The commentaries provide a multitude of perspectives on the theor) of lexic
al access presented in our target article. We respond, on the one hand, to
criticisms that concern the embeddings of our model in the larger theoretic
al frameworks of human performance and of a speaker's multiword sentence an
d discourse generation. These embeddings,we argue, are either already there
or naturally forgeable. On the other hand, eve reply to a host of theory-i
nternal issues concerning the abstract properties of our feedforward spread
ing activation model, which functions without the usual cascading, feedback
, and inhibitory connections. These issues also concern the concrete strati
fication in terms of lexical concepts, syntactic lemmas, and morphophonolog
y. Our response stresses the parsimony of our modeling in the light of its
substantial empirical coverage. We elaborate its usefulness for neuroimagin
g and aphasiology and suggest further cross-linguistic extensions of the mo
del.