How schemes and schemas complement or contradict each other

Cognitive Schemas: Functions, Schemas, and Types

The Cognitive schemas (Or simply»schemas») are the basic units with which the brain organizes the information it possesses.

Some might confuse schemas with dictionary definitions or concepts, but cognitive schemas are simpler and more complex. While it will not be easy for any subject to write a definition of a concept as simple as that of»chair,»they all have a mental scheme with which they represent that object.

It is this representation of the object that will allow a chair to be recognized when it is viewed, not to be confused with another type of object, which can be used, drawn, created, and so on.

The chair in front is real and unique, while the scheme is just a general representation of all the chairs. Or at least of the known ones.

Human beings possess cognitive schemas about virtually everything they have experienced in their life and everything with which they have interacted.

These schemes are not static, but communicate with each other, feed back, change, and refine. It is clear that they are complex structures and very valuable.

This article will explain in detail everything related to cognitive schemas: what are their functions, their main characteristics and the types of existing schemas. In view of the variety of perspectives on this subject, the most universal vision of the subject will be taken.

Functions of Cognitive Schemes

There are six main functions of cognitive schemes, although several authors have mentioned other utilities for this resource. Below are the most common among the different researchers of the subject.

1- They serve as cognitive support for information processing

The center of all cognitive activity is to process the information that is received every second, either to give it a usefulness or to discard it.

From this point of view, the schemes provide a frame of reference for assimilating all the new information. What is already outlined gives meaning and support to the new information to be processed.

2- Help distinguish between relevant and non-relevant information

Processing information is energy costly for the brain. Therefore, you have to have the cognitive resources in the most efficient way possible.

The schemes that each person has allow him to classify the new information according to its relevance, to direct attention only to what is useful.

3- Allow inferences and contextual understanding

Not all new information to which a subject is exposed has a system of references suitable for understanding. In many cases, there will be information gaps or lack of context. There schemas come into play, giving meaning to the implicit, when finding relationships between different ideas or concepts.

4- Orient the organized search for new information

In many cases, the new information that a person accesses does not come by chance, but instead searches for it voluntarily.

Without previous schemes about what you want to look for, the process would be confusing, vague and disorganized at best. It will be the related schemas that guide the process of finding information.

Schemes are themselves synthetic forms of information. They are conceived as the minimum units of information.

Thus, when trying to process complex information, previous cognitive schemas will allow distinguishing main ideas from secondary and complementary ones, facilitating their hierarchy and summary.

6- Collaborate with the reconstruction of lost information

It is common that, when trying to process new information, the subject is with lapses in his memory or forgetfulness, which make it difficult to understand and assimilate that information.

The utility of the previous schemes, in these cases, is high, since they allow to test hypotheses that help to generate or to regenerate these concepts.

Without going much further into the subject, it is clear that cognitive schemas are highly functional and ubiquitous in all phases of information processing and storage.

It would lack to know, now, its main characteristics, to understand how it works.

Characteristics of Cognitive Schemes

Some of the characteristics of cognitive schemas can be understood in terms of what has already been said in previous paragraphs.

For example, schemas are considered high-level cognitive units, while they are entities with a great degree of complexity, composed in turn by much simpler elements.

From the above it can also be deduced that the cognitive schemes are multifunctional. They have a function in each of the cognitive processes: sensoperception, attention, information processing, memory, learning, problem solving, etc.

Hereinafter, the characteristics of the schemes which do not emerge directly from the above will be explained in more detail below.

Namely: they fit and connect each other, have variables and different levels of abstraction and allow learning at different levels.

1- Fit or connect with each other

Scheme theory makes it clear that they are not alone in the cognitive system. Each of them is part of a complex network, which is dynamic and gives each scheme a greater utility. L The networks with which each scheme is connected will change according to the particular needs of each case.

Thus, to follow the same example, the chair layout is associated with a more general one, the seat layout, while the chairs are seat shapes. But on a more specific level it will also be related to the baby chair scheme, while the latter is a particular form of chair.

In the same way, each scheme of one type will have connections with other types of schemes. For example, the chair layout, which is visual, will be related to the scheme of how to sit or other more specific (how to sit in a restaurant gala), which is a scheme of situational type.

