Philosophical Psychology 11 (3):317-330 (1998)
AbstractFodor argues that speech perception is accomplished by a module. Typically, modular processing is taken to be bottom-up processing. Yet there is ubiquitous empirical evidence that speech perception is influenced by top-down processing. Fodor attempts to resolve this conflict by denying that modular processing must be exclusively bottom-up. It is argued, however, that Fodor's attempt to reconcile top-down and modular processing fails, because: (i) it undermines Fodor's own conception of modular processing; and (ii) it cannot account for the contextually varying top-down influences that characterize speech perception
Similar books and articles
Fodor's modularity: A new name for an old dilemma.Theo C. Meyering - 1994 - Philosophical Psychology 7 (1):39-62.
On the input problem for massive modularity.John M. Collins - 2004 - Minds and Machines 15 (1):1-22.
The dogma of isomorphism: A case study from speech perception.Irene Appelbaum - 1999 - Philosophy of Science 66 (3):S250-S259.
On Fodor's The Mind Doesn't Work That Way.Daniel A. Weiskopf - 2002 - Philosophical Psychology 15 (4):551-562.
Fodor on cognition, modularity, and adaptationism.Samir Okasha - 2003 - Philosophy of Science 70 (1):68-88.
Analytic isomorphism and speech perception.Irene Appelbaum - 1998 - Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (6):748-749.
Added to PP
Historical graph of downloads
Citations of this work
Do we hear meanings? – between perception and cognition.Anna Drożdżowicz - 2019 - Inquiry: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Philosophy (x):1-33.
Speech Perception.Casey O'Callaghan - 2015 - In Mohan Matthen (ed.), Oxford Handbook of the Philosophy of Perception. Oxford University Press.
Philosophy meets the neurosciences.William Bechtel, Pete Mandik & Jennifer Mundale - 2001 - In William P. Bechtel, Pete Mandik, Jennifer Mundale & Robert S. Stufflebeam (eds.), Philosophy and the Neurosciences: A Reader. Blackwell.
References found in this work
The intelligibility of speech as a function of the context of the test materials.George A. Miller, George A. Heise & William Lichten - 1951 - Journal of Experimental Psychology 41 (5):329.