Bookmark and Share

Languages

Edited by Guy Longworth (University of Warwick)
About this topic
Summary This category covers discussion of a wide range of issues, including the following. 1. Linguistic Convention. What is the nature of the relation between individuals and the languages that they can speak? In particular, should it be accounted for by appeal to convention and, if so, what account should be given of the nature of convention? 2. Idiolects. What determines the properties of individual speakers' languages? Are those properties determined by properties of the individual speaker, or might properties of other speakers, or communities of speakers (perhaps including past speakers), figure here? Are there shared or communal languages? What is the relation between individuals' languages and shared or communal languages? 3. Knowledge of Language. Do speakers of a language know that language? If they do, in what does their knowledge consist? Is it a form of propositional knowledge, a form of practical knowledge, or some other form of knowledge? And what is it that they know when they know a language? 4. Linguistic Universals. Are there properties shared by all possible languages? Are there properties shared by all natural, or humanly acquirable, languages? If there are such properties, what are they? And can we explain why there are precisely those universal properties? 5. Private Language. Is it possible for there to be a language that, as a matter of necessity, only one person speaks? Or are there arguments that no such language is possible? 6. Words. Are there such things as words? If there are, what is their nature? Are words concrete individuals or types, or do they belong to a different metaphysical category? What are the principles that govern how words are to be counted?
Key works Lewis 1975 Important presentation of a view about how convention figures in determining which language individuals speak. Davidson 1986 Important defence of the idea that idiolects are fundamental to language and communication. Dummett 1993 Development of Dummett's view that knowledge of a language is a distinctive form of practical knowledge. Crain & Pietroski 2001 Useful overview of arguments for innateness and linguistic universals. Kripke 1982 Important argument that private languages are not possible. Kaplan 1990 Important account of the metaphysics of words.
  Show all references
Related categories
Subcategories:
1320 found
Search inside:
(import / add options)   Sort by:
1 — 50 / 1320
Material to categorize
  1. A. Riegler & S. Weber (2013). Non-Dualism: A New Understanding of Language. Constructivist Foundations 8 (2):139-142.
    Context: Non-dualism suggests a new way of utilizing language without the assumption of categorically extralinguistic objects denoted by language. Problem: What is the innovative potential, what is the special value of non-dualism for science? Is non-dualism a fruitful conceptual revision or just a philosophical thought experiment with no or little significance for science? Method: We provide a concise introduction to non-dualism’s central new proposals and an overview of the papers. Results: Fourteen contributors show how this way of thinking and speaking (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
Linguistic Convention
  1. Varol Akman, In Search of Intended Meaning: Investigating Barwise's Equation CR(S, C) = P.
    Here, S is a sentence—or possibly a smaller or larger unit of meaningful expression for a language—that’s written by an author and c is the circumstance in which S is used. R is defined as the language conventions holding between an author and a reader (or better yet, his readership). P , probably the most important part of the equation, is the content of S or, the intended meaning of the author. We assume that the communication between an author and (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Karl-Otto Apel (1980). Karl-Otto Apel — Three Dimensions of Understanding Meaning in Analytic Philosophy: Linguistic Conventions, Intentions, and Reference to Things. Philosophy and Social Criticism 7 (2):116-142.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. A. Avramides (1997). Intentions and Convention. In Bob Hale & Crispin Wright (eds.), A Companion to the Philosophy of Language. Blackwell. 60--86.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. K. Bach & R. Harnish (1979). Linguistic Communication and Speech Acts. Mit Press.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Kent Bach, Introduction.
    Language is used to express thoughts and to represent aspects of the world. What thought a sentence expresses depends on what the sentence means, and how it represents the world also depends on what it means. Moreover, it is ultimately arbitrary, a matter of convention, that the words of a language mean what they do. So it might seem that what they mean is a matter of how they are used. However, they need not be used in accordance with their (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  6. Alex Barber, Idiolects. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
    An idiolect, if there is such a thing, is a language that can be characterised exhaustively in terms of intrinsic properties of some single person at a time, a person whose idiolect it is at that time. The force of ‘intrinsic’ is that the characterisation ought not to turn on features of the person's wider linguistic community. Some think that this notion of an idiolect is unstable, and instead use ‘idiolect’ to describe a person's incomplete or erroneous grasp of their (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. Jeffrey A. Barrett (2010). Faithful Description and the Incommensurability of Evolved Languages. Philosophical Studies 147 (1):123 - 137.