These connection possibilities are dormant as long as they are not needed. For example, if the objective is only to distinguish a basic chair, the simplest scheme will suffice; But if someone asks for»a chair or something similar»the scheme with its more complex associations will be activated immediately.

When a scheme is young (ie newly created), it will not have many connections (as with children).

However, as more is experienced with it, more partnerships will emerge, which will refine the scheme. For example, when you learn that an electric chair is another type of chair.

2- They have variable and fixed elements

As already seen in the last point, a general scheme contains more specific ones. The more general a scheme, the more variable elements it will have; And the more specific, the more fixed elements will compose it. In the same way, as a scheme is refined, its fixed elements are changed by variables.

When you are a child, for example, you can believe that a fixed element of every chair is that it must have four legs, as that says the scheme.

When more models of chairs are known, it will be discovered that this is a variable element, as some chairs will have more or less legs, and there will even be chairs that do not have any.

In the same way, the seating scheme will have many variable elements, since it is very general, while sitting in an ergonomically correct posture, is composed almost entirely of fixed components, because it is a very specific scheme. Of course, this will vary between cultures, times and authors. There are your variables.

The premise that a cognitive schema has variable and fixed components is the one that allows with very few schemas to represent as many objects, situations and possible learning.

This feature, added to the previous one, is the one that returns to the schemes resources of low energetic cost for our brain.

3- They have different levels of abstraction

From the above, it follows that the schemes have different levels of abstraction. This has to do directly with how general or specific they are, or how many connections they have with other schemes. The less connections you have or the more general, the more abstract.

Within this characteristic of the schemes, it is understood that for each category of information there will be a primitive or nuclear model. This would be the scheme that can not be abstracted anymore.

So, seats are types of furniture, chairs and benches are forms of seats, while folding chairs are forms of chair.

However, all previous patterns would fit the»object», which would be the nuclear scheme, because there is no longer a more generic or more abstract.

This hierarchical structure allows the organization of cognitive schemes in a sort of tree of schemes, for their easy interaction and use.

4. Allow learning

As already explained, the schemas are representations of elements of reality. Thus, a schema is not the same as a definition, for they represent more adequately the knowledge one has about an aspect of reality than the definitions themselves.

That is, a schema is personal and has a direct connection with experience, while definitions are based on collective conventions.

While schemas are transferable and it is possible that many people have similar schemas for the same concept, it is likely that each will be perfectly unique.

The learning processes follow these same principles. It is considered that something has been learned when it has become proper, not only when it has been memorized or repeated according to a pattern. For content to be learned, it is necessary to create, feed, adjust or restructure the different associated schemes.

Thus, the first mechanism for learning from schemas is growth. This refers to the incorporation of new information that fits the previous models. Like when someone learns that wheelchairs are also forms of chairs.

The second mechanism for learning would be adjustment. Here the scheme is refined, modified or evolved according to the new information.

According to the previous example, the chair layout is set from»fixed object on the ground»to»fixed object on the ground or with moving elements». And now it would also serve to move.

The ultimate mechanism for learning would be restructuring and with it new schemes would be formed on the basis of existing ones. For example, from the chair and bed schemes, a person could restructure their stretchable beach chair scheme, switching it to the bed layout, which fits more.

Types of cognitive schemas

Once the functions and characteristics of cognitive schemas are known, it would be necessary to understand what their different types are, to have the complete base and to understand this complex component.

In this section, the five types of existing schemes will be explained, according to the most common definitions:

1- Sensorial schemes or frames

They are the schemas that are had on the different sensorial stimuli. Following the same example of the chair, there is a semantic scheme of what is a chair; That is, composed of words. But this scheme has also associated with a visual type, where the visual elements of a chair are stored.

With the other senses the same thing happens. It has a scheme about what is a good or bad smell or taste, a sweet smell or taste, the smell or taste of the apple and even the smell or taste of a specific dish. There are also schemes on the sounds (bass, treble, meow, voice of a singer), textures (smooth, rough, sheets themselves).

Within these types of schemes, visuals are the most common and the easiest to systematize or verbalize.

It is more difficult for the average subject, to make him understand another how his scheme is a taste, a smell or a texture, especially the more generic it is. Be that as it may, there are countless sensory schemas that you have.

These are the schemas related to concrete actions that can be performed. It had already been anticipated, in a previous example, that the schemes on how to sit in a usual way or in a luxury restaurant were situational. This type of schemes apply for any action achievable by the human, whether or not carried out.

