One of the claims of Liberman's motor theory of speech perception was that "speech is special," meaning that only speech perception engages motor processes (Liberman et al., 1967; Liberman & Mattingly, 1985).
One of the central claims of the motor theory of speech perception is that speech perception and production are tightly linked (Liberman, Cooper, Shankweiler, & Studdert-Kennedy, 1967; Liberman & Mattingly, 1985).
This motor resonance independent of semantics dovetails with Liberman's, 'Motor Theory of Speech Perception' [26] a theory of speech which posits phonemes as the interface between the perception and the production of language.
The dual nature of the metaphoric mirror in both production and perception has led to revived interest in the mostly discredited motor theory of speech perception, which posits that speech perception is mediated by virtue of a resonance with the motor programs that generate the sounds (vocal gestures).
Part of the motivation for their motor theory of speech perception, against auditory theories, is to integrate explanations of speech perception and speech production (1985, 23-5, 30-1, see also Matthen 2005, ch 9, which uses the Motor Theory to support a Codependency Thesis linking the capacities to perceive and produce phonemes, 221).
The motor theory of speech perception assumes the comprehension of external speech to rely on subliminal matching to the listener's own articulatory gestures (Liberman and Whalen, 2000).
Austin's theory of speech acts was considerably extended and refined by his American student John Searle (born 1932) and others.
One issue of this kind that has been extensively discussed is the so-called motor theory of speech perception.
In the 1960s and '70s, Austin's theory of speech acts was considerably extended and systematized in work by his American student John Searle.
