Common folks “have” emotions and talk to others; and sometimes they make “their” emotions the topic of such talk. The emotions seem to be “theirs,” since they can be conceived of as private states (or events); and they can be topicalized, because we seem to be able to attribute or lend a conventionalized public form (such as a linguistic label or name) to some inner (and therefore nonpublic) state or event. This is the way much of our folk-talk and folk-thinking about emotions, the expression thereof, the role of language in these expressions, and communication in general are organized. However, as we have shown (Bamberg & Lindenberger 1984), such talk serves the purpose of communicating effectively and reaching mutual understanding.

The following discussion aims to illuminate further the way in which morphologically complex words are represented in the mental lexicon. It is argued that the dual-mechanism model can accommodate the linguistic and psycholinguistic evidence currently available, not only on German inflection (as pointed out in the target article) but also on other languages (as presented in several commentaries). Associative single-mechanism models of inflection, on the other hand, provide only partial accounts.

I offer a simple method for further investigating the Interactive Specialization framework, and some data that may or may not be compatible with the approach, depending on the precise meaning of “specialization.” Findings from my lab indicate that, while networks of brain areas cooperate in specialized ways to support cognitive functions, individual brain areas participate in many such networks, in different cognitive domains.

In conformity with the dynamical perspective advocated by van Gelder, a more psychological approach can highlight the intrinsic temporality of human cognition, revealing the inadequacies of representationalism as a framework for the modeling of mind.

Captive or experimental studies may be of greater utility than field studies in documenting novel behaviors. Social hierarchy affects the spread of innovations. Innovative species should also be found in cases where sociality is low or absent.

Regret is often symptomatic of the defective decisions associated with “temporary preference” problems. It may also help overcome these defects. Outcome regret can modify the relative utilities of different payoffs. Process regret can motivate search for better decision processes or trap-evading strategies. Heightened regret may thus be functional for control of these self-defeating choices.

Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler. –Albert Einstein

The theory of lexical access in speech production reported by Levelt, Roelofs & Meyer is exciting, well-described and well-organized, but because it relies mainly on the principle of simplicity (Ockham's razor), I argue that it might not be true. In particular, I suggest that overapplying this principle is wrong.

Geary is highly selective in his use of the literature on gender differences. His assumption of consistent female inferiority in mathematics is not necessarily supported by the facts.

Hominid-like morphology in habiline cranial endocasts does not necessarily imply the presence of language capacity. The cortical zone in question is not associated exclusively with language in humans, and its emergence in habilines might indicate the evolution of other cognitive functions special to humans that were preconditions for the later evolution of language.

The natural communication system of chimpanzees has some unique characteristics rooted in two possible ways of producing call variants in primates. The chimpanzee call repertoire contains variants available to all group members. The transfer presupposes voluntary control and learnability. Chimpanzee vocalization (or its homologue in the common ancestor of chimpanzee and man) seems to represent a real precursor of human language.

The goal of our target article was to review a number of emerging facts about the effects of limbic damage on memory in humans and animals, and about divisions within recognition memory in humans. We then argued that this information can be synthesized to produce a new view of the substrates of episodic memory. The key pathway in this system is from the hippocampus to the anterior thalamic nuclei. There seems to be a general agreement that the importance of this pathway has previously been underestimated and that it warrants further study. At the same time, a number of key questions remain. These concern the relationship of this system to another temporal-lobe/diencephalic system that contributes to recognition, and the relationship of these systems to prefrontal cortex activity.

Schilbach et al. contrast second-person and third-person approaches to social neuroscience. We discuss relations between second-person and first-person approaches, arguing that they cannot be studied in isolation. Contingency is central for converging first- and second-person approaches. Studies of embodiment show how contingencies scaffold first-person perspective and how the transition from a third- to a second-person perspective fundamentally involves first-person contributions.

I challenge here the concept of SOC in regard to the question of the consciousness or unconsciousness of logical errors. My commentary offers support for the demonstration of how neuroimaging techniques might be used in the psychology of reasoning to test hypotheses about a potential hierarchy of levels of consciousness (and thus of partial unconsciousness) implemented in different brain networks.

Smaldino suggests that patterns that give rise to group-level cultural traits can also increase individual-level cultural diversity. I distinguish social roles and related social network structures and discuss ways in which each might maintain diversity. I suggest that cognitive analogs of “cohesion,” a property of networks that helps maintenance of diversity, might mediate the effects of social roles on diversity.