{"id":4945,"date":"2021-10-20T14:26:15","date_gmt":"2021-10-20T12:26:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/?p=4945"},"modified":"2025-07-05T16:20:16","modified_gmt":"2025-07-05T14:20:16","slug":"explanation-e","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/explanation-e\/","title":{"rendered":"Explanation"},"content":{"rendered":"

EXPLANATION<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n

In everyday language<\/em>, the words explain<\/em> and explanation<\/em> refer to different scenarios, discourse genres and interactions. Ethnomethodology <\/em>uses the concept of \u201caccounts\u201d (justifications, explanations)<\/em> to capture the ongoing intelligibility of ordinary actions and interactions. Text linguistics<\/em> 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<\/em> (as opposed to a deliberative <\/em>argument) explains<\/em>, or accounts<\/em> for a decision by listing the reasons that motivated that decision, see justification and deliberation.<\/em><\/a><\/p>\n

1. Structure of Explanatory Discourse<\/span><\/h2>\n

Conceptually, explanatory discourse connects a lesser-<\/em>known<\/em> local<\/em> phenomenon\u2013something to be explained (the explanandum<\/em>)\u2013with a more well-known, complex<\/em> explanatory domain (the explanans<\/em>). Explanation<\/em> promotes understanding<\/em>. An explanation is an abduction<\/em><\/a>. Different kinds of explanations can be distinguished by the kinds of field-related principles used to connect the explanandum<\/em> to the explanans.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0Causal <\/em><\/strong>explanations, which allow prediction and action as in the following explanatory definition, see causality<\/a>:<\/p>\n

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<\/em>).<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0<\/strong>Functiona<\/strong>l <\/em>explanations:<\/p>\n

Why does the heart beat? \u2014\u00a0To circulate blood.
\n<\/em>Why religion? \u2014\u00a0To strengthen social cohesion.
\n<\/em>Why are oranges sliced and chocolate bars square? \u2014 To make them easier for children to share.<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 Analogical<\/em><\/strong> explanations, see analogy 1;<\/a> analogy 2<\/a>:<\/p>\n

The atom is like the solar system.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 Intentional<\/em> <\/strong>explanations, see Motives: \u201cHe killed to steal.<\/em>\u201d<\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0Interpretive<\/em><\/strong> explanations are given when an obscure text is involved. An explanation is an interpretation<\/em><\/a>\u00a0of the text.<\/p>\n

The specific conceptual structure of explanatory discourse in science depends on the definitions and operations that govern the field under consideration.<\/span> 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 \u201cget home.\u201d<\/span> 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.<\/p>\n

2. Ordinary Explanations<\/span><\/h2>\n

2.1 Explain<\/em>: The Word and Its Uses<\/span><\/h2>\n

The agents of the verb to explain<\/em> are human (S1<\/strong>, S2, etc.)<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2014 The explanation usually refers to an external phenomenon that one wants to understand<\/span> better:<\/p>\n

In \u201cS1<\/strong> explains M<\/strong> to S2<\/strong>\u201d the explanation is \u200b\u200ba conceptual interactive sequence.<\/span>
\nIn \u201cE<\/strong> explains M<\/strong>\u201d, the explanation is formulated as an objective conceptual monologue, that does not contain any reference to an interactive event.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014\u00a0S1<\/strong> may ask another person S2<\/strong> to explain his (= S2<\/strong>‘s) behavior. In this case, S1<\/strong> wants to clarify an interpersonal misunderstanding<\/span>, or something that could be seen as an offense O<\/strong>, committed by S2<\/strong> against S1.<\/strong><\/p>\n

You owe me an explanation<\/em>! (1)<\/p>\n

The so-called \u201cexplanation\u201d demanded is actually a justification. This is a rather threatening opening, uttered in an angry tone, and anticipating a lively\u2013even violent\u2013discussion. The \u201cexplanatory\u201d interaction that follows is likely to be an argument2\u00a0<\/sub><\/em> <\/span>(see\u00a0 to argue<\/em>, argument:<\/em> the words)<\/a> made with the aim of either restoring or redefining the relationship between the two individuals.<\/p>\n

In everyday use, the word explanation<\/em> refers to segments of speech or to interactive sequences initiated by a speaker who:<\/p>\n

\u2014 Does not understand:<\/p>\n

\u201c(Explain to me) what \u2018<\/em>zoon politikon\u2019 means<\/em>?\u201d: A request for a definition, a paraphrase, a translation or an interpretation.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u00ab\u00a0(Explain to me) what really happened<\/em>?\u00a0\u00bb: A request for a convincing narrative.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c(Explain to me) why the shape of the moon is changing?<\/em>\u201d: A request for a theory, diagrams and pictures.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u2014 Does not know how to do something:<\/p>\n

\u201c(Explain to me) how it works?<\/em>\u201d. This is a request for instructions, a brochure, a manual, or a practical demonstration.<\/p>\n

The structure of the explanation varies depending on the nature of the activity.<\/p>\n

This raises the question of the\u00a0unity of the concept of explanation<\/em>, 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<\/em> (novelty, anomaly) when faced with something astonishing<\/em>. Any answer that satisfies this astonishment and frees the speaker from any sense of surprise can be considered to be a satisfactory explanation.<\/p>\n

