EXPLANATION
In everyday language, the words explain and explanation refer to different scenarios, discourse genres and interactions. Ethnomethodology uses the concept of “accounts” (justifications, explanations) to capture the ongoing intelligibility of ordinary actions and interactions. Text linguistics considers explanatory sequences to be one of the basic sequence types, alongside narration, description and argumentation (Adam 1996, p. 33). The relationships between text types are complex. A justificatory argument (as opposed to a deliberative argument) explains, or accounts for a decision by listing the reasons that motivated that decision, see justification and deliberation.
1. Structure of Explanatory Discourse
Conceptually, explanatory discourse connects a lesser-known local phenomenon–something to be explained (the explanandum)–with a more well-known, complex explanatory domain (the explanans). Explanation promotes understanding. An explanation is an abduction. Different kinds of explanations can be distinguished by the kinds of field-related principles used to connect the explanandum to the explanans.
— Causal explanations, which allow prediction and action as in the following explanatory definition, see causality:
Rainbow: A luminous meteorological phenomenon […] produced by the refraction, reflection and scattering of the colored rays that make up the white sunlight by waterdroplets. (PR, Art. Rainbow).
— Functional explanations:
Why does the heart beat? — To circulate blood.
Why religion? — To strengthen social cohesion.
Why are oranges sliced and chocolate bars square? — To make them easier for children to share.
— Analogical explanations, see analogy 1; analogy 2:
The atom is like the solar system.
— Intentional explanations, see Motives: “He killed to steal.”
— Interpretive explanations are given when an obscure text is involved. An explanation is an interpretation of the text.
The specific conceptual structure of explanatory discourse in science depends on the definitions and operations that govern the field under consideration. One can explain phenomena in history, in linguistics, in physics, in mathematics. Since explanations rely on differential knowledge, they also depend on the prior knowledge of the audience. A good explanation must “get home.” The explanation given to someone with no knowledge of the field, will not be the same as that given in a research paper on the same topic.
2. Ordinary Explanations
2.1 Explain: The Word and Its Uses
The agents of the verb to explain are human (S1, S2, etc.)
— The explanation usually refers to an external phenomenon that one wants to understand better:
In “S1 explains M to S2” the explanation is a conceptual interactive sequence.
In “E explains M”, the explanation is formulated as an objective conceptual monologue, that does not contain any reference to an interactive event.
— S1 may ask another person S2 to explain his (= S2‘s) behavior. In this case, S1 wants to clarify an interpersonal misunderstanding, or something that could be seen as an offense O, committed by S2 against S1.
You owe me an explanation! (1)
The so-called “explanation” demanded is actually a justification. This is a rather threatening opening, uttered in an angry tone, and anticipating a lively–even violent–discussion. The “explanatory” interaction that follows is likely to be an argument2 (see to argue, argument: the words) made with the aim of either restoring or redefining the relationship between the two individuals.
In everyday use, the word explanation refers to segments of speech or to interactive sequences initiated by a speaker who:
— Does not understand:
“(Explain to me) what ‘zoon politikon’ means?”: A request for a definition, a paraphrase, a translation or an interpretation.
« (Explain to me) what really happened? »: A request for a convincing narrative.
“(Explain to me) why the shape of the moon is changing?”: A request for a theory, diagrams and pictures.
— Does not know how to do something:
“(Explain to me) how it works?”. This is a request for instructions, a brochure, a manual, or a practical demonstration.
The structure of the explanation varies depending on the nature of the activity.
This raises the question of the unity of the concept of explanation, as well as that of the variety of explanatory discourses in interaction. At the most general level, the need for an explanation arises from the feeling of surprise (novelty, anomaly) when faced with something astonishing. Any answer that satisfies this astonishment and frees the speaker from any sense of surprise can be considered to be a satisfactory explanation.