For example, you can have an outline of how football is played, even if it is only watched on television and never played.

In the same way, many people have schemes of how to deal with certain natural disasters, even if they have never experienced one. All are useful schemes for performing specific behaviors.

These schemes are usually structured in the form of flowcharts or algorithms. For simple actions such as brushing teeth, their representation is easily assimilable and transferable.

The most complex, usually social, for example how to get a partner, can have almost infinite variables.

3- Domain schemes

This type of mental structure refers to the formal knowledge that is held on certain topics and allow to interact with its elements, establish causal relationships, detect errors and much more.

The above-mentioned example of what a chair would be would be a domain scheme. But there are many other cases of more complex type.

For example, the scheme on the phases of the rain cycle should not be confused with a situational scheme because it is not an action that can be performed by man. In the same vein, knowing how to make a car would be a domain scheme if it only focuses on basic knowledge, and situational if it is based on replicating the process.

A writer has situational schemes about, for example, how to write a good story. This pattern applies when writing. But when this writer reads a tale from another author, what allows him to distinguish whether it is a good story or are not his master schemes on the subject. It is understood that, for a similar context, the types of schemes vary.

A final difference between this type of schema and the situational one is that while the situational one organizes and directs human behavior, the domain schema organizes and directs its discourse.

Thanks to the mastery schemes, the person can express what he knows and how he knows it in a congruent and understandable way.

4- Social schemas

They are the schemes that are taken on each of the components of social life. It could also be confused with situational schemas, while many of the situations that are schematized are social, but both refer to different pieces of information within the social context.

In social schemas, for example, information about each known person is stored, and even about the types of people that can be known.

So, you have a scheme about every member of the family, friend or colleague and even about celebrities and public figures, but also about what is, for example, a miser.

In this way, one would talk about a situational scheme, for example, if the information is about how to handle a conversation with someone intolerant.

However, the above example would be social in nature if you would focus on how intolerant you are. Finally, it would be a domain scheme if it focused on the sociological basis of intolerance.

These schemes also store information about social conventions (for example, gratitude as a positive value), social roles (what a police officer, lawyer, astrologer does), gender (for example, what is masculine), age, creed and much more; As well as social goals (what is meant by full life).

Finally, they allow to understand social issues from a personal perspective. For example, what does each person understand by love or friendship (how he feels within himself, rather than how much theory he knows about the subject). All this allows the subject to integrate effectively in their society, maintaining their mental health.

To conclude, there are the self-concept schemes, which refer to all the information that each one manages about himself.

Some authors consider it a more specific type of social schema, while the self is framed in the social, and what is can not be separated so easily from the social context that clothes.

Extensively, each subject has an outline of each of his social roles, which will allow him to understand the others.

Thus, it will have a scheme of gender, creed, ideology, social function, etc. From here will be detached self-concept, self-esteem, sense of belonging and more.

The human has the ability to elaborate schemas about his mental processes. From this perspective, metacognition (the cognition of cognitive processes) is a type of self-concept scheme. Thanks to this the person can know how he learns best, how good memory he has, etc.

These would be, then, the bases of the operation and typification of the cognitive schemes. It was not mentioned in this article how a cognitive schema is created from scratch, what happens when you have incorrect schematics, or how they can be eliminated or repaired.

The theory of schemas, bordering on so many other cognitive processes, is highly complex and its full understanding requires a greater deployment than the one presented in this article, of an introductory type.

Schema, Scheme or Scam?

As long as end users get their Angry Birds they really don’t care how it comes to them. But they should!

Google & Bing recently launched Schema, a way to «help» publishers mark up & structure their content.

If you are the first person in your vertical to leverage these new formats that can help your listing look more appealing & help you capture a bit more of the traffic (for a while). But after a half-dozen sites in your vertical use it then it no longer becomes a competitive advantage, rather just an added cost of doing business (just like Google Checkout or +1).

Then eventually it becomes much worse. Rather than being a «top resource» you get to become a «top reference» (unlinked, of course).

Your content ends up in the search result and you are an unneeded artifact from the quaint & early days of the web.

