The argument that the concept of ''multiple semantics'' is multiply confused, as presented in Caramazza, Hillis, Rapp, and Romani (1990) is considered and criticised. It is argued that Caramazza et al. were attempting to force the discussion of semantic processing into too rigid a conceptual framework, and that their proposed alternative-the Organised Unitary Content Hypothesis-is not methodologically superior.
Multiple semantics: whose confusions? / Shallice, Timothy. - In: COGNITIVE NEUROPSYCHOLOGY. - ISSN 0264-3294. - 10:3(1993), pp. 251-261. [10.1080/02643299308253463]
Multiple semantics: whose confusions?
Shallice, Timothy
1993-01-01
Abstract
The argument that the concept of ''multiple semantics'' is multiply confused, as presented in Caramazza, Hillis, Rapp, and Romani (1990) is considered and criticised. It is argued that Caramazza et al. were attempting to force the discussion of semantic processing into too rigid a conceptual framework, and that their proposed alternative-the Organised Unitary Content Hypothesis-is not methodologically superior.File in questo prodotto:
Non ci sono file associati a questo prodotto.
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.
