Knowledge in discourse

1. Introduction
2. Knowledge structure: schemata
3. Evidence for schemata
4. Complex schemata
5. Relevance
6. Discourse deviation
7. Conclusion
 Introduction
• Successful communication depends on existing
knowledge in the receiver of a message and the
correct assessment of the extent of that
knowledge by the sender.
Ex: There was a pineapple on the table. I ate it.
I’m sorry. I saw you were home. There’s a cat
stuck under the gate …
→ the role of knowledge and how it interacts with
language to create discourse.
 Knowledge structure: schemata
• Artificial Intelligence (attempting to program
computers to produce and understand
discourse) → involves far more than the
language being used → pre-existent
knowledge of the world → this knowledge and
language interact → to reproduce the process
in computers.
• Implications of Artificial Intelligence in
discourse analysis: knowledge schemata
 Knowledge structure: schemata
• Knowledge schemata are mental representations
of typical situations → used in discourse
processing to predict the contents of the
particular situation which the discourse describes.
• the mind, stimulated by the key words or phrases
in the text, or by the context, activates a
knowledge schema, and uses it to make sense of
the discourse.
• Ex: a witness in a court case (p. 69, Cook book)
 Knowledge structure: schemata
• When a sender judges her receiver’s schema
to correspond to a significant degree with her
own, she need only mention features which
are not contained in it, other features will be
assumed to be present by default, unless we
are told otherwise.
 Evidence for schemata
• People questioned about a text or asked to
recall it, frequently fill in details which they
were not actually given, but which a schema
has provided for them.
• Certain uses of the definite article.
Ex: I was late and we decided to call a taxi.
Unfortunately, the driver spent a long time
finding our house …
 Evidence for schemata
Ex: When I entered the restaurant the waiter
said goodbye, gave me the bill and then handed
me my coat. I sat down at the table. Then I paid
the bill and ordered ice cream. He brought me
some soup.
 Evidence for schemata
• Elements of a typical restaurant schema are all
in place (waiter, customer, food, bill, …)
• The order of the events is peculiar.
 Evidence for schemata
• Task 36: (p. 71)
 Complex schemata
• Actual discourse is unlikely to be interpretable
with reference to a single schema.
• The mind may activate many schemata at once,
each interacting with the other.
• Schemata may also predict stereotypical text
types, predicting plot structure or conversational
development.
Task 38: Describe the flat or house in which you
live or stay.
 Complex schemata
→ our dis/pleasure (depending on our taste or
mood) will derive either from the high degree
of conformity of the individual example to the
schema, or from its divergence.
 Relevance
• Schemata are data structures, representing
stereotypical patterns, which we retrieve from
memory and employ in our understanding of
discourse.
• a model of communication by Sperber and
Wilson (1986) (very closely related to schema
theory) explains the concept of relevance.
 Relevance
• Human minds have a long-term aim: to increase
their knowledge of the world.
• In each encounter with discourse, we start with
a set of assumptions, whose accuracy we seek
to improve.
• Information is relevant when it has a significant
effect on our assumptions → allowing us to alter
our knowledge structures to give us a more
accurate representation of the world.
 Relevance
• On the other hand, successful communication
must work within the framework of the
receiver’s existing knowledge.
→ relevant information adjusts our picture of
the world very subtly.
→ successful communication gives us new
information, but works within the framework
of the receiver’s assumptions.
 Relevance
• The idea of pre-existing schemata can explain
Grice’s maxims.
• maxim of quantity: we can take some sort of
mutually shared knowledge for granted.
• maxim of manner: we can be too long-winded or
too brief.
• maxim of quality: our perception of the truth of
discourse is also a comparison of the schemata it
evokes and our own.
 Relevance
• Misjudgments and mismatches of schemata
are particularly likely when people try to
communicate across cultures and across
languages.
Ex: Aboriginal English: This land is me.
Australian English: This land is mine.
 Relevance
• Aboriginal cultural conceptualizations: people
and land have reciprocal responsibilities
towards each other. The land provides food for
people and people are supposed to look after
the land.
• Western cultural conceptualizations: an
individual’s possession of the land involves
being able to transfer it to other individuals,
usually for money.
 Discourse deviation
• discourse analysis can be very stimulating and
exciting.
• discourse analysis can also be depressing →
when the unity and meaningfulness of
discourse should conform to shared
stereotypes.
• What happens to those who step outside the
predictable patterns and regularities? Some are
vilified and some are glorified.
 Discourse deviation
• deviation, whether judged negatively or
positively, is a case of non-conformity to the
norms and regularities of discourse structure.
• language learners are social outsiders of a
different kind.
 Conclusion
• Much more is needed in the creation and
understanding of coherent discourse than
knowledge of the language system alone.
• Coherence is created by our interaction with
the text and is jointly created by both sender
and receiver.