UNDERSTANDING. AN EXISTENTIAL EXERCISE OF THE SUBJECT, EVIDENT IN ARGUMENTATIVE DIALOGUE
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56219/dialctica.v3i30.6135Keywords:
Comprehension, argumentation, text, discourse, validityAbstract
This essay is theoretical and analytical in scope and argues that understanding is not limited to a private mental state, but is recognized as a way of being and a public practice that manifests itself in argumentative dialogue. Based on Heidegger's fundamental ontology (Being and Time), the article coherently conceptualizes understanding as existential-cognitive-discursive mediation. With reference to the existential, in terms of project, affectivity, and representation as being in the world; from the cognitive perspective, it refers to the construction of a situational model that concretely integrates text, world, and goals; and as discursive, it alludes to the intersubjective exposition of reasons that are subject to criteria of validity. Methodologically, the article links a hermeneutic synthesis with developments in psycholinguistics of discourse and, in turn, argumentation theory (Toulmin) to operationalize the obviousness of understanding through the data-guarantee-conclusion scheme, integrated with the concepts of support, qualifier, and rebuttal. This essay delves into the pre-structure according to Heidegger's ideas, as well as into the everyday imperfections of understanding, referring to gossip, curiosity, and ambiguity, thus proposing an auditability protocol that contains a statement of assumptions, as well as traceability of evidence, explicitation of the inferential bridge, management of limits, and treatment of strong objections. Specifically, and as a contribution to the field of education, it proposes a formative assessment matrix and a concise rubric that allow comprehension to be taught and assessed as a situated and potentially perfectible practice. In conclusion, it can be noted that comprehension is the basis of argumentation and, in turn, argumentation perfects comprehension.
Downloads
References
Alexander, P. y Winne, P. (2006). Handbook of Educational Psychology (2nd ed.). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
Andrews, R. (2010). Argumentation in Higher Education. New York: Routledge.
Austin, J. (1962). How to Do Things with Words. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bazerman, C. (1988). Shaping Written Knowledge. Madison: University of Winconsin Press.
Bereiter, C. y Scardamalia, M. (1987). The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bruner, J. (1990). Acts of Meaning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Camps, A. (1997). Secuencias Didácticas para Aprender a Escribir. Barcelona: Graó.
Carlino, P. (2005). Escribir, Leer y Aprender en la Universidad. Buenos Aires: FCE.
Cassany, D. (1999). Construir la Escritura. Barcelona: Paidos.
Castelló, M. (2013). La Escritura Académica en la Universidad. Barcelona: Graó.
Eco, U. (1979). Lector in Fabula. Milán: Bompiani.
Flower, L. y Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32 (4), 365-387.
Graham, S. y Perin, D. (2007). Writing Next. New York: Carnegie Corporation.
Habermas, J. (1999). Conciencia Moral y Acción Comunicativa. Madrid: Trotta.
Heidegger, M. (2006). Ser y Tiempo. Trotta.
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, Fast and Slow. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
Kintsch, W. (1998). Comprehension: A paradigm for cognition. Cambrigde: Cambrigde University Press.
McNamara, D. (2009). Teaching Reading Strategies. Perspectives on Lenguage and Literacy, 35 (2), 34-39-
Morin, E. (1999). La Cabeza Bien Puesta. Buenos Aires: Nueva Visión.
Mounier, E. (1950). El Personalismo. Buenos Aires. Emecé.
Parodi, G. (2010). Alfabetización académica y discursos disciplinares. Valparaíso: Ediciones Universitarias de Valparaíso.
Perfetti, C. (2007). Reading ability: Lexical quality to comprehension. Scientific Studies of Reading, 11 (4), 357 – 383.
Ricoeur, P. (1976). Teoría de la Interpretación. México: Siglo XXI.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech Acts. Cambrigde: Cambrigde University Press.
Snow, C. (2002). Reading for Understanding. Santa Mónica, CA: RAND.
Solé, I. (1992). Estrategias de Lectura. Barcelona: Graó.
Sperber, D., y Wilson, D. (1995). Relevance: Communication and Cognition (2nd ed.) Oxford: Blackwell.
Swales, J. (1990). Genre Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Tindale, C. (2007). Fallacies and Argument Appraisal. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Toulmin, S. (1958). The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Dijk, T. y Kintsch, W. (1983). Strategies of Discourse Comprehension. New York: Academic Press.
Van Eemeren, F. y Grootendorst, R. (2004). A Systematic Theory of Argumentation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Walton, D., Reed, C. y Macagno, F. (2008). Argumentation Schmes. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zimmerman, B. (2000). Attaining self- regulation. In M. Boekarts et al. (Eds.), Handbook of Self – Regulation. San Diego: Academic Presss.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
La revista Dialéctica conserva los derechos patrimoniales (copyright) de las obras publicadas, que favorece y permite la reutilización de los mismos bajo la licencia Creative Commons Atribución-NoComercial-CompartirIgual 4.0 , por lo cual se pueden copiar, usar, difundir, transmitir y exponer públicamente, siempre que se cite la autoría y fuente original de su publicación (revista, editorial, URL y DOI de la obra), no se usen para fines comerciales u onerosos y se mencione la existencia y especificaciones de esta licencia de uso. Si remezcla, transforma o crea a partir del material, debe distribuir su contribución bajo la misma licencia del original.
+584121131459
