Suchergebnisse

AbstractAs an object of philosophical study, language is typically considered as an abstract object rather than a lived phenomenon that comes with rich and varied phenomenology. And yet our modes of engaging with language are complex and many. The first goal of this paper is to illustrate this variety by looking at some of the linguistic modalities and forms of communication. The second goal is to suggest that at least in some specific philosophical debates, language and communication should be investigated in the context of the various linguistic modalities and forms of communication. This will be done by considering how attention to some of the linguistic modalities and forms of communication may affect philosophical debates concerning: the nature of words, language and linguistic understanding, as well as the relation between linguistic utterances and their sources.

AbstractHow good are we at understanding what others communicate? It oftenseemsto us, at least, that we understand quite well what others convey when speaking in a familiar language. However, a growing body of evidence from the psychology of language suggests that in various communicative settings comprehenders routinely form linguistic representations that are underdetermined, "sketchy", "shallow" or imprecise, often without noticing it. The paper discusses some important consequences of this evidence. Following recent discussions in this strand of research, I outline how the evidence is currently best interpreted as supporting a view on which operating at a certain level of imprecision and underdetermination is afunctional featureof the system responsible for comprehension of linguistic utterances in humans. That this kind of imprecision and underdetermination is part and parcel of linguistic interactions, makes the exact success rate of comprehension particularly hard to estimate. This poses a unique and interesting challenge for assessing the quality of linguistic comprehension. Understanding what a speaker intended to convey with a linguistic utterance may be less transparent than it appears to us. I will discuss the extent to which this evidence may lead to pessimism about how good we are at comprehending what others communicate. However, as I will argue in the last part of the paper, in various cases language users can be sensitive to some types of imprecision and underdetermination in comprehension and make up for it by means of various forms ofpost hocdeliberation. I will describe some suchclarificatorycontexts and end by charting a map of important issues that require further investigation.

AbstractWhen you hear a person speaking in a familiar language you perceive thespeech soundsuttered and thevoicethat produces them. How are speech sounds and voice related in a typical auditory experience of hearing speech in a particular voice? And how to conceive of the objects of such experiences? I propose a conception of auditory objects of speech perception as temporally structured mereologically complex individuals. A common experience is that speech sounds and the voice that produces them appear united. I argue that the metaphysical underpinnings of the experienced unity of speech sounds and voices can be explained in terms of themereologicalview on sounds and their sources. I also propose a psychological explanation (theVoice Shaping Speechmodel) of how we form and individuate the auditory objects of experiences of listening to speech in a particular voice. Voice characteristics enable determining the identity of auditory objects of speech sound perception by making some features of the speech signal stable and predictable.