    Skyrms-Lewis signaling games illustrate how meaningful language may evolve from initially meaningless random signals (Lewis, Convention 1969; Skyrms 2008). Here we will consider how incommensurable languages might evolve in the context of signaling games. We will also consider the types of incommensurability exhibited between evolved languages in such games. We will find that sequentially evolved languages may be strongly incommensurable while still allowing for increasingly faithful descriptions of the world.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. John G. Bennett (1974). Depiction and Convention. The Monist 58 (2):255-268.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Jonathan Francis Bennett (1976). Linguistic Behaviour. Cambridge University Press.
    First published in 1976, this book presents a view of language as a matter of systematic communicative behaviour.
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Mark H. Bickhard (2008). Social Ontology as Convention. Topoi 27 (1-2):139-149.
    I will argue that social ontology is constituted as hierarchical and interlocking conventions of multifarious kinds. Convention, in turn, is modeled in a manner derived from that of David K. Lewis. Convention is usually held to be inadequate for models of social ontologies, with one primary reason being that there seems to be no place for normativity. I argue that two related changes are required in the basic modeling framework in order to address this (and other) issue(s): (1) a shift (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Ben Blumson (2008). Depiction and Convention. Dialectica 62 (3):335-348.
    By defining both depictive and linguistic representation as kinds of symbol system, Nelson Goodman attempts to undermine the platitude that, whereas linguistic representation is mediated by convention, depiction is mediated by resemblance. I argue that Goodman is right to draw a strong analogy between the two kinds of representation, but wrong to draw the counterintuitive conclusion that depiction is not mediated by resemblance.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Emma Borg, Language: A Biological Model.
    Ruth Garrett Millikan is one of the most important thinkers in philosophy of mind and language of the current generation. Across a number of seminal books, and in the company of theorists such as Jerry Fodor and Fred Dretske, she has championed a wholly naturalistic, scientific understanding of content, whether of thought or words. Many think that naturalism about meaning has found its most defensible form in her distinctively “teleological” approach, and in Language: A Biological Model she continues the expansion (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Emma Borg (2006). Intention-Based Semantics. In Ernest Lepore & Barry Smith (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Philosophy of Language. Oxford University Press. 250--266.
    There is a sense in which it is trivial to say that one accepts intention- (or convention-) based semantics.[2] For if what is meant by this claim is simply that there is an important respect in which words and sentences have meaning (either at all or the particular meanings that they have in any given natural language) due to the fact that they are used, in the way they are, by intentional agents (i.e. speakers), then it seems no one should (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Steffen Borge (2009). Intentions and Compositionality. SATS 10 (1):100-106.
    It has been argued that philosophers that base their theories of meaning on communicative intentions and language conventions cannot accommodate the fact that natural languages are compositional. In this paper I show that if we pay careful attention to Grice's notion of “resultant procedures” we see that this is not the case. The argument, if we leave out all the technicalities, is fairly simple. Resultant procedures tell you how to combine utterance parts, like words, into larger units, like sentences. You (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. David Braddon-Mitchell (2004). Masters of Our Meanings. Philosophical Studies 118 (1-2):133-52.
    The two-dimensional framework in semantics has the most power and plausibility when combined with a kind of global semantic neo-descriptivism. If neo-descriptivism can be defended on the toughest terrain - the semantics of ordinary proper names - then the other skirmishes should be easier. This paper defends neo-descriptivism against two important objections: that the descriptions may be inaccessibly locked up in sub-personal modules, and thus not accessible a priori, and that in any case all such modules bottom out in purely (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (9 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. John Collins (2007). Review of I G Norance of Language} by Michael D Evitt. [REVIEW] Mind 116 (462):416-423.
    Remove from this list |
    Translate to English
    |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Wayne A. Davis (1998). Implicature: Intention, Convention, and Principle in the Failure of Gricean Theory. Cambridge University Press.
    H. P. Grice virtually discovered the phenomenon of implicature (to denote the implications of an utterance that are not strictly implied by its content). Gricean theory claims that conversational implicatures can be explained and predicted using general psycho-social principles. This theory has established itself as one of the orthodoxes in the philosophy of language. Wayne Davis argues controversially that Gricean theory does not work. He shows that any principle-based theory understates both the intentionality of what a speaker implicates and the (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. Boudewijn de Bruin (2005). Game Theory in Philosophy. Topoi 24 (2):197-208.
