Cited by 15Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic VariationChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentCategorization, perception, and language

A contrastive account of explanation generation

Open access
Chin-Parker, Seth, Bradner, Alexandra·2017·Psychonomic Bulletin & Review

Abstract

In this article, we propose a contrastive account of explanation generation. Though researchers have long wrestled with the concepts of explanation and understanding, as well as with the procedures by which we might evaluate explanations, less attention has been paid to the initial generation stages of explanation. Before an explainer can answer a question, he or she must come to some understanding of the explanandum-what the question is asking-and of the explanatory form and content called for by the context. Here candidate explanations are constructed to respond to the particular interpretation of the question, which, according to the pragmatic approach to explanation, is constrained by a contrast class-a set of related but nonoccurring alternatives to the topic that emerge from the surrounding context and the explainer's prior knowledge. In this article, we suggest that generating an explanation involves two operations: one that homes in on an interpretation of the question, and a second one that locates an answer. We review empirical work that supports this account, consider the implications of these contrastive processes, and identify areas for future study.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3758/s13423-017-1349-x

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 75 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Schank, R. C. (1982). Dynamic memory: A theory of learning in people and computers. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chin-Parker, S., & Bradner, A.
Affiliations
Kenyon College (US)
Venue
Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
Published
2017-07-31
Volume
24
Issue
5
Pages
1387-1397
ISSN
  • 1069-9384 (ISSN-L)
  • 1531-5320
OpenAlex
W2742043411
Cited by
15
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 1 · 2017: 1
FWCI
6.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychonomic Bulletin & Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Digital Kenyon (Kenyon College) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Categorization, perception, and language
Keywords
explanation generation, contrastive reasoning, question comprehension, understanding, explanation evaluation, prior knowledge
MeSH terms
Humans, Thinking, Comprehension

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review