Volume 36, Issue 1
  • ISSN 0774-5141
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9676
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes



Reformulation involves saying something again in a different way. Because of its metalinguistic nature (Rabatel 2017), combined with its general aim of clarifying the utterance, we propose to consider the act of reformulation as offering a window to the way interlocutors process and adjust themselves and their utterances in their social language practices. More specifically, this study proposes a set of four analytical criteria to characterize interlocutors’ investment in discourse and interaction via the observation of their use of reformulations. These criteria concern the frequency of reformulations within a production, the proportion of self- and other-reformulations (Güllich and Kotschi 1987), the type of adjustment that the act of reformulation seeks to achieve (Authier-Revuz 1995) and the type of semiotic strategies used, namely descriptive, indicative and depictive ways of meaning making (Clark 1996Ferrara and Hodge 2018). The paper draws on the exploratory analysis of the productions of deaf LSFB signers extracted from the LSFB Corpus. It illustrates how describing the reformulations according to the proposed criteria, reveals distinctions between different patterns of pragmatic attitude and involvement in discourse and interaction. This approach opens new avenues for the pragmatic descriptions of LSFB and signed discourses in general.


Article metrics loading...

Loading full text...

Full text loading...


  1. Authier-Revuz, Jacqueline
    1995Ces mots qui ne vont pas de soi. Boucles réflexives et non-coïncidence du dire [These words that do not go without saying. Reflexive loops and non-coincidence in speech]. Paris: Larousse.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Bailes, Cynthia
    2001 “Integrative ASL-English Language Arts: Bridging Paths to Literacy.” Sign Language Studies1(2): 147–174. 10.1353/sls.2001.0002
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2001.0002 [Google Scholar]
  3. Baker, Mona
    2018In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315619187
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315619187 [Google Scholar]
  4. Bakhtine, Mikhail
    1978Esthétique et théorie du roman [Aesthetic and theory of the novel]. Paris: Gallimard.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Bergman, Brita, and Östen Dahl
    1994 “Ideophones in Sign Language? The Place of Reduplication in the Tense–Aspect System of Swedish Sign Language.” InTense, Aspect and Action. Empirical and Theoretical Contributions to Language Typology, ed. byCarl Bache, Hans Basbøll, and Carl-Erik Lindberg, 397–422. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110883077.397
    https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110883077.397 [Google Scholar]
  6. Beukeleers, Inez
    2020 “On the Role of Eye Gaze in Flemish Sign Language: a Multifocal Eye-Tracking Study on the Phenomena of Online Turn Processing and Depicting.” PhD dissertation, University of Leuven.
  7. Beukeleers, Inez, and Myriam Vermeerbergen
    2022 “Show Me What You’ve B/Seen: A Brief History of Depiction.” Frontiers in Psychology131: 808814. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.808814
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.808814 [Google Scholar]
  8. Buyn, Kang-Suk, Connie de Vos, Anastasia Bradford, Ulrike Zeshan, and Stephen Levinson
    2018 “First encounters: Repair Sequences in Cross-Signing”. Topics in Cognitive Science101: 314–334. 10.1111/tops.12303
    https://doi.org/10.1111/tops.12303 [Google Scholar]
  9. Capirci, Olga, Chiara Bonsignori, and Alessio Di Renzo
    2022 “Signed Languages: A Triangular Semiotic Dimension”. Frontiers in Psychology121: 802911. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.802911
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.802911 [Google Scholar]
  10. Clark, Herbert H.
    1996Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2016 “Depicting as a Method of Communication”. Psychological Review123(3): 324–347. 10.1037/rev0000026
    https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000026 [Google Scholar]
  12. Cuenca, Maria-Josep
    2003 “Two Ways to Reformulate: a Contrastive Analysis of Reformulation Markers.” Journal of Pragmatics341: 1069–1093. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00004‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00004-3 [Google Scholar]
  13. Cuxac, Christian
    2000La LSF. Les Voies de l’Iconicité [French Sign Language. The paths of iconicity]. Paris: Ophrys.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. 2007 “Une manière de reformuler en langue des signes française [A way to reformulate in French Sign Language].” La linguistique431: 117–128. 10.3917/ling.431.0117
    https://doi.org/10.3917/ling.431.0117 [Google Scholar]
  15. Dingemanse, Mark
    2015 “Ideophones and Reduplication: Depiction, Description, and the Interpretation of Repeated Talk in Discourse.” Studies in Language391: 946–970. 10.1075/sl.39.4.05din
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.39.4.05din [Google Scholar]
  16. Dingemanse, Mark, Blasi, Damián E., Lupyan, Gary, Christiansen, Morten H., and Monaghan, Padraic