    Game theory is the mathematical study of strategy and conflict. It has wide applications in economics, political science, sociology, and, to some extent, in philosophy. Where rational choice theory or decision theory is concerned with individual agents facing games against nature, game theory deals with games in which all players have preference orderings over the possible outcomes of the game. This paper gives an informal introduction to the theory and a survey of applications in diverse branches of philosophy. No criticism (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Michael Devitt (2006). Ignorance of Language. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    The Chomskian revolution in linguistics gave rise to a new orthodoxy about mind and language. Michael Devitt throws down a provocative challenge to that orthodoxy. What is linguistics about? What role should linguistic intuitions play in constructing grammars? What is innate about language? Is there a 'language faculty'? These questions are crucial to our developing understanding of ourselves; Michael Devitt offers refreshingly original answers. He argues that linguistics is about linguistic reality and is not part of psychology; that linguistic rules (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Michael A. E. Dummett (1993). The Seas of Language. Oxford University Press.
    Michael Dummett is a leading contemporary philosopher whose work on the logic and metaphysics of language has had a lasting influence on how these subjects are conceived and discussed. This volume contains some of the most provocative and widely discussed essays published in the last fifteen years, together with a number of unpublished or inaccessible writings. Essays included are: "What is a Theory of Meaning?," "What do I Know When I Know a Language?," "What Does the Appeal to Use Do (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Brian Epstein (2009). Grounds, Convention, and the Metaphysics of Linguistic Tokens. Croatian Journal of Philosophy 9 (1):45-67.
    My aim in this paper is to discuss a metaphysical framework within which to understand “standard linguistic entities” (SLEs), such as words, sentences, phonemes, and other entities routinely employed in linguistic theory. In doing so, I aim to defuse certain kinds of skepticism, challenge convention-based accounts of SLEs, and present a series of distinctions for better understanding what the various accounts of SLEs do and do not accomplish.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Olivier Favereau (2008). The Unconventional, but Conventionalist, Legacy of Lewis's “Convention”. Topoi 27 (1-2):115-126.
    The philosopher David Lewis is credited by many social scientists, including mainstream economists, with having founded the modern (game-theoretical) approach to conventions, viewed as solutions to recurrent coordination problems. Yet it is generally ignored that he revised his approach, soon after the publication of his well-known book. I suggest that this revision has deep implications (probably not perceived by Lewis himself) on the analytical links between coordination, uncertainty and rationality. Thinking anew about these issues leads me to map out an (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Alexander George (2004). Linguistic Practice and its Discontents: Quine and Davidson on the Source of Sense. Philosophers' Imprint 4 (1):1-37.
    A rich tradition in philosophy takes truths about meaning to be wholly determined by how language is used; meanings do not guide use of language from behind the scenes, but instead are fixed by such use. Linguistic practice, on this conception, exhausts the facts to which the project of understanding another must be faithful. But how is linguistic practice to be characterized? No one has addressed this question more seriously than W. V. Quine, who sought for many years to formulate (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Margaret Gilbert (1983). Agreements, Conventions, and Language. Synthese 54 (3):375 - 407.
    The question whether and in what way languages and language use involve convention is addressed, With special reference to David Lewis's account of convention in general. Data are presented which show that Lewis has not captured the sense of 'convention' involved when we speak of adopting a linguistic convention. He has, In effect, attempted an account of social conventions. An alternative account of social convention and an account of linguistic convention are sketched.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Tao Gong, Andrea Puglisi, Vittorio Loreto & William S.-Y. Wang (2008). Conventionalization of Linguistic Knowledge Under Communicative Constraints. Biological Theory 3 (2):154-163.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Richard E. Grandy (1982). Semantic Intentions and Linguistic Structure: Comments on Schiffer's Paper: ``Intention-Based Semantics''. Notre Dame Journal of Formal Logic 23 (3):327-332.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Richard E. Grandy (1977). Review. [REVIEW] Journal of Philosophy 74 (2):129-139.
