User:Efreezer/sandbox

Introduction Relational Interpretation Competitive Evaluation (RICE) theory is a psycholinguistic model that provides a basic organizational framework for explaining how concepts in human language are combined and understood. It assumes a suggest then evaluate process for relational interpretation at its most basic level, followed by an elaboration phase. The phrasal interpretation that results, combined with the relational interpretation, forms the full meaning of the combined concept. Subdividing a compound word into two main components yields a modifier and a head. For example, in the word “snowball”, “ball” is the head and provides a basic idea of what a concept is. “Snow” is therefore the modifier, which manipulates the properties of the head, in this case, a ball made of snow. Critically, RICE provides a relational process that involves both the modifier and the head in a given compound.

Suggest RICE theory operates through three main processes. Initially, a possible relation between the two components of the compound, the head noun and modifier, is suggested by the modifier. Several possible relations are suggested, each with varying degrees of accessibility and strength. This means that the modifier is responsible for competition between relational effects, but that it cannot by itself resolve which relation is correct. This does not eliminate the possibility for head-based effects to create competition between relational interpretations, but rather this is the typical role of the modifier.

Evaluate The second critical process offers possible solutions to this resultant competition. In it, the head noun evaluates the relations proposed by the modifier. By cycling through the different suggested relations, the head and modifier work in tandem to select the most appropriate option. This process is believed to occur at a level outside of consciousness, happening rapidly and automatically. Importantly, the competitive nature of this process is not a consequence of the suggested relation, but rather is a result of differing accessibility to the possible relations. It takes longer to rule out some relations in comparison to others, and thus can take longer just because of a greater number of initial suggestions.

Elaborate The third and final process in RICE, elaboration, provides information beyond that given by the given combined concept. That is, the relational interpretation does not necessarily provide the full or intended meaning of a compound. It may be that the selected relation is inappropriate given the context, and the elaboration phase acts as a guard against this. Thus, contextual information beyond the compound itself is used to interpret intentionality and consistency. While this may require elaborations in several different contexts, this third phase can ultimately rule out implausible phrasal interpretations that were provided by the initial suggest-evaluate framework. However, if the selected interpretation is appropriate given phrasal context, conceptual combination will occur as intended and a concrete, understandable idea will have been accurately communicated and understood.

Applications RICE theory and the elaboration phase especially have several important psycholinguistic implications. For instance, the potential resiliency of already elaborated phrases can reduce processing speed if there are a large number of suggested relations, as contextual information will be required to rule out this previously successfully interpreted phrase. For instance, presenting a modification true of one head noun (e.g., peeled apples are round) can have marked effects on later elaborations related to that head (e.g., autumn apples are red), including a reduction in processing speed. In essence, the conception of a head noun can be substantially altered by a modifier-noun phrase that has previously been interpreted. As such, questions of durability and accessibility regarding these established elaborations arise. Intervening elaborations between an initial concept and future repetitions of a concept may result in a longer elaborative phase than without intervening trials given the evaluative phase having previously accepted a certain interpretation of the head noun.

Assumptions Several key assumptions present themselves with regard to the theory’s functioning. First, it is assumed that the relational information used in RICE is consistent with the conceptual representations of the actual components of a compound. Given this association with compound constituents, RICE then assumes that each constituent has its own asymmetric role. That is, the modifier has its own utility in suggesting potential evaluations and the head operates to determine which of these is the most plausible. Significantly, this means that combination is not occurring on a lexical level, but rather is conceptual in nature. This gives credence to the claim that the theory is operational across languages, as it is not reliant on a characteristic of English. Further, similar concepts may thus be related in similar ways, and relational evaluations could spread throughout similar concepts and compound constituents.

Further, RICE does not rely on representing any of the possible relations outside of their given context. Given that relations are proposed by a specific compound, they are intrinsically tied to its structure and do not require external representation. That is, evaluation of possible relations occurs only within a compound, as they relate the head and modifier together. The evaluation phase then considers contextually if a compound is reasonable, but it does not require a separation of the relation from the compound.

A third assumption is that relations themselves are organized hierarchically, in the same sense that concepts themselves are. Relations have an individual level of generality that is separate for all of them, which explains some of the delay in evaluative processing. However, this generality of relations is necessary for providing reliable and consistent interpretations of compounds. In this sense, as mentioned prior, concepts that share relations do so to a constructive end. Closely related concepts do not need to be evaluated in isolation if they share a particular relation, as this relation may become hierarchically more accessible.