2.2 In Ethnomethodology
Ethnomethodology (Garfinkel 1967) places great importance on accounts in everyday interactions, i.e., to ordinary explanations, justifications or good reasons given by the participants regarding the meaning of their current actions and expectations. Such accounts are given at two levels. First, there are explicit explanations “in which social actors give an explanation for what they are doing in terms of reasons, motives or causes” (Heritage 1987, p. 26). Second, implicit accounts are provided as explanations inscribed in the ongoing flow of actions and social interactions (ibid.). These implicit accounts aim to ensure mutual intelligibility of “what is going on”, based on action scripts, social expectations, or practical moral standards. These explanations are said to be situated, i.e., contextual.
In conversation, explicit explanations can occur as repairs, when an initial turn is followed by a non-preferred sequence. For example when an invitation is declined, the refusal will often be accompanied by an explanation-justification: “I’m afraid I can’t go with you, I have to work.” This kind of explanation or justification is required in the face of a social norm. This can be seen from the conflictual turn the interaction takes when no explanations are given (Pomerantz 1984).
2.3 Explanatory Sequences
Beyond the question “Why are things so?”, the search for an explanation is defined as a cognitive, linguistic and interactional activity, triggered by the feeling or expression of doubt, ignorance, by a disturbance in the normal course of action, or mere “mental discomfort” (Wittgenstein 1974, p. 26). Explanations seek to satisfy this cognitive need, assuage doubt, and produce a comfortable sense of understanding and (inter)comprehension.
The explanatory interaction between an “explainer” and an “explainee” can be schematized as a sequence of stages. The first stage is the explainee’s request for explanation to an explainer. The final stage is the explainee‘s ratification of the explanation:
Ee has a curiosity, a doubt, concern or a mental block about M.
Ee seeks an explanation from Er.
Er provides an explanation.
Ee ratifies or does not ratify the explanation
According to this scheme, an explanation is a response to a request. As an epistemic-interactional act, an explanation is satisfactory if it alleviates Ee’s “mental discomfort.” Therefore, the most objective, sophisticated and accurate explanation, that it is not based on Ee‘s question and state of knowledge, will at best be satisfactory to the explainer Er, leaving Ee out.
3. Explanation and Argumentation
3.1 Explanation and Justificatory Argumentation
Explanations are on the side of the justificatory argumentation, see justification:
— Both explanation and argumentation originate from a state of doubt about a statement that does not align with an individual’s beliefs and knowledge.
— Both explanation and argumentation develop out of an interrogation.
— Both are linking processes that develop a given set of beliefs. An explanation incorporates an undeniable fact, the explanandum into an explanatory system. Deliberative argumentation takes arguments from a set of beliefs and develops them into a conclusion, that is integrated into the same set of beliefs. Justificatory argumentation integrates a challenged known fact into an established coherent system of representation.
In deliberative argumentation, the argument is presented as certain, and doubt is cast on the corollary, the conclusion is questioned.
In justificatory argumentation, the search for an argument goes in the opposite direction.
My client is completely innocent. How can I prove / explain this to the jury?
As in an explanation, where the explanandum is an established fact, and the explanans must be identified.
Undoubtedly, the face of the moon is changing. How can I make sense of that?
The same argumentative laws of passage can establish explanatory connection. For example, causal links are used both in both explanation and in argumentation, see pragmatic; motives.
3.2 Explanation as an Argumentative Move
The contrast between argumentation and explanation can have argumentative significance. Explanations project unequal interaction roles: the explainee is an ignorant profane in a low position, while the explainer is an expert in a high position. In argumentative situations, the roles of proponent and opponent are more equal. It’s one thing to « explain something to someone » and another to « argue with or against someone about something. »
The question “Why?”, which typically introduces a request for an explanation, can also be used to question a behavior or opinion. In the latter case, it opens an argumentative, egalitarian, discussion. However, the recipient of this question may reframe the argumentative situation as an explanatory situation, saying, “Wait, let me explain!”. In this case, the relationship becomes asymmetrical, with the explainer / proponent trying to gain the upper hand over the explainee / opponent.