Gross, Steven - “Cognitive Penetrability and Language”

(1993 Pylshyn) Cognition : organism’s goals & beliefs Affects: - Perception: 3 q’s - whether some part of perception is cog. Impen. - perceptual experience? - perceptual judgments?

Corresponding to Lang: - cog imp linguistic input analyzer? - quasi-p experience of language? - are meta linguistic quasi-perceptual judgments cog pen?

(1) - need not cover all - e.g., effects of knowledge on anaphora resolution

(Fodor 83, 89) -phoneme recognition imp? (1998 Appelbaum) Possibilities- lexical status, surrounding semantics, speaker's accent / identity

(2) More specifically, one experiences meanings (2009 Noe) no by (2009 Roelofs) - on bilingual realization vs. use of “attentional inhibition”

(3) 2 candidates; - j about what was said - j about acceptability (linguistic intuitions)

I. Obvious yes (see anaphora resolution) II. If cog pen, then confirmation bias and unrepresentative

  • I no longer know what he’s talking about. What is a generativist position and how are they related to “island constructions”? Need more Phil of Lang for this, maybe Fodor?

So... Parts of / most of language is cog impen?

O'Callaghan, Casey - “on hearing meanings”

Phil's pay attention to the how of understanding of language. The side less paid attention to are the perceptual parts -too large a body of evidence?

Semantic properties perhaps shouldn't be clumped in too quickly with higher-order thoughts

Descartes - there is no phenomenal contrast for the first person perspective

!!! “Phenomenal contrast”

(Strawson 1994, Prinz 2006) - there is a perceptual difference in language heard by native or foreign speakers (in the meaning - “hund” in deutsch)

(Susanna Siegel 2006, p490-1, 497) - different phenom on hearing the same speech while knowing different langs

Sine wave speech exp. “she irons her skirt” -- built-in expectations? - demonstrative of a definite phenomenal difference in understanding speech and hearing speech

(1998 McDowell) on the same; Siegel on billboards suggest sensory apprehension of semantics without mediation of differences in auditory or visual content

  • what do we grasp when u says p? how about a representation which could point to the speaker's intention?

Devitt, Michael - “Linguistic Intuitions and Penetrability”

Top-down covered from Pylshyn - focus on bottom-up (?)

Chomsky-intuitions are penetrative

  • he definitely likes using the word penetration

.….….… Some rules for presentations (rough) - don't outline first; that's for papers (young) - everyone likes a demonstration - don't plug your own work - keep logical steps to a minimum (or be sure to repeat the structure of the argument as it grows at each stage) - do not rely on visual aids to accomplish this - charts are more useful for displaying examples. - visual displays of quotes are distracting. - exceptions: thesis statements, or how they change through the argument, provide a hook for each stage of the argument’s growth. - draw a perceptually-based picture for your audience to demonstrate relations (inferred from Goldstone)