Coherent relationships are required to make sense of text. The three types of schemata are content, formal, and abstract. Content refers to clearly evident relationships obvious from a topic. Formal is distant connections based on understanding of generalizations and mindset. Abstract involves hidden factors and thematic considerations.
1. Content schemata
Content schemata are schematic background knowledge of topic. Content schema refers to the familiarity of the subject matter of the text. It includes an understanding of the topic of the text and the cultural-specific elements needed to interpret it.
“According to Content schema is part of the individual’s cultural orientation, and since culture affects all aspects of life, it certainly has a major impact on all elements of reading. Some of these elements include things such as what types of text people read? What is the purpose of reading? How reading is perceived? How readers of a text view them selves in relation to the writer of the text? Superior? Inferior? Active participants? Passive participant? What is the level of textual Engagement people expect? What is the value of the spoken word in relation to the written word? And what topics are worthy of reading? Answers to all these questions are usually culturally determined, learned, understood, and put into practice.”
Although schemata cannot be ignored, one’s cultural orientation appears to be a dominant force in shaping one’s reading habits. Therefore, a reader is most likely to fail if his/her cultural schema is different from the one proposed by the text. As pointed out by Carrell & Eisterhol “one of the most obvious reasons why a particular content schema may fail to exist for a reader is that the schema is culturally specific and is not part of a particular reader’s cultural background.” They defined content schema as a reader's background or world knowledge of the topic, students’ habit also influence on their background of knowledge.
2. Formal Schemata
“Formal schemata are Schematic background knowledge of organizational patterns and rhetorical conventions of written texts. While formal schemata cover discourse level items, linguistic or language schemata include the decoding features needed to recognize words and how they fit together in a sentence. First language readers may be through repeated examples able to generalize a pattern or guess the meaning of a word, which may not have initially been part of their linguistic schema. The building of linguistic schema in a second language can proceed in the much the same way”.
Moreover formal schemata refer to the extent that readers master the logic structure and rhetoric knowledge in reading. Different text styles have different form schemas. Readers can make a prediction to later development according to form schema in mind. Formal schema can include knowledge of different text types and genres, and also includes the understanding that different types of texts between Biology and Physics department students have different ways of using text organization, language structures, vocabulary, grammar, level of formality/register.
3. Abstract Schemata
“Abstract schemata are grounded in concepts generalized so as to transcend any particular context of experience, have the greatest impact of all. Furthermore, as noted, abstract schemata fall at an absolute maximal limit because, by definition, nothing can be more abstract than a representation that is completely so. Likewise, the particular, non-repeatable and strictly individual facts of any actual context of experience are as particular as any facts whatever can be because nothing can be more particular than the sort of particular that is completely so. In between these extreme limits, the abstracted generalizations on the one hand and the particular facts of someone's individual experience on the other, it can be rigorously proved that the only means of linking these disparate realms (on the opposite sides of Einstein's gulf) is through the sort of bodily action that indexes concrete entities of the material world against abstract concepts of the ideal realm.”
Abstract is hypothesized here for the first time and is shown to be based on deductive generalizations All three kinds of schemata are examined in relation to active interpretations of photographs, audio-visual discourse, and written text It is method of exact logic that comprehension, language acquisition, and language use are absolutely dependent on true narrative representations The latter are explained and differentiated from fictions, errors, and lies and shown to be the only basis for determining the meaning of any representation of any kind implications for literacy, language acquisition, and teaching are considered empirical studies confirm that abstract schemata are more powerful owing to their greater generality than formal schemata which in turn are superior to content schemata.
1. Content schemata
Content schemata are schematic background knowledge of topic. Content schema refers to the familiarity of the subject matter of the text. It includes an understanding of the topic of the text and the cultural-specific elements needed to interpret it.
“According to Content schema is part of the individual’s cultural orientation, and since culture affects all aspects of life, it certainly has a major impact on all elements of reading. Some of these elements include things such as what types of text people read? What is the purpose of reading? How reading is perceived? How readers of a text view them selves in relation to the writer of the text? Superior? Inferior? Active participants? Passive participant? What is the level of textual Engagement people expect? What is the value of the spoken word in relation to the written word? And what topics are worthy of reading? Answers to all these questions are usually culturally determined, learned, understood, and put into practice.”
Although schemata cannot be ignored, one’s cultural orientation appears to be a dominant force in shaping one’s reading habits. Therefore, a reader is most likely to fail if his/her cultural schema is different from the one proposed by the text. As pointed out by Carrell & Eisterhol “one of the most obvious reasons why a particular content schema may fail to exist for a reader is that the schema is culturally specific and is not part of a particular reader’s cultural background.” They defined content schema as a reader's background or world knowledge of the topic, students’ habit also influence on their background of knowledge.
2. Formal Schemata
“Formal schemata are Schematic background knowledge of organizational patterns and rhetorical conventions of written texts. While formal schemata cover discourse level items, linguistic or language schemata include the decoding features needed to recognize words and how they fit together in a sentence. First language readers may be through repeated examples able to generalize a pattern or guess the meaning of a word, which may not have initially been part of their linguistic schema. The building of linguistic schema in a second language can proceed in the much the same way”.
Moreover formal schemata refer to the extent that readers master the logic structure and rhetoric knowledge in reading. Different text styles have different form schemas. Readers can make a prediction to later development according to form schema in mind. Formal schema can include knowledge of different text types and genres, and also includes the understanding that different types of texts between Biology and Physics department students have different ways of using text organization, language structures, vocabulary, grammar, level of formality/register.
3. Abstract Schemata
“Abstract schemata are grounded in concepts generalized so as to transcend any particular context of experience, have the greatest impact of all. Furthermore, as noted, abstract schemata fall at an absolute maximal limit because, by definition, nothing can be more abstract than a representation that is completely so. Likewise, the particular, non-repeatable and strictly individual facts of any actual context of experience are as particular as any facts whatever can be because nothing can be more particular than the sort of particular that is completely so. In between these extreme limits, the abstracted generalizations on the one hand and the particular facts of someone's individual experience on the other, it can be rigorously proved that the only means of linking these disparate realms (on the opposite sides of Einstein's gulf) is through the sort of bodily action that indexes concrete entities of the material world against abstract concepts of the ideal realm.”Abstract is hypothesized here for the first time and is shown to be based on deductive generalizations All three kinds of schemata are examined in relation to active interpretations of photographs, audio-visual discourse, and written text It is method of exact logic that comprehension, language acquisition, and language use are absolutely dependent on true narrative representations The latter are explained and differentiated from fictions, errors, and lies and shown to be the only basis for determining the meaning of any representation of any kind implications for literacy, language acquisition, and teaching are considered empirical studies confirm that abstract schemata are more powerful owing to their greater generality than formal schemata which in turn are superior to content schemata.