2025 Vol. 16 №2

Functional specificity of explanation in expository texts: a pragmatic model and elaboration principles

DOI

10.5922/2225-5346-2025-2-8

Pages

136-157

Abstract

The article provides a functional interpretation of explanation. It is based on the principles of Linguistic Pragmatics and Functional Linguistics. Explanation is analysed from two perspectives: as a communicative act and as a two-part discursive structure. The com­mu­nicative act of explanation is characterised by a perlocutionary goal of making the reader un­derstand the properties of an entity. This understanding focuses on the properties that are un­clear or not obvious to the reader. The perlocutionary goal defines the key feature of the ex­pla­nation act, which uses diverse verbal tools to clarify the properties of an entity. The article pro­poses a performative model of the explanation act, which outlines the mechanism of constructing an explanation and the pragmatic conditions for its success. Taking these conditions into account, the discursive structure of explanation is examined, focusing on the principles of information unfolding and the content parameters of its components.

Reference

Assadian, B. and Sbardolini, G., 2023. Performative reference. Synthese, 202 (57), pp. 1—18, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-023-04284-2.

Austin, J. L., 1962. How to Do Things with Words. Oxford, 166 p.

Baumberger, C., 2014. Types of understanding: Their nature and their relation to knowledge. Conceptus, 40 (98), pp. 67—88, https://doi.org/10.1515/cpt-2014-0002.

Benz, A. and Jasinskaja, K., 2017. Questions under discussion: From sentence to discourse. Discourse Processes, 54 (3), pp. 177—186, https://doi.org/10.1080/0163853 X.2017.1316038.

Breheny, R., 2019. Language processing, relevance and questions. In: K. Scott, B. Clark and R. Carston, eds. Relevance, Pragmatics and Interpretation. New York, pp. 42—52.

Dalton-Puffer, C., 2011. Explaining: A central discourse function in instruction. In: C. Escobar and L. N. Napdevila, eds. Learning through another language. Barcelona, pp. 119—139.

Devkin, A. P., 1984. Opredelenie i ob"yasnenie kak kompozitsionno-rechevye formy v ang­liiskikh nauchnykh i nauch-no-populyarnykh tekstakh [Definition and Explanation as Compositional Speech Forms in English Academic and Popular Science Texts]. PhD Dissertation. Minsk, 175 p. (in Russ.).

Dik, S. C., 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar. Part 2. The Structure of the Clau­se. Complex and Derived Constructions. Berlin; New York, 512 p.

Doerge, F. Ch., 2013. Performative utterances. In: M. Sbisà and K. Turner, eds. Prag­matics of Speech Actions. Berlin; Boston, pp. 203—256.

Doran, Y. J. and Martin, J. R., 2021. Field relations: Understanding scientific explanations. In: K. Maton, J. R. Martin and Y. J. Doran, eds. Teaching Science. London; New York, pp. 105—133.

Ebert, Ph. A., 2016. A framework for implicit definitions and the a priori. In: Ph. A. Ebert and M. Rossberg, eds. Abstractionism: Essays in Philosophy of Mathematics. New York, pp. 133—160.

Esmonde, I., 2009. Explanations in mathematics classrooms: A discourse analy­sis. Canadian Journal of Science, Mathematics and Technology Education, 9 (2), pp. 86—99, https://doi.org/10.1080/14926150902942072.

Givon, T., 2020. Coherence. Amsterdam; Philadelphia, 300 p.

Halliday, M. A. K., 2014. Halliday’s Introduction to Functional Grammar. New York, 808 p.

Herman, D., 2008. Description, narrative, and explanation: Text-type categories and the cognitive foundations of discourse competence. Poetics Today, 29 (3), pp. 437—472, https://doi.org/10.1215/03335372-073.

Inglis, M. and Mejia-Ramos, J. P., 2021. Functional explanation in mathematics. Synthese, 198, pp. 6369—6392, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11229-019-02234-5.

Kalendr, A. A., 2016. Explanation in the popular medical discourse. Izvestiya Vol­go­gradskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta [Ivzestia of the Volgograd Sta­te Pedagogical University], 3 (107), pp. 140—147 (in Russ.).

Khoutyz, I. P., 2019. Storytelling in lecture discourse. St. Petersburg State Poly­tech­nical University Journal. Humanities and Social Sciences, 10 (2), pp. 64—73, https://doi. org/10.18721/JHSS.10206 (in Russ.).

Kintsch, W., 2019. Revisiting the construction—integration model of text com­pre­hension and its implications for instruction. In: D. E. Alvermann, N. J. Unrau, M. Sailors and R. B. Ruddell, eds. Theoretical models and processes of literacy. New York, pp. 178—203.

Kurilenko, V. B., 2006. Functional-communicative structure of academic text. Vestnik Rossiiskogo universiteta druzhby narodov. Seriya: Russkii yazyk nefilologam, teoriya i praktika [Bulletin of the Peoples' Friendship University of Russia. Series: Russian for non-philologists, theory and practice], 1, pp. 71—79 (in Russ.).

