Linguistic Perception

內容型道德感知主義者（Contentful Moral Perceptualists）： Audi (2013), Lord (2018), McNaughton (1988), McBrayer (2010a, 2010b), Cowan (2014, 2015), Werner (2016, 2018) 宣稱 道德命題(moral proposition)可以作為道德主體的感知內容(content of perception)。然而，在筆 者原創的詮釋下，晚近反駁道德感知主義的學者，如： Faraci (2015), Väyrynen (2018), Chudnoff (2015)，則隱約透露出以下想法：「與其宣稱道德命題是感知內容，不如宣稱道德 命題是認知信念內容(content of cognition)〕更為合理」。Faraci、Väyrynen、Chudnoff 都認為 「內容型道德感知主義者所謂的道德感知」背後其實是受到宰制型的道德原則（dominative moral principles）所主導的，是一種從原則所推論產生的心理狀態; 也因此，上述反駁者認為 「內容型道德感知主義者所謂的〔道德感知〕」缺乏貨真價實的感知經驗所具有的「非推論 的」(non-inferential)特徵，並不是真正的感知。本文將評估：「內容型的道德感知模型」是 否有辦法回應上述反駁者所提出的挑戰呢？ 筆者將為肯定的答案提供初步的辯護。.

Lenin Pantoja Torres nació el 11 de diciembre de 1988 en Lima (Perú). Ha realizado estudios literarios en pregrado y posgrado en la Universidad Nacional Mayor de San Marcos. Cuenta con un máster en Innovación Pedagógica y Gestión de Centros Educativos por EUCIM Business School de España. Asimismo, es magíster en Educación con mención en Políticas y Gestión de la Educación por la Universidad de San Martín de Porres (Lima, Perú). Con respecto al ámbito laboral, se ha desempeñado como tutor (...) y docente de Lenguaje en la Universidad Peruana de Ciencias Aplicadas (UPC), institución en la que laboró por más de siete años y aprendió unas óptimas técnicas de redacción. (shrink)

The majority of our linguistic exchanges, such as everyday conversations, are divided into turns; one party usually talks at a time, with only relatively rare occurrences of brief overlaps in which there are two simultaneous speakers. Moreover, conversational turn-taking tends to be very fast. We typically start producing our responses before the previous turn has finished, i.e., before we are confronted with the full content of our interlocutor’s utterance. This raises interesting questions about the nature of linguistic understanding. Philosophical theories (...) typically focus on linguistic understanding characterized either as an ability to grasp the contents of utterances in a given language or as outputs of this ability—mental states of one type or another. In this paper, I supplement these theories by developing an account of the process of understanding. I argue that it enables us to capture the dynamic and temporal aspect of understanding and reconcile philosophical investigations with empirical research on language comprehension. (shrink)

Heutige Sprache besteht aus versteinerten Formen, denen zu widersprechen für die meisten Menschen widersinnig erscheint. In diesem Empfinden des Widersinns im Widersprechen manifestiert sich psychischer Widerstand, der überwunden werden muß, indem er für alle, die davon betroffen sind, bewußt gemacht wird. Weil die Bewußtwerdung abgewehrter Inhalte ein Vorgang ist, der im Verlauf psychoanalytischer Behandlung oder Selbstbefragung bzw. Selbstinfragestellung zustande kommt, versuche ich die wesentlichen Ursachen für psychischen Widerstand aufzuzeigen.

This paper provides new tools for philosophical argument analysis and fresh empirical foundations for ‘critical’ ordinary language philosophy. Language comprehension routinely involves stereotypical inferences with contextual defeaters. J.L. Austin’s Sense and Sensibilia first mooted the idea that contextually inappropriate stereotypical inferences from verbal case-descriptions drive some philosophical paradoxes; these engender philosophical problems that can be resolved by exposing the underlying fallacies. We build on psycholinguistic research on salience effects to explain when and why even perfectly competent speakers cannot help making (...) stereotypical inferences which are contextually inappropriate. We analyse a classical paradox about perception, suggest it relies on contextually inappropriate stereotypical inferences from appearance-verbs, and show that the conditions we identified as leading to contextually inappropriate stereotypical inferences are met in formulations of the paradox. Three experiments use a forced-choice plausibility-ranking task to document the predicted inappropriate inferences, in English, German, and Japanese. The cross-linguistic study allows us to assess the wider relevance of the proposed analysis. Our findings open up new perspectives for ‘evidential’ experimental philosophy. (shrink)

