Switch to: References

Add citations

You must login to add citations.
  1. Auditory Perception.Casey O'Callaghan - 2014 - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2009.
  • Experiencing Speech.Casey O’Callaghan - 2010 - Philosophical Issues 20 (1):305-332.
  • Phonetic Segments and the Organization of Speech.Luca Gasparri - 2019 - Philosophy of Science 86 (2):304-324.
    According to mainstream linguistic phonetics, speech can be modeled as a string of discrete sound segments or “phones” drawn from a universal phonetic inventory. Recent work has argued that a mature phonetics should refrain from theorizing about speech and speech processing using sound segments, and that the phone concept should be eliminated from linguistic theory. The paper lays out the tenets of the phone methodology and evaluates its prospects in light of the eliminativist arguments. I claim that the eliminativist arguments (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
    Export citation  
  • Against Hearing Meanings.Casey O'Callaghan - 2011 - Philosophical Quarterly 61 (245):783-807.
    Listening to speech in a language you know differs phenomenologically from listening to speech in an unfamiliar language, a fact often exploited in debates about the phenomenology of thought and cognition. It is plausible that the difference is partly perceptual. Some contend that hearing familiar language involves auditory perceptual awareness of meanings or semantic properties of spoken utterances; but if this were so, there must be something distinctive it is like auditorily to perceptually experience specific meanings of spoken utterances. However, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
    Export citation  
    Bookmark   36 citations  
  • On a Supposed Dogma of Speech Perception Research: A Response to Appelbaum (1999).Fernando Orphão de Carvalho - 2009 - Principia: An International Journal of Epistemology 13 (1):93-103.
    In this paper we purport to qualify the claim, advanced by Appelbaum (1999) that speech perception research, in the last 70 years or so, has endorsed a view on the nature of speech for which no evidence can be adduced and which has resisted falsification through active ad hoc “theoretical repair” carried by speech scientists. We show that the author’s qualms on the putative dogmatic status of speech research are utterly unwarranted, if not misconstrued as a whole. On more general (...)
    Direct download (9 more)  
    Export citation