  28. Mitchell S. Green (1997). On the Autonomy of Linguistic Meaning. Mind 106 (422):217-243.
    Frege and many following him, such as Dummett, Geach, Stenius and Hare, have envisaged a role for illocutionary force indicators in a logically perpspicuous notation. Davidson has denied that such expressions are even possible on the ground that any putative force indicator would be used by actors and jokers to heighten the drama of their performances. Davidson infers from this objection a Thesis of the Autonomy of Linguistic Meaning: symbolic representation necessarily breaks any close tie with extra-linguistic purpose. A modified (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (14 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Peter Harder (2003). The Status of Linguistic Facts: Rethinking the Relation Between Cognition, Social Institution and Utterance From a Functional Point of View. Mind and Language 18 (1):52–76.
  30. John Hawthorne (1990). A Note on 'Languages and Language'. Australasian Journal of Philosophy 68 (1):116 – 118.
  31. Frank Hindriks (2009). Constitutive Rules, Language, and Ontology. Erkenntnis 71 (2):253-275.
    It is a commonplace within philosophy that the ontology of institutions can be captured in terms of constitutive rules. What exactly such rules are, however, is not well understood. They are usually contrasted to regulative rules: constitutive rules (such as the rules of chess) make institutional actions possible, whereas regulative rules (such as the rules of etiquette) pertain to actions that can be performed independently of such rules. Some, however, maintain that the distinction between regulative and constitutive rules is merely (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Richard Holton (2003). David Lewis's Philosophy of Language. Mind and Language 18 (3):286–295.
    Lewis never saw philosophy of language as foundational in the way that many have. One of the most distinctive features of his work is the robust confidence that questions in metaphysics or mind can be addressed head on, and not through the lens of language.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Henry Jackman (1998). Convention and Language. Synthese 117 (3):295-312.
    This paper has three objectives. The first is to show how David Lewis' influential account of how a population is related to its language requires that speakers be 'conceptually autonomous' in a way that is incompatible with content ascriptions following from the assumption that its speakers share a language. The second objective is to sketch an alternate account of the psychological and sociological facts that relate a population to its language. The third is to suggest a modification of Lewis' account (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Andrew Jorgensen (2008). Lewis's Synthesis. International Journal of Philosophical Studies 16 (1):77 – 84.
    This article criticises David Lewis's attempt to use his philosophical analysis of convention to reconcile the picture of languages as model-theoretic objects and the picture of languages as human social activity.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Hans Köchler (1984). Anatomy of Linguistic Usage. On the Rules, Intentions and Conventions of Human Communication. Philosophy and History 17 (1):48-49.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Max Kölbel (1998). Lewis, Language, Lust and Lies. Inquiry 41 (3):301 – 315.
    David Lewis has tried to explain what it is for a possible language to be the actual language of a population in terms of his game-theoretical notion of a convention. This explanation of the actual language relation is re-evaluated in the light of some typical episodes of linguistic communication, and it is argued that speakers of a language do not generally stand in the actual language relation to that language if the actual language relation is explicated in Lewis's way. In (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. Stephen Laurence (2010). A Chomskian Alternative to Convention-Based Semantics. In Darragh Byrne & Max Kölbel (eds.), Arguing About Language. Routledge. 269--301.
    In virtue of what do the utterances we make mean what they do? What facts about these signs, about us, and about our environment make it the case that they have the meanings they do? According to a tradition stemming from H.P. Grice through David Lewis and Stephen Schiffer it is in virtue of facts about conventions that we participate in as language users that our utterances mean what they do (see Gr'ice 1957, Lewis 1969, 1983, Schiffer 1972, 1982). This (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Stephen Laurence (1996). A Chomskian Alternative to Convention-Based Semantics. Mind 105 (418):269-301.
    In virtue of what do the utterances we make mean what they do? What facts about these signs, about us, and about our environment make it the case that they have the meanings they do? According to a tradition stemming from H.P. Grice through David Lewis and Stephen Schiffer it is in virtue of facts about conventions that we participate in as language users that our utterances mean what they do (see Gr'ice 1957, Lewis 1969, 1983, Schiffer 1972, 1982). This (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (10 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. Keith Lehrer (1984). Coherence, Consensus and Language. Linguistics and Philosophy 7 (1):43 - 55.
  40. Ernest LePore & Barry C. Smith (eds.) (2006). The Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Language. Oxford University Press.
