pp 1–24 | Cite as

Hearing meanings: the revenge of context

  • Luca GasparriEmail author
  • Michael Murez


According to the perceptual view of language comprehension, listeners typically recover high-level linguistic properties such as utterance meaning without inferential work. The perceptual view is subject to the Objection from Context: since utterance meaning is massively context-sensitive, and context-sensitivity requires cognitive inference, the perceptual view is false. In recent work, Berit Brogaard provides a challenging reply to this objection. She argues that in language comprehension context-sensitivity is typically exercised not through inferences, but rather through top-down perceptual modulations or perceptual learning. This paper provides a complete formulation of the Objection from Context and evaluates Brogaards reply to it. Drawing on conceptual considerations and empirical examples, we argue that the exercise of context-sensitivity in language comprehension does, in fact, typically involve inference.


Language Meaning Context Inference Perception Cognition 



We would like to thank Joulia Smortchkova and three anonymous reviewers for extremely helpful comments on the manuscript. The usual disclaimer applies. Luca Gasparri gratefully acknowledges financial support from the Alexander von Humboldt Foundation.


  1. Asher, N., & Lascarides, A. (2003). Logics of conversation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Balcerak Jackson, B. (2019). Against the perceptual model of utterance comprehension. Philosophical Studies, 176, 387–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bayne, T. (2009). Perception and the reach of phenomenal content. The Philosophical Quarterly, 59, 385–404.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Binder, J. R. (2017). Current controversies on Wernicke’s area and its role in language. Current Neurology and Neuroscience Reports, 17, 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borg, E. (2004). Minimal semantics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borg, E. (2012). Pursuing meaning. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brogaard, B. (2017). The publicity of meaning and the perceptual approach to speech comprehension. ProtoSociology, 34, 144–162.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brogaard, B. (2018). In defense of hearing meanings. Synthese, 195, 2967–2983.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brogaard, B. (2019). Seeing and hearing meanings: A non-inferential approach to speech comprehension. In T. Chan & A. Nes (Eds.), Inference and consciousness. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. Brogaard, B., & Gatzia, D. E. (2015). Is the auditory system cognitively penetrable? Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1166. Scholar
  11. Brogaard, B., & Gatzia, D. E. (2017). The real epistemic significance of perceptual learning. Inquiry, 61, 543–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Büring, D. (2005). Binding theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Carston, R. (2007). How many pragmatic systems are there? In M. J. Frápolli (Ed.), Saying, meaning and referring: Essays on François Recanati’s philosophy of language. London: Palgrave-Macmillan.Google Scholar
  14. Connolly, K. (2019). Perceptual learning: The flexibility of the senses. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cornish, F. (1999). Anaphora, discourse and understanding. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  16. Davidson, D. (1973). Radical interpretation. Dialectica, 27, 313–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Davis, E., Morgenstern, L., & Ortiz, C. L. (2017). The first Winograd Schema Challenge at IJCAI-16. AI Magazine, 38, 97–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Drayson, Z. (2014). The personal/subpersonal distinction. Philosophy Compass, 9, 338–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Drożdżowicz, A. (forthcoming). Do we hear meanings?—Between perception and cognition. Inquiry.
  20. Fillmore, C. (1982). Frame semantics. In The Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm. Seoul: Hanshin Publishing.Google Scholar
  21. Firestone, C., & Scholl, B. J. (2016). Cognition does not affect perception: Evaluating the evidence for ‘top-down’ effects. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, e229, 1–77.Google Scholar
  22. Fodor, J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Fodor, J. A. (2000). The mind doesn’t work that way: The scope and limits of computational psychology. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Frisson, S. (2015). About bound and scary books: The processing of book polysemies. Lingua, 157, 17–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ginzburg, J. (2012). The interactive stance: Meaning for conversation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Hartwigsen, G., Golombek, T., & Obleser, J. (2015). Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation over left angular gyrus modulates the predictability gain in degraded speech comprehension. Cortex, 68, 100–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Isac, D., & Reiss, C. (2013). I-language: An introduction to linguistics as cognitive science (2nd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  28. Johnson-Laird, P. (2008). How we reason. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kehler, A. (2002). Coherence, reference, and the theory of grammar. Stanford, CA: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
