Re: Schema theory

[Bill Burns <BillDB -at- ILE -dot- COM>]

Sella writes:

> Basically all I know about it is what I said in my post:  give people
> a
> structure on which to hang new knowledge--that is, help people figure
> out how to relate new knowledge to what they already know.  One
> application of this is to give readers a bare structure of what you're
> going to teach them, where you're starting and where you expect to end
> up, and then they have a place (or context) to put the new information
> you give them.
>
This sounds to me like an approach based on schema theory rather than
the theory itself. I can't remember the two researchers who worked with
the well-know "restaurant script" were, but their work was intended for
use in artificial intelligence. What they found was that previous
experience allows individuals to make a number of assumptions about what
they will encounter in new experiences. The first few events in the
restaurant script go something like this:

        You arrive at a restaurant.
        The* host asks you if you would like smoking or non-*.
        He/she seats you and hands you the* menu.
        The wait brings water to your table and asks if you are ready to
order.*

I've put asterisks by some of the words to indicate where either the
language indicates an assumption (i.e., the use of a definite rather
than indefinite article) or an event takes place that requires
participants to undertsand what they are supposed to do next in their
role (i.e., how to respond to "smoking or non-" or "Are you ready to
order?"). Essentially, we develop these "scripts" during our everyday
experience (direct and indirect), and we modify them as we encounter new
pieces.

Schema theory as it applies to semantics suggests that we also build
linguistics constructs based on these schemas. The word "house" to some
people always includes some basic features--a roof, walls, a floor,
maybe a door and some windows. Depending upon where you have lived and
what you've encounered, your house schema may also include a cellar, a
garage, or a yard with grass. These latter items might not be part of
your schema if you've lived your life in Arizona, where grass lawns
aren't as common (and I've heard cellars aren't either).

J. Paul Grice also wrote about what he called conversational
implicatures that provide logical (though not empirical) justification
for schema theory to some extent.

This is my understanding of schema theory in a nutshell, and it's
intentionally simplistic. Maybe some other psycholinguists out there
could provide a more precise description.

Bill Burns
Technical Writer
ILE Communications Group
billdb -at- ile -dot- com

 TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot-  Send commands
   to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
  Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/  or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html