Kusnetsov, S. A., ed., 2014. Bol'shoi tolkovyi slovar' russkogo yazyka [A large ex­pla­natory dictionary of the Russian language]. Available at: https://gramota.ru/biblio teka/slovari/bolshoj-tolkovyj-slovar [Accessed 14 August 2024].

Liew, W. M., 2013. Effects beyond effectiveness: Teaching as a performative act. Curriculum Inquiry, 43 (2), pp. 261—288, https://doi.org/10.1111/curi.12012.

Mackenzie, J. L., 2004. Entity concepts. In: Morphology: An International Handbook on Inflection and Word-Formation. Vol. 2. Berlin; New York, pp. 973—983.

Martin, J. R. and Matruglio, E., 2020. Revisiting mode: Context in/dependency in Ancient History classroom discourse. In: J. R. Martin, K. Maton and Y. J. Doran, eds. Accessing Academic Discourse. London; New York, pp. 89—113.

Meyer, B. J. F. and Rey, M. N., 2011. Structure strategy interventions: Increasing reading comprehension of expository text. International Electronic Journal of Elementary Education, 4 (1), pp. 127—152.

Onea, E., 2016. Potential Questions at the Semantics-Pragmatics Interface. Leiden; Bos­ton, 480 p.

Parodi, G., 2014. Genre organization in specialized discourse: Disciplinary varia­tion across university textbooks. Discourse Studies, 16 (1), pp. 65—87, https://doi. org/10.1177/1461445613496355.

Povich, M., 2021. Information and explanation: an inconsistent triad and solu­tion. European Journal for Philosophy of Science, 11 (43), pp. 1—17.

Pupynina, E. V., 2018. Descriptions in route directions (in the English language). Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Filologiya [Tomsk State University Jour­nal of Philology], 54, pp. 117—124, https://doi.org/10.17223/19986645/54/7 (in Russ.).

Pustejovsky, J., 2011. The structure of meaning. In: P. C. Hogan, ed. The Camb­ridge Encyclopedia of the Language Sciences. Cambridge; N. Y.; Melbourne et al., pp. 23—34.

Roberts, C., 2012. Information structure: Towards an integrated formal theory of pragmatics. Semantics and Pragmatics, 5, pp. 1—69, https://doi.org/10.3765/sp.5.6.

Smit, U., 2010. CLIL in an English as a lingua franca (ELF) classroom: On explai­ning terms and expressions interactively. In: Ch. Dalton-Puffer, T. Nikula and U. Smit, eds. Language Use and Language Learning in CLIL Classrooms. Amsterdam; Philadel­phia, pp. 259—278.

Trukhina, T., 2014. Interaction of Discourse Modes within Expository Educatio­nal Discourse. Inostrannye yazyki v vysshei shkole [Foreign Languages in Tertiary Edu­ca­tion], 4, pp. 27—33 (in Russ.).

Trushchelev, P. N., 2022a. The author-reader interaction through school text­books. Izvestiya Voronezhskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta [Procee­dings of the Voronezh State Pedagogical University], 3, pp. 186—192, https://doi. org/10.47438/2309-7078_2022_3_186 (in Russ.).

Trushchelev, P. N., 2022b. Expository text grammar and disciplinary knowledge (presupposition). Sibirskii Filologicheskii Zhurnal [Siberian Journal of Philology], 4, pp. 312—325, https://doi.org/10.17223/18137083/81/24 (in Russ.).

Trushchelev, P. N., 2023. Emotive pragmatics of popularisation discourse: The impact of contextualisation on reader’s interest. Science Journal of Volgograd State Uni­ver­sity. Linguistics, 22 (1), pp. 173—185, https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu2.2023.1.14.

van Dijk, T. A. and Atienza, E., 2011. Knowledge and discourse in secondary school social science textbooks. Discourse Studies, 13 (1), pp. 93—118, https://doi. org/10.1177/1461445610387738.

Vanderveken, D., 2013. Towards a Formal Pragmatics of Discourse. International Review of Pragmatics, 5 (1), pp. 34—69, https://doi.org/10.1163/18773109-13050102.

Veel, R., 1997. Learning how to mean — scientifically speaking: Apprenticeship into scientific discourse in the secondary school. In: F. Christie and J. R. Martin, eds. Gen­re and Institutions: Social Processes in the Workplace and School. Cambridge, pp. 161—195.

Voznesenskaya, I. M., 2015. An explanation as a text type: the semantic model and language tools. In: Russkii yazyk i literatura v prostranstve mirovoi kul'tury: v 15 t. [Russian language and literature in the space of world culture: in 15 volumes]. Vol. 8. St. Petersburg, pp. 70—75 (in Russ.).

Wilkenfeld, D. A., 2014. Functional explaining: A new approach to the philoso­phy of explanation. Synthese, 191 (14), pp. 3367—3391, https://doi.org/10.1007/s11 229-014-0452-z.

Wilson, D., 2019. Relevance theory. In: Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Lin­guis­tics. Available at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344545533_Relevance_ Theory_Oxford_Research_Encyclopedia [Accessed 14 August 2024]. https://doi. org/10.1093/acrefore/9780199384655.013.201.