Exploring the role of schematic knowledge
The following examples illustrate how phonological and lexical differences between North American and European usage, together with different schemas, caused comprehension breakdowns for an otherwise proficient listener. Imagine how much more difficult things get for less proficient listeners!
Context: 
Road-side
café in North America
Participants:
A: Woman working at the serving counter
B:
British tourist
Situation: The
British tourist has ordered two coffees.
| A | To go (t@gO)? |
| B | Er .. With milk but no sugar |
| A | You want them to go (t@gO)? |
| B | I'm sorry .. could you say that again? |
| A | To go (t@gO)? |
| B | ??? |
| A | Are you drinking them here? |
| B | Er, yes. |
| A | OK, that's 1$95 |
Here the initial problem was an unfamiliar lexical phrase ('to go' rather than 'to take away?'), further complicated by unfamiliar pronunciation (t@gO, not t@g@U). This meant that the tourist could not arrive quickly at a clear idea of the words being uttered. Her existing schematic knowledge couldn't help either: for the British tourist, it was not customary to buy a coffee to 'take away' in a café where there was seating. This, however, was customary in North American roadside cafés.
Context Airport
car rental desk in French-speaking Canada
Participants A:
French-Canadian rental clerk
B:
British tourist with fluent command of French French
Situation Having
completed formalities for car rental (in French), the British tourist
asks for directions to her ski-ing resort.
| A | Vous prenez le quinze nord (naR) |
| B | D'accord (notes down) le quinze ... Narre, ça s'écrit comment? |
| A | Comment? |
| B | La ville, Narre, comment ça s'écrit? N-A-R-R-E? |
| A | Mais ???... c'est 'nord' comme 'sud'. Le quinze nord ... |
| B | Ah d'accord, nord (nOR).N-O-R-D... merci Madame, le quinze, direction nord |
In this example, unfamiliar pronunciation (naR rather than nOR) again caused the initial problem, but schematic expectations reinforced it. The British tourist expected directions to contain reference to a road number and a town (eg 'take the A27 to Lewes'). North American directions generally refer to a road number and its cardinal direction ('take Highway 46 East').
Translation:
| A | You take the fifteen North (naR) |
| B | OK (notes down) the fifteen ... Narre, (naR) how do you spell that? |
| A | Sorry? |
| B | The town, Narre, how do you spell it? N-A-R-R-E? |
| A | But ???.... it's North, like South. The fifteen North... |
| B | Ah OK, North (nOR).N-O-R-T-H...Thanks, the fifteen, direction North. |
Context Plane
journey, American crew
Participants A:
American flight attendant
B: British passenger
Situation The
flight attendant is serving coffee to the passenger
| A | Would you like cream and sugar (kri:mS3) with your coffee? |
| B | (Hears 'Would you like 'creatures' in your coffee?') Sorry? |
| A | Would you like cream and sugar with your coffee? |
| B | (Again, hears 'creatures'. Cannot possibly be right). I'm sorry? |
| A | Cream ... in your coffee, Ma'm? (holds up a milk jug) |
| B | Oh, milk ... yes please. |
| A | Sugar? |
| B | Er ... No thanks |
Here, the passenger was expecting to be asked about 'milk and sugar', so 'cream' was a slightly unexpected lexical item. Then the pronunciation of suga' was unfamiliar (S3 rather than SUg@) and further, it was elided into kri;mS3. Thus the word she fitted against the sound stream was 'creature', which of course, she then couldn't fit into any existing schema of 'having coffee'. Comprehension broke down until the flight attendant segmented her phrase differently. Here the bottom level processing (from sound stream to lexical item) blocked out top-down processing (predicting 'cream' as a possible word from knowledge of the situation).
