 procedures remains implicit and is not available to other operations in the cognitive system. At the second level (E1), representations are available as data to the system, although not necessarily to conscious access and verbal report. (Karmiloff-Smith speaks of "theories-in-action" at this level.) At the third level (E2), representations become available to conscious access, but not to verbal 18 Note that some phenomenologists claim that every conscious experience entails a minimal, pre-reflective selfconsciousness (e.g. Zahavi 2006). In contrast, I think that we should distinguish consciousness from selfconsciousness, for the reasons mentioned above. Moreover, it is not obvious to me how the notion of prereflective self-consciousness is to be understood or what explanatory work it is supposed to do, and I don't think that it is phenomenologically obvious either that every conscious experience is also self-conscious. (For a more detailed discussion of these reasons see Musholt, forthcoming. Also see Schear 2009 for a critical discussion of the notion of pre-reflective self-consciousness.) Forthcoming in Grazer Philosophische Studien 84 (2012), p. 75-101 9 report. And finally, at the fourth level (E3), information is recoded into a cross-system code that allows for the translation into a linguistic format (cf. Karmiloff-Smith, 1996, chapter 1).19 It is important to note that on this account, implicit representations are not simply replaced by explicit representations, although they might in some cases be subsumed under them. While explicit representations require a representational redescription of the original implicit representations, this does not mean that the implicit representations are abolished during this process of redescription. For example, while a tennis player who wants to become a trainer or write a book on how to play tennis needs to find a way to access the information that is implicit in his skillful play, such that it can be described verbally, this does not mean that he thereby loses his abi