Abstract
AbstractGlicksohn and Salter both raise good questions that force us to clarify our position. We agree with much of their commentary, with a few caveats. Glicksohn wrongly assumes that later drafts must be “more advanced” and Salter speaks of “recruitment into consciousness,” which invites (but does not require) a Cartesian interpretation. Their suggestions about the time course of “editorial” revision of the multiple drafts and the possibility of restoration of the information in abandoned drafts are possible extensions of the Multiple Drafts Model.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
