Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-fg9bn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-29T01:58:56.361Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Dogma of Isomorphism: A Case Study from Speech Perception

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 April 2022

Irene Appelbaum
Irene Appelbaum*
Affiliation:
University of Montana
*
†Department of Philosophy, University of Montana, Missoula, Montana 59812.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper I provide a metatheoretical analysis of speech perception research. I argue that the central turning point in the history of speech perception research has not been well understood. While it is widely thought to mark a decisive break with what I call “the alphabetic conception of speech,” I argue that it instead marks the entrenchment of this conception of speech. In addition, I argue that the alphabetic conception of speech continues to underwrite speech perception research today and moreover that it functions as a dogma which ought to be rejected.

Information

Type
Philosophy of Psychology and Cognitive Science
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 66 , Issue S3: Supplement. Proceedings of the 1998 Biennial Meetings of the Philosophy of Science Association. Part I: Contributed Papers Sep., 1999 , 1999 , pp. S250 - S259
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

Footnotes

‡

I would like to thank David Malament, Howard Nusbaum, and Brian C. Smith for helpful comments.

References

Bloomfield, Leonard (1933), Language. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Blumstein, Sheila E. and Stevens, Kenneth N. (1981), “Phonetic Features and Acoustic Invariance in Speech”, Cognition 10: 25–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Carol A. (1986), “An Event Approach to the Study of Speech Perception from a Direct-Realist Perspective”, Journal of Phonetics 14: 3–28.10.1016/S0095-4470(19)30607-2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fowler, Carol A. (1989), “Real Objects of Speech Perception: A Commentary of Diehl and Kluender”, Ecological Psychology 1: 145–160.10.1207/s15326969eco0102_3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, C. M. (1953), “A Study of the Building Blocks in Speech”, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 25: 962–969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberman, Alvin M. (1996), Speech: A Special Code. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Liberman, Alvin M., Cooper, Frank S., Shankweiler, Dennis P., and Studdert-Kennedy, Michael (1967), “Perception of the Speech Code”, Psychological Review 74: 431–461.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liberman, Alvin M., Delattre, Pierre C., and Cooper, Frank S. (1952), “The Role of Selected Stimulus-Variables in the Perception of the Unvoiced Stop Consonants”, The American Journal of Psychology 65: 497–516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Liberman, Alvin M. and Mattingly, Ignatius G. (1985), “The Motor Theory of Speech Perception Revised”, Cognition 21: 1–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lieberman, Philip and Blumstein, Sheila E. (1988), Speech Physiology, Speech Perception, and Acoustic Phonetics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stevens, Kenneth N. and Blumstein, Sheila E. (1981), “The Search for Invariant Acoustic Correlates of Phonetic Features,” in Eimas, Peter D. and Miller, Joanne L. (eds.), Perspectives on the Study of Speech. New Jersey: Erlbaum, 1–38.Google Scholar