Ulf
01-18-2009, 04:18 PM
Maybe wrong section. I've had this happen to me very often. Anyone else?
Charles E. Osgood (Lectures on Language Performance. Springer-Verlag. 1980. p. 25) describes the following phenomenon:
semantic satiation - where rapid seeing/saying repetition of a word, like canoe-canoe-canoe... produces a loss of meaningfulness, but repetition of a nonsense overt response having the same shape, nuka-nuka-nuka...does not.
The phenomenon was discovered by Titchner and his co-workers (see http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/499s99/yamauchi/semantic.htm#further> and has aroused intense curiosity among a few; I am one. In addition, I have been interested for some time in the notion of "inner speech," noting that a number of philosophers, such as Wilfred Sellars, have made use of this notion. I would like to record the results of a couple of "thought experiments" combining these two phenomena.
1. In my own case, if I repeat the word 'canoe' in the way Osgood suggests, BUT do it subvocally, then I fail to achieve semantic satiation.
2. I have been able under special circumstances to satiate the meaning of entire sentences, but not subvocally.
3. I have observed that I can repeat (subvocally) sentences more rapidly than words.
4. I have, further, observed that the number of "speech errors" decreases during subvocalization.
It is perhaps worth mentioning that the failure of satiation may suggest that inner speech is in some sense acoustically based; rather than based on articulatory gestures. This may have implications for the debates surrounding acoustic (Fant G.) vs. motor theories of speech (Liberman A. M.)
I do not believe these results have been recorded elsewhere. I noticed these facts many years ago. Chisholm thought they were interesting but suggested I submit them to a psychology journal. I was encouraged in my research by Jack Adams of the Dept. of Psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana - a consummate experimental psychologist.
I believe these results pertain to certain aspects relevant to the "modular" approach to language advocated by Chomsky and others, notably Jerry Fodor. One conclusion I have arrived at, tentatively, is that subvocal speech is not merely withholding vocal speech. Note, also, that word morphology is preserved, suggesting satiation does not rely entirely on morphology. I am sure others have different experiences; some may fail to arrive at these results. Still, I have and a number of others.
http://www.hist-analytic.org/SATIATION.htm
Charles E. Osgood (Lectures on Language Performance. Springer-Verlag. 1980. p. 25) describes the following phenomenon:
semantic satiation - where rapid seeing/saying repetition of a word, like canoe-canoe-canoe... produces a loss of meaningfulness, but repetition of a nonsense overt response having the same shape, nuka-nuka-nuka...does not.
The phenomenon was discovered by Titchner and his co-workers (see http://www.soc.hawaii.edu/leonj/499s99/yamauchi/semantic.htm#further> and has aroused intense curiosity among a few; I am one. In addition, I have been interested for some time in the notion of "inner speech," noting that a number of philosophers, such as Wilfred Sellars, have made use of this notion. I would like to record the results of a couple of "thought experiments" combining these two phenomena.
1. In my own case, if I repeat the word 'canoe' in the way Osgood suggests, BUT do it subvocally, then I fail to achieve semantic satiation.
2. I have been able under special circumstances to satiate the meaning of entire sentences, but not subvocally.
3. I have observed that I can repeat (subvocally) sentences more rapidly than words.
4. I have, further, observed that the number of "speech errors" decreases during subvocalization.
It is perhaps worth mentioning that the failure of satiation may suggest that inner speech is in some sense acoustically based; rather than based on articulatory gestures. This may have implications for the debates surrounding acoustic (Fant G.) vs. motor theories of speech (Liberman A. M.)
I do not believe these results have been recorded elsewhere. I noticed these facts many years ago. Chisholm thought they were interesting but suggested I submit them to a psychology journal. I was encouraged in my research by Jack Adams of the Dept. of Psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana - a consummate experimental psychologist.
I believe these results pertain to certain aspects relevant to the "modular" approach to language advocated by Chomsky and others, notably Jerry Fodor. One conclusion I have arrived at, tentatively, is that subvocal speech is not merely withholding vocal speech. Note, also, that word morphology is preserved, suggesting satiation does not rely entirely on morphology. I am sure others have different experiences; some may fail to arrive at these results. Still, I have and a number of others.
http://www.hist-analytic.org/SATIATION.htm