Una clasificación de las inferencias pragmáticas orientada a la didáctica
Identificadores
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/10481/60470Metadata
Show full item recordAuthor
Ripoll Salcedo, Juan C.Editorial
Universidad de Granada
Materia
Education Inference Reading comprehension Taxonomy
Date
2015Referencia bibliográfica
Ripoll Salcedo, J. C. (2015): Una clasificación de las inferencias pragmáticas orientada a la didáctica, Investigaciones Sobre Lectura, 4, 107-122. [http://hdl.handle.net/10481/60470]
Abstract
Nowadays it is accepted that the
ability to make inferences is
essential to reading comprehension.
Pragmatic inferences are classified
according to various criteria, none of
these taxonomies is commonly
accepted and they have been hardly
used in education.
The aim of this paper is to propose
an inference taxonomy with the
following characteristics: it must be
simple, easy to understand and
useful for the classroom. Without a
suitable taxonomy there is a risk that
teachers do not take into account,
when assessing or planning
classroom activities, all types of
inferences that students should use
for a good understanding.
The taxonomy was made from the
following principle: inferences
provide information that does not
appear explicitly in the text, so you
can ask questions about this
information. From this principle it is
proposed the existence of five types
of inferences that respond to five
types of questions. The five main
questions are: "what or who is the
text alluding to?", "what is the
relationship between ... and ...?",
"what can be predicted knowing that
...?", "what else can you say about
this? "and" what does it all mean? ".
According to a review of the literature
on inference making the proposed
taxonomy is compatible with previous
ones, also with those which are focused
on teaching. There are several
experimental studies showing that
children and adolescents perform the
proposed five kinds of inferences when
they understand texts. Despite these
data, the proposed taxonomy is
tentative and should be used with
caution because it lacks empirical
support.