Abstract
To begin with, consider the following four statements, one by one: The word seemed salient because it was the first word that came to my mind. The word seemed salient because it was the first word that came to my mind in this context. The word seemed salient because I had not expected to hear it in this context. The word seemed salient because I had never heard it before. It is not unlikely that all four statements seem plausible, although 1 and 2 are actually opposed to 4 and 3 respectively. Apparently, then, words can be considered salient because they are… highly familiar and strongly entrenched, highly expected in a given context, highly unexpected in a given context, or totally unfamiliar. Surprisingly, linguists have actually relied on at least three of these four scenarios for defining the notion of salience (see also Bowman et al., 2013, for a psychological perspective). Scenario (1) lies at the heart of Giora's idea of salience as what is “foremost on one's mind […] stored and coded in the mental lexicon” (Giora, 2003, p. 15). Scenario (2) accords with Geeraerts' view of onomasiological salience in terms of “the relative frequency with which a signifiant is associated with a given signifie” (Geeraerts, forthcoming), i.e., the frequency with which a word is used to denote a given piece of experience. Scenario (3) corresponds to understanding salience in terms of surprisal, as, e.g., proposed by Racz: “A segment is cognitively salient if it has a large surprisal value when compared to an array of language input” (Racz, 2013, p. 37; see also Friston, 2010; Clark, 2013; Fine et al., 2013; Divjak, 2016). Scenario (4) represents an extreme variant of type (3) which builds on memory-based novelty rather than context-based surprise (see Barto et al., 2013, for this distinction). The four scenarios can be summarized systematically by a cross-tabulation of two types of sources of expectations, viz. long-term memory and current context, with two types of mechanisms of salience, viz. confirmation and violation of expectations: Salience by context-free entrenchment: confirmation of expectations based on knowledge stored in long-term memory. Salience by contexual entrenchment: confirmation of expectations derived from the probability of occurrence in the current context. Salience by surprisal: violation of expectations derived from the probability of occurrence in the current context. Salience by novelty: violation of expectations based on lack of stored knowledge. In this paper we propose a unified framework for salience which reconciles these opposing conceptions by showing that they focus on different aspects of the interaction between knowledge, context, expectation, and external input.
Highlights
OPPOSING VIEWS OF SALIENCEConsider the following four statements, one by one:. (1) The word seemed salient because it was the first word that came to my mind. (2) The word seemed salient because it was the first word that came to my mind in this context. (3) The word seemed salient because I had not expected to hear it in this context. (4) The word seemed salient because I had never heard it before
OPPOSING VIEWS OF SALIENCETo begin with, consider the following four statements, one by one:(1) The word seemed salient because it was the first word that came to my mind. (2) The word seemed salient because it was the first word that came to my mind in this context. (3) The word seemed salient because I had not expected to hear it in this context. (4) The word seemed salient because I had never heard it before.It is not unlikely that all four statements seem plausible, 1 and 2 are opposed to 4 and 3 respectively
In this paper we propose a unified framework for salience which reconciles these opposing conceptions by showing that they focus on different aspects of the interaction between knowledge, context, expectation, and external input
Summary
Consider the following four statements, one by one:. (1) The word seemed salient because it was the first word that came to my mind. (2) The word seemed salient because it was the first word that came to my mind in this context. (3) The word seemed salient because I had not expected to hear it in this context. (4) The word seemed salient because I had never heard it before. (1) The word seemed salient because it was the first word that came to my mind. (2) The word seemed salient because it was the first word that came to my mind in this context. (3) The word seemed salient because I had not expected to hear it in this context. Words can be considered salient because they are. Long-term memory and current context, with two types of mechanisms of salience, viz. (1) Salience by context-free entrenchment: confirmation of expectations based on knowledge stored in long-term memory. (2) Salience by contexual entrenchment: confirmation of expectations derived from the probability of occurrence in the current context. (3) Salience by surprisal: violation of expectations derived from the probability of occurrence in the current context. (4) Salience by novelty: violation of expectations based on lack of stored knowledge. In this paper we propose a unified framework for salience which reconciles these opposing conceptions by showing that they focus on different aspects of the interaction between knowledge, context, expectation, and external input
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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.