Google Places is at it again, brazenly borrowing reviews from Yelp. But this time it’s in their iPhone app and they are not even bothering to link back to Yelp or attribute where they are getting the reviews.
.
Apparently the issue is also happening with other sources of reviews and local data such as TripAdvisor. Google says it is a mistake and it is fixing it.

If you go outside Google’s guidelines & they try to penalize you for it, simply remind them that it was a technical glitch, a misinterpretation, an accident. No need to worry, as you will fix it on your end at your leisure.

It is almost universally far more profitable to do what Google does, rather than to do what they tell you to do. A fact many webmasters are waking up to 100 days after Panda torched their websites.

On a related note, JC Penny (which flagrantly violated Google’s guidelines with bulk link buying) was allowed to rank again after 90 days.

Those that were hit by Panda are still left in the lurch over 100 days later.

If penalizing for greater than 90 days for flagrant guideline violations would be considered «vindictive» or «punitive» then how would one describe a 100-day penalty for not breaking the guidelines?

The slow recalculation isn’t an accident.

Google whacking a webmaster & then paying someone to steal their content is no different than a crooked bank that commits accounting fraud & then throws their own customer in jail for the crime the bank committed! It could become temporarily inconvenient if the press covers it, but until then who cares?

Certainly not Google.

As the original content sources disappear from the web, the aggregators eat more clicks & get fatter on the no-cost, no-effort profits (in some cases their duplication not only replaces the original source, but drives the original source into bankruptcy, making the duplicate become «unique» content). Youtube’s traffic from Google has grown over 4% a month for a few months in a row. Ask grew their Google search referral traffic by roughly 25% in a couple months (while starting from a rather large base).

Keep working on adding quality and value. Then mark up your work. Google will keep working on sucking profits out of the ecosystem.

Possession is nine-tenths of the law.

Comments

Youtube’s traffic from Google has grown over 4% a month for a few months in a row.

Well, there are a lot of things to be scared of, but I can’t help to think that at some point, Google would rather that you don’t own a website, just provide them with all the information they need to keep a user on their properties. Then anyone, a shop owner or a service provider is practically held hostage to paying Google’s webpage hosting fees.

«Oh, we see that your product has earned a place in our Google Shopping pages. We, of course, provide no link or information on how a searcher can purchase this product or service from you, but for a small click fee. «

«To organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.». The missing part of the sentence is «within Google.com or your favorite Google TLD»

When you put all of the content creators out of business, there’s no one to create the content. Less people create stuff to scrape and profit from. People can’t even sell stuff without Google, will they stand for that?

Or is it that when content dries up, Google becomes a a content creator?

I guess I understand how this is working NOW, but not how it will CONTINUE to work long-term.

When you put all of the content creators out of business, there’s no one to create the content. Less people create stuff to scrape and profit from.

There are numerous costs though:

From Google’s perspective, maybe the optimal number of people operating in the ecosystem with intent to profit from their efforts should be a lower number? Sure this harms diversity (and thus innovation), but it is easier for Google to police a few thousand companies than a few million individuals. Further, as Google monetizes into the tail of search with other enhancements to the «organic» search results, it is easier for them to manage relationships with a smaller number of companies. One *great* example of how this works is the Google product ads. It started off as a big box only CPA ad unit, and it didn’t get extended to smaller players until Google created a CPA version. They will absorb the risk of relevancy issues with some of the larger players, but the cost of policing the smaller ones was too expensive if they absorbed risk as well.

Or is it that when content dries up, Google becomes a a content creator?

I think this is largely right. Youtube already gets over 4% of search clicks from Google.com (and is quickly closing in on 5%). AdWords ads get something like 20% of search clicks (at least in mature ad markets like the United States). Then some of the other listed results carry AdSense ads. In mature markets Google has likely already monetized about 1/3 of all search clicks directly or indirectly, with the percentage being even higher for the most valuable keywords (as they come down from the top with an additional layer like Boutiques.com, Google Comparison Ads, Google Advisor, BeatThatQuote, etc.

I guess I understand how this is working NOW, but not how it will CONTINUE to work long-term.

As one analogy. for longtail keywords, imagine search results where 2 results per page are from Youtube and 2 results per page are ebooks which are hosted by Google and wrapped in Google ads. Mix in a couple brands and the associated Wikipedia page and you basically have a full search page. Google will say they needed to do this for quality reasons, ignoring that they funded & created eHow.

