In defense of hearing meanings

Abstract

According to the inferential view of language comprehension, we hear a speaker’s utterance and infer what was said, drawing on our competence in the syntax and semantics of the language together with background information. On the alternative perceptual view, fluent speakers have a non-inferential capacity to perceive the content of speech. On this view, when we hear a speaker’s utterance, the experience confers some degree of justification on our beliefs about what was said in the absence of defeaters. So, in the absence of defeaters, we can come to know what was said merely on the basis of hearing the utterance. Several arguments have been offered against a pure perceptual view of language comprehension, among others, arguments pointing to its alleged difficulties accounting for homophones and the context-sensitivity of ordinary language. After responding to challenges to the perceptual view of language comprehension, I provide a new argument in favor of the perceptual view by looking closer at the dependence of the justificatory qualities of experience on the notion of a defeater as well as the perceptual nature of language learning and language processing.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Notes

  1. 1.

    It is slightly misleading to talk about auditorily perceiving what is said (or loosely: hearing meanings). In far the most cases, we don’t auditorily perceive what is said, but see people say something. The latter case is not a case of auditory experience as such but rather one of multisensory experience. It is to be expected, of course, that seeing lip movement and gestures can contribute in significant ways to our perceptual grasp of what is said. I shall set aside these more complicated cases here but hope to deal with them in future work.

  2. 2.

    The second epistemic component is, in principle, an optional addition to the perceptual view. However, the attractiveness of the perceptual view may in part depend on the cogency of the argument for the epistemic component.

  3. 3.

    Here I follow the tradition in linguistics of using ‘utterance contents’ and ‘utterance meanings’ synonymously.

  4. 4.

    There are, of course, other ways to block the Davidsonian line of argument. So, this line of argument should not be taken to be the main reason to adopt the perceptual view of language comprehension.

  5. 5.

    This is not to say that O’Callaghan’s intention in putting forth the argument was to establish that we don’t perceive semantic properties but only that one might potentially use this sort of argument to attempt to show that we don’t perceive semantic properties.

  6. 6.

    Here we can imagine that someone is simply named ‘Poll’, pronounced like the English word. The utterer would then be asking someone to give the doll to Poll.

  7. 7.

    Longworth (2008) notes that the appearance that a sentence like ‘More people have been to France than I have’ is meaningful may persist even after we realize that it is, in fact, incomprehensible.

  8. 8.

    See, e.g., https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=adAJ3y4EL9I for a cat allegedly expressing how much she loves her owner. Retrieved on 15 December 2015.

  9. 9.

    Food Tongue Wiki, http://foodtongue.soy/.

  10. 10.

    “FoodTongue: Interview with Alan Huang”, http://lemmingsblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/foodtongue-interview-with-alan-huang.html. Retrieved on 16 December 2015.

  11. 11.

    1(a) Yogurt! Plantain wasabi! Apple cauliflower Berry [Hello. And welcome. My name is Berit], 1(b) Apple oyster Food Tongue; apple sauce Food Tongue grass ham-sandwich tongue [I love Food Tongue; I think Food Tongue is a math camper language], 1(c) Food Tongue grass tongue quiche stew camper fish ham-sandwich yellow-pepper dough. Mint tongue-slice calamari grass food. [Food Tongue is a language that math campers invented in mathcamp in the past. Each lexical item is a kind of food.]

References

  1. Bayne, T. (2009). Perception and the reach of phenomenal content. The Philosophical Quarterly, 59(236), 385–404.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Bergmann, M. (2013). Phenomenal conservatism and the dilemma for internalism. In C. Tucker (Ed.), Seemings and justification: New essays on dogmatism and phenomenal conservatism (pp. 154–180). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  3. Brogaard, B. (2013a). Do we perceive natural kind properties? Philosophical Studies, 162(1), 35–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Brogaard, B. (2013b). Phenomenal seemings and sensible dogmatism. In C. Tucker (Ed.), Seemings and justification: New essays on dogmatism and phenomenal conservatism (pp. 270–289). New York: Oxford University Press.

  5. Brogaard, B. (in press). Perceptual appearances of personality. Philosophical Topics.

  6. Brogaard, B., & Chomanski, B. (2015). Cognitive penetrability and high-level properties in perception: Unrelated phenomena? Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 96(2015), 469–486.

  7. Brogaard, B., & Gatzia, D. E. (2015). Is the auditory system cognitively penetrable? Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 1166. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Chandrasekaran, B., Skoe, E., & Kraus, N. (2013). An integrative model of subcortical auditory plasticity. Brain Topography. doi:10.1007/s10548-013-0323-9.

  9. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973a). The mind’s eye in chess. In W. G. Chase (Ed.), Visual information processing (pp. 215–281). New York: Academic.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  10. Chase, W. G., & Simon, H. A. (1973b). Perception in chess. Cognitive Psychology, 4, 55–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Christianson, K., Luke, S. G., & Ferreira, F. (2010). Effects on plausibility on structural priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 36, 538–544.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Chudnoff, E. (2013). Intuition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  13. Chudnoff, E. (2014). Review of Tucker (eds.) Seemings and justification. Notre Dame Philosophical Reviews. http://ndpr.nd.edu/news/48118-seemings-and-justificationnew-essays-on-dogmatism-and-phenomenal-conservatism/.

  14. Chudnoff, E. (forthcoming). Intuition, presentational phenomenology, and awareness of abstract objects. Florida Philosophical Review.

  15. Chudnoff, E. (2016). Moral perception: High level perception or low level intuition? In T. Breyer & C. Gutland (Eds.), Phenomenology of thinking (pp. 207–220). London: Routledge.

