Research92(3). 597–619. 10.1111/phpr.12128
    https://doi.org/10.1111/phpr.12128 [Google Scholar]
  59. Ripley, David
    2016 Experimental philosophical logic. InJustin Sytsma (ed.), A companion to experimental philosophy, 523–534. Wesley Buckwalter.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Rips, Lance J.
    1989 The Psychology of Knights and Knaves. Cognition31(2). 85–116. 10.1016/0010‑0277(89)90019‑X
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0277(89)90019-X [Google Scholar]
  61. Schroeder, Severin
    2004 Why Juliet is the Sun. InMark Siebel and Mark Textor (eds.), Semantic and ontology, 63–100. Frankfurt a.M: Ontos Verlag. 10.1515/9783110327236.63
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110327236.63 [Google Scholar]
  62. Simmons, W. Kyle, Stephan B. Hamann, Carla L. Harenski, Xiaoping P. Hu & Lawrence W. Barsalou
    2008 fMRI evidence for word association and situated simulation in conceptual processing. Journal of Physiology-Paris102(1–3). 106–119. 10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.014
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jphysparis.2008.03.014 [Google Scholar]
  63. Strawson, Peter F.
    1959Individuals: An essay in descriptive metaphysics. London: Methuen & Co. Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Tversky, Amos, & Daniel Kahneman
    1974 Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science185(4157). 1124–1131. 10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
    https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124 [Google Scholar]
  65. Williamson, Timothy
    1996Vagueness. New York: Routledge.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Yablo, Steven
    1985 Truth and reflection, Journal of Philosophical Logic14. 297–349. 10.1007/BF00249368
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00249368 [Google Scholar]
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error