You can see the same trend with review sites as well. Google is squeezing the entire review ecosystem out of the search game. Then over time they will insert themselves there. Just like they squeezed value out of HTML links, video content, affiliate models (and then ran their own affiliate network + boutiques.com + like.com + beatthatquote.com + CPA lead generation ads + etc.) For the head queries, I mentioned above stuff like Advisor, Boutiques.com, etc.

Google is not prohibiting the ability for anyone & everyone to profit from the search market, they are prohibiting the ability for smaller players to compete & are working to lock down the opportunity through direct monetization and working with larger and less profitable publishing institutions, where Google can more easily police them and manage who is getting the bulk of the profits (while allowing the «partners» to eat the bulk of the risk & costs).

Scheme vs. Schema

A systematic plan of future action.

An outline or image universally applicable to a general conception, under which it is likely to be presented to the mind (for example, a body schema).

A plot or secret, devious plan.

(databases) A formal description of the structure of a database: the names of the tables, the names of the columns of each table, and the data type and other attributes of each column.

An orderly combination of related parts.

(markup languages) A formal description of data, data types, and data file structures, such as XML schemas for XML files.

A chart or diagram of a system or object.

(logic) A formula in the language of an axiomatic system, in which one or more schematic variables appear, which stand for any term or subformula of the system, which may or may not be required to satisfy certain conditions.

(mathematics) A type of topological space.

An outline or image universally applicable to a general conception, under which it is likely to be presented to the mind; as, five dots in a line are a schema of the number five; a preceding and succeeding event are a schema of cause and effect.

A council housing estate.

an internal representation of the world; an organization of concepts and actions that can be revised by new information about the world

(rhetoric) An artful deviation from the ordinary arrangement of words.

a schematic or preliminary plan

(astrology) A representation of the aspects of the celestial bodies for any moment or at a given event.

A portfolio of pension plans with related benefits comprising multiple independent members.

(intransitive) To plot, or contrive a plan.

A combination of things connected and adjusted by design; a system.

A plan or theory something to be done; a design; a project; as, to form a scheme.

‘The stoical scheme of supplying our wants by lopping off our desires, is like cutting off our feet when we want shoes.’;

Any lineal or mathematical diagram; an outline.

‘To draw an exact scheme of Constantinople, or a map of France.’;

A representation of the aspects of the celestial bodies for any moment or at a given event.

‘A blue silk case, from which was drawn a scheme of nativity.’; ‘He forms the well-concerted scheme of mischief;’T is fixed, ‘t is done, and both are doomed to death.’; ‘Artists and plans relieved my solemn hours;I founded palaces, and planted bowers.’;

To make a scheme of; to plan; to design; to project; to plot.

‘That wickedness which schemed, and executed, his destruction.’;

To form a scheme or schemes.

an elaborate and systematic plan of action

a statement that evades the question by cleverness or trickery

a group of independent but interrelated elements comprising a unified whole;

‘a vast system of production and distribution and consumption keep the country going’;

an internal representation of the world; an organization of concepts and actions that can be revised by new information about the world

a schematic or preliminary plan

form intrigues (for) in an underhand manner

Difference between «scheme» and «schema» [closed]

What is the difference between scheme and schema? Where do you use one and not the other?

The funny thing is that the dictionary entry of schema refers to scheme. Does that mean they can be used interchangeably? If not, can someone please give practical examples of how and when to use one and when the other?

3 Answers 3

The key here is the third definition of Schema, that of Kant; if he’s not the guy that re-introduced the old Latin form of the word, then he’s certainly the guy who popularized it, and brought it to such common usage in our modern language. Etymology Online and Google Ngrams both place its entry into English at about the same time as Kant’s work; Webster’s and a few other dictionaries place it about 60 or 70 years later. The difference is probably due to the lack of popularity, or common usage as the term slowly worked its way into standard English.

In any event, Kant’s idea of a «schema», when translated to our current understanding, is something like «the fundamental, intuitive ordering principle which people use to establish categories, whether mental, sensory, or ‘transcendental’.» For instance, the category of «quantity» must be ordered by number; thus, «number» is the «schema» of the mental category we understand as «quantity».

