The role of representations in cognitive theory: More on multiple semantics and the agnosias

In this paper we comment on a number of points raised by Shallice (see this volume) in his response to Caramazza, Hillis, Rapp, and Romani (1990). We argue that Shallice has failed to appreciate certain key differences between the modality-specific view of semantics and the unitary view we have proposed. We also show that the evidence that Shallice considers to be problematic for the unitary view can, however, be accommodated within a unitary semantics position.