  16. Chudnoff, E., & DiDomenico, D. (2015). The epistemic unity of perception. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 96(4), 535–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Conee, E. (2013). Seeming evidence. In C. Tucker (Ed.), Seemings and justification: New essays on dogmatism and phenomenal conservatism (pp. 52–70). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  18. Davidson, D. (1973). Radical interpretation. Dialectica, 27. Reprinted in Inquiries into truth and interpretation (pp. 125–140). Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1984.

  19. Ferreira, F., Bailey, K. G. D., & Ferraro, V. (2002). Good-enough representations in language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 11, 11–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Fodor, J. (1983). Modularity of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Fricker, E. (2003). Understanding and knowledge of what is said. In A. Barber (Ed.), Epistemology of language (pp. 325–366). London: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Glezer, L. S., Kim, J., Rule, J., Jiang, X., & Riesenhuber, M. (2015). Adding words to the brain’s visual dictionary: Novel word learning selectively sharpens orthographic representations in the VWFA. The Journal of Neuroscience, 35(12), 4965–4972.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Ghijsen, H. (2015). Grounding perceptual dogmatism: What are perceptual seemings? The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 53(2), 196–215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Gilbert, C. D., & Li, W. (2013). Top-down influences on visual processing. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience, 14, 351.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Gobet, F., & Simon, H. A. (1996). Templates in chess memory: A mechanism for recalling several boards. Cognitive Psychology, 31, 1–40.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Gobet, F., & Simon, H. A. (2000). Five seconds or sixty? Presentation time in expert memory. Cognitive Science, 24, 651–682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Gordon, I. E. (2004). Theories of visual perception (3rd ed.). Hove: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Longworth, G. (2008). Linguistic understanding and knowledge. Nous, 42(1), 50–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Lotto, A., & Holt, L. L. (2011). Psychology of auditory perception. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Cognitive Science, 2(5), 479–489.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Lyons, J. (2015). Seemings and justification. Analysis Reviews, 75(1), 153–164.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Matlin, M. W. (2013). Cognition (8th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  32. McDowell, J. (1978). On ‘The Reality of the Past’. In C. Hookway & P. Pettit (Eds.), Action and interpretation (pp. 127–244). Cambridge: CUP.

    Google Scholar 

  33. McDowell, J. (1981). Anti-realism and the epistemology of understanding. In H. Parret & J. Bouveresse (Eds.), Meaning and understanding (pp. 225–248). Berlin: De Gruyter.

    Google Scholar 

  34. McLaughlin, B., Rossman, T., & McLeod, B. (1983). Second language learning: An information-processing perspective. Language Learning, 33(2), 135–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. O’Callaghan, C. (2011). Against hearing meanings. The Philosophical Quarterly, 61(245), 783–807.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Pettit, D. (2010). On the epistemology and psychology of speech comprehension. The Baltic International Yearbook of Cognition, Logic and Communication, 5(Meaning, Understanding and Knowledge), 1–43.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Politzer, G., & Bonnefon, J.-F. (2006). Two varieties of conditionals and two kinds of defeaters help reveal two fundamental types of reasoning. Mind and Language, 21(4), 484–503.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Pollock, J. (1986). Contemporary theories of knowledge. Savage, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  39. Pollock, J. (1987). Defeasible reasons. Cognitive Science, 11(4), 481–518.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Pylyshyn, Z. (1999). Is vision continuous with cognition? The case for cognitive impenetrability of visual perception. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 22, 341–423.

    Google Scholar 

  41. Recanati, F. (2004). Literal meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Reiland, I. (2015a). On experiencing meanings. The Southern Journal of Philosophy, 53(4), 481–492.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. Reiland, I. (2015b). Experience, seemings, and evidence. Pacific Philosophical Quarterly, 96(4), 510–534.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Siegel, S. (2005). Which properties are represented in perception? In T. Szabo Gendler & J. Hawthorne (Eds.), Perceptual experience (pp. 481–503). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  45. Siegel, S. (2012). Cognitive penetrability and perceptual justification. Noûs, 46(2), 201–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Stanley, J. (2005). Hornsby on the phenomenology of speech. The Aristotelian Society Supplementary, 79, 131–146.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Suga, N., Xiao, Z., Ma, X., & Ji, W. (2002). Plasticity and corticofugal modulation for hearing in adult animals. Neuron, 36(1), 9–18.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  48. Swets, B., Desmet, T., Clifton, C, Jr., & Ferreira, F. (2008). Underspecification of syntactic ambiguities: Evidence from self-paced reading. Memory and Cognition, 36, 201–216.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  49. Tucker, C. (2010). Why open-minded people should endorse dogmatism. Philosophical Perspectives, 24, 529–545.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

I am grateful to Brendan Balcerak-Jackson, Ned Block, Anna Drożdżowicz, Casey O’Callaghan, Francois Recanati, Josh Weisberg and Wayne Wu for helpful discussion of these issues and to Elijah Chudnoff, Kathrin Glüer, Anandi Hattiangadi, Casey Landers, Luca Moretti, Peter Pagin, Tommaso Piazza, David Poston, Dag Westerståhl, audiences at Stockholm and Houston and two anonymous reviewers for this journal for helpful comments on a previous version of the paper.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Berit Brogaard.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Brogaard, B. In defense of hearing meanings. Synthese 195, 2967–2983 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-016-1178-x

Download citation

Keywords

  • Ambiguity
  • Cognitive penetration
  • Cognitive phenomenology
  • Language comprehension
  • Perceptual learning
  • Phenomenal contrast argument
  • Phenomenal dogmatism
  • Presentational phenomenology
  • Polysemy
  • Top-down influences