The argument that the concept of ''multiple semantics'' is multiply co
nfused, as presented in Caramazza, Hillis, Rapp, and Romani (1990) is
considered and criticised. It is argued that Caramazza et al. were att
empting to force the discussion of semantic processing into too rigid
a conceptual framework, and that their proposed alternative-the Organi
sed Unitary Content Hypothesis-is not methodologically superior.