A «scheme», however, is essentially a plan or idea that one implements towards a certain goal; but there are exceptions, as when we say «color scheme». If we all spoke more strictly, this would probably be ‘color schema», but in fact, «scheme» and «schema» are very, very close words, both derived from one Ancient Latin/Greek word, and so in casual usage can seem interchangeable to folks like you and me. Since scientists no longer rely on «schema» as an important term of scientific practice, or debate, it has lost the institutional rigor it once enjoyed and is now slowly morphing together with «scheme».

Except for one instance: schema is never a verb, and can only be a noun. So that is where the confusion comes in; «schema» used to be a rigorously debated scientific term, part of the «meta-discussion» that surrounded early science, but that era has, for all intents and purposes, long disappeared. Now lacking any formal body of usage, «schema» mostly just hovers on the edge of our standard vocabulary until somebody needs a clear-cut noun for «abstract principle of ordering», or some such.

But often as not, people are lazy enough to just drop the «a» and use the word as «scheme», so.

Schemes and Tropes Stylistics 551 Lecture 23.

Published byHollie Nicholson Modified over 6 years ago

Similar presentations

Presentation on theme: «Schemes and Tropes Stylistics 551 Lecture 23.»— Presentation transcript:

1 Schemes and Tropes Stylistics 551 Lecture 23

2 Foregrounding Schemes (form/shape) Figures involving repetition
Parallelism Deviation Schemes (form/shape) Figures involving repetition Eg. Alliteration, anaphora Tropes (turn/change) Figures involving semantic irregularities Eg. Pun, metaphor

3 Schemes and Tropes Schemes: foregrounded repetitions of expression.
Tropes: foregrounded irregularities of content. Schemes: The word scheme has been derived form the Greek word “Schema” meaning ‘form’ or ‘shape’.

4 Schemes roughly have included figures such as alliteration, anaphora, and chiasmus and have been described as abnormal arrangements leading themselves to the forceful and harmonious presentation of ideas. Schemes may be identified as Phonological or formal (i.e. grammatical, lexical pattern)

5 Types of Repetition Repetition can be of two types:
1. Repetition of Sounds i) alliteration ii) assonance iii) consonance 2. Repetition of Words i) anaphora (a…) (a…) ii) apanalepsis (a…a) (b…b) iii) epistrophe (…a) (…a) iv) symploce (a…b) (a…b)

6 Topes The word Trope has been derived form the Greet word Tropein, meaning to turn or change. It involves changing or modifying the general meaning of a term. And example of a trope is irony. Which is used in a way that conveys a meaning opposite to is usual or apparent meaning.

8 Kinds of Tropes Semantic inversions. Reference to one thing as another Wordplay and puns Substitutions Overstatement and Understatement

9 Figures Involving Semantic Irregularities
In literary language especially poetry we have a unique kind of patterning of language. We have two types of meaning in general. One is the literal meaning an other is the nonliteral meaning. Literature is highly suggestive and interpretable. It is up to one’s perception that how he perceives the thing. When we talk about semantic oddity it means something irrational. e.g. “water has eaten kindness”

10 1. Oxymoron: An oxymoron is a figure of that creates semantic irregularity. In it contradictory terms are combined to create new meaning. Oxymoron is a useful device to convey the absurdity or oddity of some idea or a thing. E.g. “darkness visible” “echoing silence” “burning ice” “cold fire” “living dead”

11 1. Oxymoron It is a rhetorical figure in which an epigrammatic effect is created by the conjunction of incongruous or contradictory terms. In simple words it is the joining of two opposite or contradictory terms or ideas. It condenses a paradoxical statement or idea and often has an ironic overtone.

12 Oxymoron Observe the combination of contradictory terms such as used by Romeo in Act 1, scene 1 in Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet Why then, O brawling love! O loving hate O heavy lightness, serious vanity;

14 Take me to you, imprison me, for I
Except You, enthrall me, never shall be free Nor chaste, except you ravish me (John Donne)

15 3. Antithesis Antithesis is a figure of speech involving a seeming contradiction of ideas, words, clauses or sentences within balanced grammatical structure. Parallelism of expression serves to emphasize opposition of ideas. A seeming contradiction of ideas, words, clauses, or sentences creating a parallelism that serves to emphasize opposition of ideas.

16 To err is human, to forgive divine.
And the profit and loss are current undersea. We who are living are dying He raised a mortal to the sky She drew an angel down