The paper presents a number of empirical arguments for the perceptual view of speech comprehension. It then argues that a particular version of phenomenal dogmatism can confer immediate justification upon belief. In combination, these two views can bypass Davidsonian skepticism toward knowledge of meanings. The perceptual view alone, however, can bypass a variation on the Davidsonian argument. One reason Davidson thought meanings were not truly graspable was that he believed meanings were private (unlike behavior). But if the perceptual view of (...) speech comprehension is correct, then meanings (or at least conveyed meanings) are public objects like other perceivable entities. Hence, there is no particular problem of language comprehension, even if meanings originate in “private” mental states. (shrink)

Do we perceptually experience meanings? For example, when we hear an utterance of a sentence like ‘Bertrand is British’ do we hear its meaning in the sense of being auditorily aware of it? Several philosophers like Tim Bayne and Susanna Siegel have suggested that we do (Bayne 2009: 390, Siegel 2006: 490-491, 2011: 99-100). They argue roughly as follows: 1) experiencing speech/writing in a language you are incompetent in is phenomenally different from experiencing speech/writing you are competent in; 2) this (...) contrast is best explained by the fact that we experience meanings in the latter case, but not the former. In contrast, in an important recent discussion Casey O’Callaghan has argued that we do not (O’Callaghan 2011). He responds to the above contrast argument by claiming that this phenomenal contrast is instead best explained by the fact that we hear language-specific phonological properties in the latter case, but not in the former. In this paper I argue that O’Callaghan’s response to the popular contrast argument is too limited in scope, provide a more general response, and present a new case against experiencing meanings. (shrink)

Inner speech is commonly understood as the conscious experience of a voice within the mind. One recurrent theme in the scientific literature is that the phenomenon involves a representation of overt speech, for example, a representation of phonetic properties that result from a copy of speech instructions that were ultimately suppressed. I propose a larger picture that involves some embodied objects and their misperception. I call it “the Body Error Theory,” or BET for short. BET is a form of illusionism, (...) but the particular version I favor is a cross-modal illusion. Newly described here, my hypothesis is that the experience of inner speech arises from a mix of interoception and audition. Specifically, there is the detection of slight but well-confirmed activities in the speech musculature that occur during inner speech, which helps to transform representations of normal but quiet nonverbal sounds that inevitably occur during inner speech, from breathing to background noise, into a mistaken perception of inner speech. Simply put, activities in the speech musculature mix with sounds to create the appearance of speech sounds, which thus explains the “voice within the mind.” I also show how BET’s cross-modal system fits with standard information processing accounts for speech monitoring and how it accommodates the central insights of leading theories of inner speech. In addition, I show how BET is supported by data from experience-sampling surveys and how it can be empirically tested against its rivals. (shrink)

У статті розглянуто стратегії, тактики та прийоми, які використовує мовна особистість. Дослідження їх є одним з етапів моделювання дискурс-портрета мовної особистості, що узагальнює дані стосовно прагматичної, семантичної, сигматичної та синтактичної координат розгортання дискурсу. На прикладі аналізу есе О. Забужко «Ціна ВінніПуха» продемонстровано процедуру дослідження стратегій, тактик та прийомів мовленнєвої діяльності. Визначено лінійні та ієрархічні стратегії, тактики та прийоми на рівні кожної з координат.

