The multiple semantics hypothesis: Multiple confusions?

TLDR

The paper examines the debate between multiple and unitary semantics. The authors briefly discuss the Organised Unitary Content Hypothesis (O.U.C.H.) as a model that can explain reported dissociation patterns. They conclude that the multiple semantics hypothesis is an arbitrary amalgam of unmotivated assumptions and that the evidence cited for it is equally compatible with a unitary semantics hypothesis.

Abstract

Abstract In this paper we discuss the issue of multiple versus unitary semantics. We argue that the notion of multiple semantics (as currently articulated) does not, in fact, represent a theory of semantic organisation but is, instead, an arbitrary conjunction of a set of independent assumptions which are either unmotivated or, if motivated, equally compatible with a unitary semantics hypothesis. Furthermore, the empirical evidence that has been cited as support for this hypothesis is equally compatible with variants of the unitary semantics hypothesis. A model of semantic processing—the Organised Unitary Content Hypothesis (O.U.C.H.) —that is able to account for reported patterns of dissociation of performance is discussed briefly.