2.2 In Ethnomethodology<\/span><\/h2>\n

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\u00a0 expectations. Such accounts are given at two levels. First, there are explicit<\/em> explanations \u201cin which social actors give an explanation for what they are doing in terms of reasons, motives or causes\u201d (Heritage 1987, p. 26). Second, implicit accounts <\/em>are provided as explanations inscribed in the ongoing flow of actions and social interactions<\/span> (ibid<\/em>.). These implicit accounts aim to ensure mutual intelligibility of \u201cwhat is going on\u201d, based on action scripts, social expectations, or practical moral standards. These explanations are said to be situated<\/em>, i.e., contextual<\/em>.<\/p>\n

In conversation, explicit explanations can occur as repairs<\/em>, 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: \u201cI\u2019m afraid I can’t go with you, I have to work.<\/em>\u201d 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).<\/p>\n

2.3 Explanatory Sequences<\/span><\/h3>\n

Beyond the question \u201cWhy are things so?<\/em>\u201d, 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 \u201cmental discomfort\u201d<\/span> (Wittgenstein 1974, p. 26). Explanations seek to satisfy this cognitive need, assuage doubt, and produce a comfortable sense of understanding and (inter)comprehension.<\/p>\n

The explanatory interaction between an \u201cexplainer\u201d and an \u201cexplainee\u201d can be schematized as a sequence of stages. The first stage is the explainee’s<\/em> request<\/em> for explanation\u00a0to an explainer.<\/em> The final stage is the explainee<\/em>‘s ratification<\/em> of the explanation:<\/p>\n

Ee<\/strong> has a curiosity, a doubt, concern or a mental block about M<\/strong>.<\/span>
\nEe<\/strong> seeks an explanation from Er.
\nEr<\/strong> provides an explanation.<\/span>
\nEe<\/strong> ratifies or does not ratify the explanation<\/span><\/p>\n

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<\/strong>\u2019s \u201cmental discomfort.\u201d Therefore, the most objective, sophisticated and accurate explanation, that it is not based on Ee<\/strong>‘s question and state of knowledge, will at best be satisfactory to the explainer Er, leaving Ee\u00a0<\/strong> out.
\n<\/strong><\/p>\n

3. Explanation and Argumentation\u00a0<\/span><\/h2>\n

3.1 Explanation and Justificatory Argumentation<\/span><\/h3>\n

Explanations are on the side of the justificatory argumentation, see justification<\/a>:<\/p>\n

\u2014 Both explanation and argumentation originate from a state of doubt<\/strong> about a statement that does not align with an individual\u2019s beliefs and knowledge.
\n\u2014 Both explanation and argumentation develop out of an interrogation<\/strong>.
\n\u2014 Both are linking processes that develop a given set of beliefs. An explanation incorporates an undeniable fact, the explanandum<\/em> into an explanatory<\/em> system. Deliberative argumentation takes arguments<\/em> from a set of beliefs and develops them into a conclusion<\/em>, that is integrated into the same set of beliefs. Justificatory argumentation integrates a challenged known fact into an established coherent system of representation.
\nIn deliberative<\/em> argumentation<\/strong>, the argument is presented as certain, and doubt is cast on the corollary, the conclusion is questioned.
\nIn justificatory<\/em> argumentation<\/strong>, the search for an argument goes in the opposite direction.<\/p>\n

My client is completely innocent. How can I prove \/ explain this to the jury?<\/span><\/p>\n

As in an explanation, where the explanandum<\/em> is an established fact, and the explanans<\/em> must be identified.<\/p>\n

Undoubtedly, the face of the moon is changing. How can I make sense of that?<\/span><\/p>\n

The same argumentative laws of passage<\/strong> can establish explanatory connection. For example, causal links are used both in both explanation and in argumentation, see pragmatic<\/a>; motives<\/a>.<\/p>\n

3.2 Explanation as an Argumentative Move<\/span><\/h3>\n

The contrast between argumentation and explanation can have argumentative significance. Explanations project unequal interaction roles:<\/span> the explainee is an ignorant profane in a low<\/em> position, while the explainer is an expert in a high<\/em> position. In argumentative situations, the roles of proponent and opponent are more equal.\u00a0It’s one thing to \u00ab\u00a0explain something to someone\u00a0\u00bb and another to \u00ab\u00a0argue with or against someone about something.\u00a0\u00bb<\/p>\n

The question \u201cWhy?\u201d, 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<\/span>, saying, \u201cWait, let me explain!<\/em>\u201d. In this case, the relationship becomes asymmetrical, with the explainer \/ proponent trying to gain the upper hand over the explainee \/ opponent.<\/p>\n

\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

EXPLANATION In everyday language, the words explain and explanation refer to different scenarios, discourse genres and interactions. Ethnomethodology uses the concept of \u201caccounts\u201d (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>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4945","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-non-classe"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4945","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=4945"}],"version-history":[{"count":17,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4945\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":14576,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/4945\/revisions\/14576"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=4945"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=4945"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/icar.cnrs.fr\/dicoplantin\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=4945"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}