Flores Eileen Pfeiffer, de Oliveira-Castro Jorge Mendes, de Souza Carlos Barbosa Alves
King's College, London, King's College, Philosophy Building, Strand Campus, London, WC2R 2ND UK.
University of Brasilia, Department of Basic Psychological Processes, Psychology Institute - ICC SUL - Campus Darcy Ribeiro, Asa Norte, CEP 70 910900 Brasília, DF Brazil.
Anal Verbal Behav. 2020 Dec 7;36(2):273-294. doi: 10.1007/s40616-020-00135-0. eCollection 2020 Dec.
We offer an account of reading comprehension that we believe will help clarify some common conceptual confusions in the relevant literature, as well as contribute to existing functional accounts. We argue that defining texts qua texts as stimulus classes, on the one hand, and equating "comprehension" with behavior (covert or otherwise), on the other, are not useful conceptual moves, especially when behavioral settings go beyond basic literacy skills acquisition. We then analyze the structure of the contingencies that usually evoke talk of "comprehension" using techniques from analytic philosophy. We show how keeping the results of this analysis in mind can help avoid the conceptual bafflement that often arises, even among behavior analysts, when defining or assessing behavioral phenomena related to reading comprehension. Using two contrasting cases (legal texts and stories), we argue that what counts as comprehension depends, not peripherally but crucially, on the shared social practices of which texts are a part. Finally, we propose a new framework for classifying reader-text contingencies by combining two dimensions: openness of setting and embeddedness of reinforcement.
我们提供了一种阅读理解的观点，我们认为这将有助于澄清相关文献中一些常见的概念混淆，同时也有助于现有的功能解释。我们认为，一方面将文本本身定义为刺激类别，另一方面将“理解”等同于行为（隐蔽的或其他的），这些概念性举措并无益处，尤其是当行为背景超出基本读写技能的习得时。然后，我们运用分析哲学的技巧来分析通常引发“理解”讨论的各种意外情况的结构。我们展示了牢记这一分析结果如何有助于避免在定义或评估与阅读理解相关的行为现象时经常出现的概念困惑，即使在行为分析师中也是如此。通过两个对比案例（法律文本和故事），我们认为，理解的关键不在于边缘因素，而在于文本所属的共享社会实践。最后，我们提出了一个新的框架，通过结合两个维度对读者与文本的意外情况进行分类：背景的开放性和强化的嵌入性。