Freud proposes that in unconscious processing, logical connections are also (heavily) based upon phonological similarities. Repressed concerns, for example, would also be expressed by way of phonologic ambiguity. In order to investigate a possible unconscious influence of phonological similarity, 31 participants were submitted to a tachistoscopic subliminal priming experiment, with prime and target presented at 1ms. In the experimental condition, the prime and one of the 2 targets were phonological reversed forms of each other, though graphemically dissimilar (e.g., “nice” and (...) “sign”); in the control condition the targets were pseudo-randomly attributed to primes to which they don’t belong. The experimental task was to “blindly” pick the choice most similar to the prime. ERPs were measured with a focus on the N320, which is known to react selectively to phonological mismatch in supraliminal visual word presentations. The N320 amplitude-effects at the electrodes on the midline and at the left of the brain significantly predicted the participants’ net behavioral choices more than half a second later, while their subjective experience is one of arbitrariness. Moreover, the social desirability score (SDS) significantly correlates with both the behavioral and the N320 brain responses of the participants. It is proposed that in participants with low SDS the phonological target induces an expected reduction of N320 and this increases their probability to pick this target. In contrast, high defensive participants have a perplexed brain reaction upon the phonological target, with a negatively peaking N320 as compared to control and this leads them to avoid this target more often. Social desirability, which is understood as reflecting defensiveness, might also manifest itself as a defense against the (energy-consuming) ambiguity of language. The specificity of this study is that all of this is happening totally out of awareness and at the level of very elementary linguistic distinctions. (shrink)

The paper presents a number of empirical arguments for the perceptual view of speech comprehension. It then argues that a particular version of phenomenal dogmatism can confer immediate justification upon belief. In combination, these two views can bypass Davidsonian skepticism toward knowledge of meanings. The perceptual view alone, however, can bypass a variation on the Davidsonian argument. One reason Davidson thought meanings were not truly graspable was that he believed meanings were private (unlike behavior). But if the perceptual view of (...) speech comprehension is correct, then meanings (or at least conveyed meanings) are public objects like other perceivable entities. Hence, there is no particular problem of language comprehension, even if meanings originate in “private” mental states. (shrink)

Do we perceptually experience meanings? For example, when we hear an utterance of a sentence like ‘Bertrand is British’ do we hear its meaning in the sense of being auditorily aware of it? Several philosophers like Tim Bayne and Susanna Siegel have suggested that we do (Bayne 2009: 390, Siegel 2006: 490-491, 2011: 99-100). They argue roughly as follows: 1) experiencing speech/writing in a language you are incompetent in is phenomenally different from experiencing speech/writing you are competent in; 2) this (...) contrast is best explained by the fact that we experience meanings in the latter case, but not the former. In contrast, in an important recent discussion Casey O’Callaghan has argued that we do not (O’Callaghan 2011). He responds to the above contrast argument by claiming that this phenomenal contrast is instead best explained by the fact that we hear language-specific phonological properties in the latter case, but not in the former. In this paper I argue that O’Callaghan’s response to the popular contrast argument is too limited in scope, provide a more general response, and present a new case against experiencing meanings. (shrink)

The ability to communicate in a specific language like Chinese typically indicates that the speaker understands the language. A counterexample to this belief is John Searle’s Chinese room experiment. It has been shown in this experiment that in certain circumstances we can communicate with a Chinese speaker without intuitively acknowledging that the Chinese language is understood in the conversation. In the present paper, we aim to present another counterexample showing that, in certain circumstances, we can communicate using a specific language (...) by converting its words to those of our natural language, and understand what is expressed using the language without understanding it. Using a specific conversion process introduced in the present paper, symbols and even sounds of a language like the Chinese language lose their original function and act as a tool to express one’s natural language. To better understand this, imagine the English language has another writing or phonological system in addition to its current writing system. (shrink)

The article deals with the use of the Ruthenian language in papers of the Uniate Church of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 17–18th centuries. The research is based on the analysis of the content of hundreds of original parish registers of Uniate churches that are kept in the National Historical Archives of Belarus. The methods of analysis that permit to define the time and reasons for translation of concrete parish works into the Polish language have been devised by (...) author. The collection of data obtained during the research gives a possibility to distinguish several imaginary regions of intensity of using the Ruthenian language. It also considers lexical and the orthographic features of the language in which parish registers were being kept, use of the Cyrillic and Latin script in writing the Ruthenian text. (shrink)

