Falk's contribution to a continuity theory of the origins of language would be complemented by an account of the origins of displaced reference, a key characteristic distinguishing human language from animal signaling systems. Because deception is one situation in which nonhumans may use signals in the absence of their referents, deception may have been the starting point for displaced reference.

Great promise for the evolutionary analysis of animal behavior lies in the distinction between generative novelties and the evolutionary innovations to which they can give rise. Ramsey et al. succeed in emphasizing the contribution of individual learning and intelligence to behavioral innovations, but do not correct the tendency to confound individual invention with socio-ecological or group-level innovation.

Carruthers has proposed a novel and quite interesting hypothesis for the role of language in conceptual integration, but his treatment does not acknowledge work in cognitive science on metaphor and analogy that reveals how diverse knowledge structures are integrated. We claim that this body of research provides clear evidence that cross-domain conceptual connections cannot be driven by syntactic processes alone.

The target article proposed that differentiation of selves is a crucial moderator of group outcomes, such that differentiation of selves contributes to beneficial outcomes of groups while limiting undesirable outcomes. In this response, we aim to complement the target article by refining and expanding several aspects of the theory. We address our conceptualization of optimal group functioning, clarify the term differentiation of selves, comment on the two-step nature of our model, offer theoretical connections and extensions, and discuss applications and opportunities for future research.

Glenberg focuses on conceptualizations that change from moment to moment, yet he dismisses the concept of working memory (sect. 4.3), which offers an account of temporary storage and on-line cognition. This commentary questions whether Glenberg's account adequately caters for observations of consistent data patterns in temporary storage of verbal and visuospatial information in healthy adults and in brain-damaged patients with deficits in temporary retention.

We comment that covariances between brain divisions may be constraining or facilitating, depending on what is being selected, and that modern quantitative genetic methods provide the tools to discover and manipulate the genetic networks that give rise to the covariances described in the target article.

The target article's value lies not in its defence of specification, or the “global array” concept, but in its challenge to the paradigm of 5+ senses, and its examples of multiple receptor types cooperatively participating in specific pick-up tasks. Rather than analysing our perceptual endowment into 5+ senses, it is more revealing to type perceptual systems according to task.

Hommel et al. emphasize that the Theory of Event Coding (TEC)'s utility is not its ability to be a new theory of cognition, but its ability to engender new thinking about new and old problems. In this commentary we use the TEC to re-examine a long-standing discrepancy in the attention literature.

The target article by Ceci et al. provides some interesting results regarding how faculty might react to difficult social dilemmas, but it has little to say about tenure and its effect upon academic freedom. This comment discusses briefly what we know about tenure, and employment protection more generally, and why it may be in a university's best interest to hire tenured faculty. The comment concludes by pointing out that the results make a rather useful contribution regarding the difficulty of eliciting information on malfeasance in organizations, an area of enormous importance. For example, the results may help us understand why the government has introduced rewards for the reporting of fraud under the whistle-blowing provisions of the Federal Claims Act.

The postulate that events in peripheral vision enhance activity in the “fixate center” is called into question. An alternative explanation is used to account for the “remote distractor effect.” It is pointed out that a critical element of the model is missing.

I draw lessons from experimental economics. I argue that the lack of mathematical formalism cannot be usefully thought as the cause of the underappreciation of contextual and generalizability considerations. Instead, this lack is problematic because it hinders a clear relationship between theory and quantitative predictions. I also advocate a pragmatic policy-focused approach as a partial remedy to the generalizability problem.

I would like to emphasize the significance of chaotic dynamics at both local and macroscopic levels in the cortex. The basic notions dealt with in this commentary will be noise-induced order, chaotic “itinerancy” and dissipative structure. Wright & Laley's theory would be partially misleading, since emergent nonlinearity rather than the linearity at even a macroscopic level can actually subserve cortical functions.

This commentary criticizes Wilkins & Wakefield's thesis that the neurological precursors of language provide a cognitive Rubicon to linguistically divide human from nonhuman primates. A causal model of their theory is presented, followed by a discussion of the relationship between brain expansion and tool use, Broca's area and the parietaloccipital-temporal junction (POT).

Thomas & Karmiloff-Smith’ (T&K-S’) argument that the Residual Normality assumption is not valid for developmental disorders has implications for models of cognition in schizophrenia, a disorder that may involve a neurodevelopmental pathogenesis. A limiting factor for such theories is the lack of understanding about the nature of the cognitive system (modular components versus global processes). Moreover, it is unclear how the proposal that modularization emerges from developmental processes would change that fundamental question.