  30. Kehler, A., Kertz, L., Rohde, H., & Elman, J. (2008). Coherence and coreference revisited. Journal of Semantics, 25, 1–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kelly, S. D., Ward, S., Creigh, P., & Bartolotti, J. (2007). An intentional stance modulates the integration of gesture and speech during comprehension. Brain and Language, 101, 222–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kiefer, A. (2017). Literal perceptual inference. In T. Metzinger & W. Wiese (Eds.), Philosophy and predictive processing: 17. Frankfurt am Main: MIND Group.
  33. Kissine, M. (2016). Pragmatics as metacognitive control. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 20–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Levesque, H., Davis, E., & Morgenstern, L. (2012). The Winograd schema challenge. In Proceedings of the thirteenth international conference on the principles of knowledge representation and reasoning. Menlo Park, CA: AAAI Press.Google Scholar
  35. Longworth, G. (2008). Linguistic understanding and knowledge. Noûs, 42, 50–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ludlow, P. (2011). The philosophy of generative linguistics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lyons, J. C. (2016). Unconscious evidence. Philosophical. Issues, 26, 243–262.Google Scholar
  38. MacLeod, C. (2015). The Stroop Eeffect. In R. Luo (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Color Science and Technology. Berlin: Springer. Scholar
  39. Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. (2019). The enigma of reason. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  40. O’Callaghan, C. (2011). Against hearing meanings. The Philosophical Quarterly, 61, 783–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Ortega-Andrés, M., & Vicente, A. (2019). Polysemy and co-predication. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 4.
  42. Özyürek, A. (2014). Hearing and seeing meaning in speech and gesture: Insights from brain and behaviour. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369, 20130296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Pettit, D. (2010). On the epistemology and psychology of speech comprehension. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 5, 1–43.Google Scholar
  44. Pilotti, M., Antrobus, J. S., & Duff, M. (1997). The effect of presemantic acoustic adaptation on semantic “satiation”. Memory & Cognition, 25, 305–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Prinz, J. (2006). Beyond appearances: The content of sensation and perception. In T. S. Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Perceptual experience (pp. 434–459). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Quilty-Dunn, J., & Mandelbaum, E. (2018). Inferential transitions. Australasian Journal of Philosophy, 96, 532–547.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Recanati, F. (2010). Truth-conditional pragmatics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Reiland, I. (2015). On experiencing meanings. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 53(4), 481–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reverberi, C., Pischedda, D., Burigo, M., & Cherubini, P. (2012). Deduction without awareness. Acta Psychologica, 139, 244–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Riedel, P., Ragert, P., Schelinski, S., Kiebel, S., & Kriegstein, K. (2015). Visual face-movement sensitive cortex is relevant for auditory-only speech recognition. Cortex, 68, 86–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Sagi, E., & Rips, L. (2014). Identity, causality, and pronoun ambiguity. Topics in Cognitive Science, 6, 663–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Siegel, S. (2006). Which properties are represented in perception? In T. Szabo Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Perceptual experience (pp. 481–503). Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Skipper, J. (2014). Echoes of the spoken past: How auditory cortex hears context during speech perception. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 369, 20130297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Soraci, S. A., Franks, J. J., Carlin, M. T., Hoehn, T. P., & Hardy, J. K. (1992). A “popout” effect with words and nonwords. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30, 290–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sperber, D. (2001). In defense of massive modularity. In E. Dupoux (Ed.), Language, brain and cognitive development: Essays in honor of Jacques Mehler (pp. 47–57). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  57. Stanley, J. (2005). Hornsby on the phenomenology of speech. The Aristotelian Society Supplementary, 79, 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Stich, S. P. (1978). Belief and subdoxastic states. Philosophy of Science, 48, 499–518.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Strawson, G. (1994). Mental reality. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  60. Thagard, P. (1984). Frames, knowledge, and inference. Synthese, 61, 233–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Tye, M. (2000). Consciousness, color, and content. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Wilson, D. (1992). Relevance and reference. UCL Working Papers in Linguistics, 4, 167–191.Google Scholar
  63. Wilson, D. (2005). New directions for research on pragmatics and modularity. Lingua, 115, 1129–1146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institut für Philosophie, Fachbereich Philosophie und GeisteswissenschaftenFreie Universität BerlinBerlinGermany
  2. 2.Centre Atlantique de PhilosophieUniversité de NantesNantesFrance

Personalised recommendations