У пропонованій статті зроблено аналіз власноручних розписок шляхти Подільського воєводства у поборовому реєстрі з 1563 року і з’ясовано, який був рівень письменності та якими мовами користувалися шляхтичі у середині XVI століття. У XVI столітті шляхта поступово почала відходити від традиційного способу життя — військової служби. Набуття нових навичок, серед яких і вміння писати, сприяло новим напрямкам кар’єри — посіданню різноманітних урядів. Розвиток судочинства та потреба заможній шляхті вести облік своїх маєтків, створили попит на осіб, що вміють писати. Законодавча вимога особисто (...) посвідчити своє майно дає у руки дослідників унікальний документ щодо вміння шляхти писати. Серед 237 наявних у поборовому реєстрі розписок ми маємо справу з використанням трьох мов — латини, польської та руської у різних комбінаціях (де мова розписки і підпису може збігатися або ні). Не завжди шляхтич умів написати розписку власноручно, почасти його вміння писати було елементарним, а саме більш-менш вправно написати своєї ім’я та прізвище. Переважна більшість розписок написані латиною та польською, одна руською. Якщо представити наявні варіації мов, де на першому місці мова розписки, а на другому мова підпису, то у відсотках це виглядає так: лат., лат. — 57,54% випадків; лат., без підпису — 3,36%; лат., пол. — 5,04%; лат., рус. — 1,68%; лат., лат. + рус. — 1,26%; пол., пол. — 15,12%; пол., без підпису — 1,26%; пол., лат. — 1,26%; пол., рус. — 0,42%; рус., рус. — 0,42%. Серед осіб, що вміли писати переважали заможні та середньозаможні шляхтичі, урядники земського та ґродського судів, писарі неґродових замків (Скала, Зіньків), урядники, адміністратори маєтків та писарі неґродових старост та заможних землевласників, священики католицької та православної церкви. Один власноручний підпис залишила Анна Надольська, єдина жінка серед усіх платників побору. Специфікою Подільського воєдства була мала кількість осіб, що вміли писати, що пов’язано із загальною кількістю населення та шляхти зокрема, а також використання на письмі трьох мов — латини, як урядової, польської та руської. (shrink)

Freud proposes that in unconscious processing, logical connections are also (heavily) based upon phonological similarities. Repressed concerns, for example, would also be expressed by way of phonologic ambiguity. In order to investigate a possible unconscious influence of phonological similarity, 31 participants were submitted to a tachistoscopic subliminal priming experiment, with prime and target presented at 1ms. In the experimental condition, the prime and one of the 2 targets were phonological reversed forms of each other, though graphemically dissimilar (e.g., “nice” and (...) “sign”); in the control condition the targets were pseudo-randomly attributed to primes to which they don’t belong. The experimental task was to “blindly” pick the choice most similar to the prime. ERPs were measured with a focus on the N320, which is known to react selectively to phonological mismatch in supraliminal visual word presentations. The N320 amplitude-effects at the electrodes on the midline and at the left of the brain significantly predicted the participants’ net behavioral choices more than half a second later, while their subjective experience is one of arbitrariness. Moreover, the social desirability score (SDS) significantly correlates with both the behavioral and the N320 brain responses of the participants. It is proposed that in participants with low SDS the phonological target induces an expected reduction of N320 and this increases their probability to pick this target. In contrast, high defensive participants have a perplexed brain reaction upon the phonological target, with a negatively peaking N320 as compared to control and this leads them to avoid this target more often. Social desirability, which is understood as reflecting defensiveness, might also manifest itself as a defense against the (energy-consuming) ambiguity of language. The specificity of this study is that all of this is happening totally out of awareness and at the level of very elementary linguistic distinctions. (shrink)

The paper presents a number of empirical arguments for the perceptual view of speech comprehension. It then argues that a particular version of phenomenal dogmatism can confer immediate justification upon belief. In combination, these two views can bypass Davidsonian skepticism toward knowledge of meanings. The perceptual view alone, however, can bypass a variation on the Davidsonian argument. One reason Davidson thought meanings were not truly graspable was that he believed meanings were private (unlike behavior). But if the perceptual view of (...) speech comprehension is correct, then meanings (or at least conveyed meanings) are public objects like other perceivable entities. Hence, there is no particular problem of language comprehension, even if meanings originate in “private” mental states. (shrink)