    Ernie Lepore and Barry Smith present the definitive reference work for this diverse and fertile field of philosophy. A superb international team contribute forty brand-new essays covering topics from the nature of language to meaning, truth, and reference, and the interfaces of philosophy of language with linguistics, psychology, logic, epistemology, and metaphysics. It will be an essential resource for anyone working in the central areas of philosophy, for linguists interested in syntax, semantics, and pragmatics, and for psychologists and cognitive scientists (...)
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. David Lewis (1969). Convention: A Philosophical Study. Harvard University Press.
    _ Convention_ was immediately recognized as a major contribution to the subject and its significance has remained undiminished since its first publication in 1969. Lewis analyzes social conventions as regularities in the resolution of recurring coordination problems-situations characterized by interdependent decision processes in which common interests are at stake. Conventions are contrasted with other kinds of regularity, and conventions governing systems of communication are given special attention.
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Peter Ludlow (2003). Externalism, Logical Form, and Linguistic Intentions. In Alex Barber (ed.), Epistemology of Language. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 399--414.
  43. Andrei Marmor (2008). Is Literal Meaning Conventional? Topoi 27 (1-2):101-113.
    This paper argues that the literal meaning of words in a natural language is less conventional than usually assumed. Conventionality is defined in terms that are relative to reasons; norms that are determined by reasons are not conventions. The paper argues that in most cases, the literal meaning of words—as it applies to their definite extension—is not conventional. Conventional variations of meaning are typically present in borderline cases, of what I call the extension-range of literal meaning. Finally, some putative and (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. James D. McCawley (1999). Unconfirmed Sightings of an 'Ordinary Language' Theory of Language. Synthese 120 (2):213-228.
    It is unfortunate that Francis Y. Lin, in ‘Chomsky on the “ordinary language” view of language’ pays little attention to his own remark, ‘Chomsky’s criticisms make us realize that we should not be content with general and vague formulations of convention, ability, and so on. We must make such notions precise and provide details’ Lin speaks so imprecisely and provides so few details of notions on which he relies heavily, such as ‘general learning mechanism’ and ‘sentence frame’, that readers must (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Alexander Miller (2007). Philosophy of Language. Routledge.
    Frege : semantic value and reference -- Frege and Russell : sense and definite descriptions -- Sense and verificationism : logical positivism -- Scepticism about sense : Quine on analyticity and translation -- Scepticism about sense : Kripke's Wittgenstein -- Saving sense : responses to the sceptical paradox -- Sense, intention, and speech acts : Grice's programme -- Sense and truth : Tarski and Davidson -- Sense, world, and metaphysics.
    Remove from this list |
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Ruth G. Millikan (2005). Language: A Biological Model. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
    Ruth Millikan is well known for having developed a strikingly original way for philosophers to seek understanding of mind and language, which she sees as biological phenomena. She now draws together a series of groundbreaking essays which set out her approach to language. Guiding the work of most linguists and philosophers of language today is the assumption that language is governed by prescriptive normative rules. Millikan offers a fundamentally different way of viewing the partial regularities that language displays, comparing them (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  47. Ruth Garrett Millikan (1998). Language Conventions Made Simple. Journal of Philosophy 95 (4):161-180.
    At the start of Convention (1969) Lewis says that it is "a platitude that language is ruled by convention" and that he proposes to give us "an analysis of convention in its full generality, including tacit convention not created by agreement." Almost no clause, however, of Lewis's analysis has withstood the barrage of counter examples over the years,1 and a glance at the big dictionary suggests why, for there are a dozen different senses listed there. Left unfettered, convention wanders freely (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  48. Richard Moore (2013). Imitation and Conventional Communication. Biology and Philosophy 28 (3):481-500.
    To the extent that language is conventional, non-verbal individuals, including human infants, must participate in conventions in order to learn to use even simple utterances of words. This raises the question of which varieties of learning could make this possible. In this paper I defend Tomasello’s (The cultural origins of human cognition. Harvard UP, Cambridge, 1999, Origins of human communication. MIT, Cambridge, 2008) claim that knowledge of linguistic conventions could be learned through imitation. This is possible because Lewisian accounts of (...)
    Remove from this list | Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  49. Blake Myers-Schulz, Maia Pujara, Richard Wolf & Michael Koenigs (2013). Inherent Emotional Quality of Human Speech Sounds. Cognition and Emotion 27 (6):1105-1113.
1 — 50 / 1320