Where Questions

The salience effect is similar, but distinct. Objects which are close to ones which stand ia a particular relation to the respondent (i.e. physically close, emotionally dear, or belonging to the subject) are not placed in a room but receive horizontal answers instead. For example, all the Israelis answered that Lebanon was "north of Israel", and not that it was "in the MidEast". Similarly, all the Americans (and half of the Israells) placed Canada in relation to the U.S. Unlike the prominence effect, the salience effect does affect the answer generation algorithm itself, and it bears on individual or cultural differences, not on general semantic com-lderatlons. 4 Specifically, items which ere special to the speaker are tagged in the representation as marked, and this triggers a shift from the vertical to the horizontal algorlthm. All questions considered so far involved one configuration: the two conversants and the target were physically distinct, and together they could he contained in one COmmOn room. This, however, is not the only possible con£iguratlon. Other confi&~aratious, are possible as well: (a) The conversants and the target may coincide in place, as in the question '~here are we now?". (b) The conversants ~ay be contained in the target, as in the question "Where is Israel?" when Posed in Jerusalem. (c) The conversants may be in different places, as in phone conversations. Strictly speaklng, the Room Algorithm does not apply to these configuratlons. Thus, in (b) the least common room is one level above that of the target, but on what level would the answer be? The Room Algorithm would either return the respondent to the place queried or else require detailed and perhaps cumbersomDclassificatlons, neither option is taken. All the answers to the questions noted were given on the room immediately above the target. In (a) a least common room may not be circumscribed in the manner outlined by the Room Algorithm, whereas in (c) a distinction between the speaker and the hearer has to be introduced. All these cases suggest that the different confi~Jrations do invoke different generation algorithms. Hence, an appraisal of the conFlguration is necessary prior to the application of the answer-generation algorithm proper. So far, the discussion was topological, considering only the spatial configuration holding between the conversants and the object questioned. The respondent 's knowledge of the world was not taken into account. In order to prove the p s y c h o l o g i c a l v a l i d i t y o f an answer g e n e r a t i o n algorithm it is crucial to demonstrate that the answer given is chosen from a class of several feasible answers, and is not the only one possible due to a limited data base. This was the purpose of the closed questionnaires. Two such questionnaires were administered: first, subJests were asked to choose the best of several answers given to them; then they were asked to mark all the answers they deemed true. Three points were of interest. First, the answers given in the first two conditions were not necessarily the most specified ones marked in the third. Second, there were answers in the multiple option condition which were evidently true and commonly known but which were nonetheless not marked by subjects. These answers included reversed prominence (i.e. the relation of a prominent object to a less prominent one), featural answers and ones which were too high on the place hierarchy. Third, an "~ don't know" answer on the open questionns/re did not necessarily imply a noanswer in the other conditions. In other words, this answer does not signify complete ignorance, but rather an appreciation on the part of the subject that he cannot f~u 'nish t h e answer he deemm a p p r o p r i a t e . T o g e t h e r , t h e t h r e e p o i n t s i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e r e i s indeed a p s y c h o l o g i c a l p r o c e s s o f a n s w e r g e n e r a t i o n which does no t amount to the specification Of the most detailed information one has regarding the object in question. Still another aspect which has to be considered is the speaker's intention when he poses a question. A study ~ this aspect is just on its way now and at this point, I have to limit myself only to a methodological discussion. Evidently, the process of question-answering requires an appraisal of intention (of. Lehnert, !978), one which involves the evaluation of various contertual, personal and sociological factors. In order to make research feasible, as well as constructive, a factorizatlon of the domain of question-answering, I believe, is needed. In this regard the topological, knowledge and intention aspects were noted. The original Room Theory is an attempt to define the topological aspect. The present study shows that even for this 8spect this Theory is not sufficient. The present discussion suggests that an extended topological theory should consist of the following components : I. Semantic and episodic representations, which are not isomorphic to the physically (logically) defined room-hierar chy. 2. Determinants of confi~Irations and problematic cases (floor, ceiling). 3. A set of ordered answer-generation algorithms: vertical place~nent (the algorithm proposed by the Room Theory), horizontal relation, featural descrlption and non-informatlve (vacuous, tautolog-