    2015 “Arbitrariness, Iconicity, and Systematicity in Language.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences19 (10): 603–615. 10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2015.07.013 [Google Scholar]
  17. Ducrot, Oswald
    1984Le dire et le dit [The saying and the said]. Paris: Minuit.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Enfield, Nick J.
    2009The Anatomy of Meaning: Speech, Gesture, and Composite Utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511576737
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511576737 [Google Scholar]
  19. Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth
    1993Space in Danish Sign Language: The Semantics and Morphosyntax of the Use of Space in a Visual Language. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Eshkol-Taravella, Iris, and Natalia Grabar
    2018 “Reformulations: de l’étude outillée dans les corpus disponibles vers leur détection automatique [Reformulations: from the study of available corpora to their automatic detection].” Langages2121: 5–16. 10.3917/lang.212.0005
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.212.0005 [Google Scholar]
  21. Ferrara, Lindsay, and Rolf P. Halvorsen
    2017 “Depicting and Describing with Iconic Signs in Norwegian Sign Language.” Gesture161: 371–395. 10.1075/gest.00001.fer
    https://doi.org/10.1075/gest.00001.fer [Google Scholar]
  22. Ferrara, Lindsay, and Gabrielle Hodge
    2018 “Language as Description, Indication, and Depiction.” Frontiers in Psychology91: 716. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00716
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00716 [Google Scholar]
  23. Gülich, Elisabeth, and Thomas Kotschi
    1983 “Les marqueurs de la reformulation paraphrastique [The markers of paraphrastic reformulation].” Cahiers de Linguistique Française51: 305–351.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. 1987 “Les actes de reformulations dans la consultation. La dame de Caluire [The acts of reformulations in the consultation. The lady of Caluire]”. InL’analyse des interactions verbales. La dame de Caluire: Une consultation [Analysis of verbal interactions. The lady of Caluire: A consultation], ed. byPierre Bange, 15–81. Bern: Peter Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gumperz, John J.
    1982Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611834
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611834 [Google Scholar]
  26. Humphries, Tom., and Francine MacDougall
    1999/2000 ‘“Chaining’ and Other Links: Making Connections between American Sign Language and English in Two Types of School Settings.” Visual Anthropology Review15 (2): 84–94. 10.1525/var.2000.15.2.84
    https://doi.org/10.1525/var.2000.15.2.84 [Google Scholar]
  27. Janzen, Terry
    2017 “Composite Utterances in a Signed Language: Topic Constructions and Perspective-Taking in ASL.” Cognitive Linguistics28 (3): 511–538. 10.1515/cog‑2016‑0121
    https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2016-0121 [Google Scholar]
  28. Lacan, Jacques
    1957L’instance de la lettre dans l’inconscient ou la raison depuis Freud [The instance of the letter in the unconscious or the reason since Freud]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Manrique, Elizabeth
    2016 “Other-Initiated Repair in Argentine Sign Language.” Open Linguistics21: 1–34. 10.1515/opli‑2016‑0001
    https://doi.org/10.1515/opli-2016-0001 [Google Scholar]
  30. Martinot, Claire
    2010 “Reformulation et acquisition de la complexité linguistique [Reformulation and acquisition of linguistic complexity].” Travaux de linguistique (2): 63–96. 10.3917/tl.061.0063
    https://doi.org/10.3917/tl.061.0063 [Google Scholar]
  31. Metzger, Melanie
    1995 “Constructed Dialogue and Constructed Action in American Sign Language.” InSociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, ed. byCeil Lucas, 255–271. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Meurant, Laurence
    2008Le regard en langue des signes. Anaphore en langue des signes de Belgique francophone (LSFB). Morphologie, syntaxe, énonciation [The gaze in sign language. Anaphora in French-speaking Belgian sign language (LSFB). Morphology, syntax, enunciation]. Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. 2015 Corpus LSFB. First digital open access corpus of movies and annotations of French Belgian Sign Language (LSFB). University of Namur, LSFB-Lab. URL: www.corpus-lsfb.be
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Meurant, Laurence, and Aurélie Sinte
    2016 “La reformulation en Langue des signes de Belgique francophone (LSFB). Narration, explication, conversation [Reformulation in French Belgian sign language (LSFB). Narration, explanation, conversation].” L’Information grammaticale1491: 32–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Meurant, Laurence, Aurélie Sinte, and Sílvia Gabarró-López
    2022 “A Multimodal Approach to Reformulation. Contrastive Study of French and French Belgian Sign Language Through the Productions of Speakers, Signers and Interpreters.” Languages in Contrast22 (2): 322–360. 10.1075/lic.00025.meu
    https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.00025.meu [Google Scholar]
  36. Murillo, Silvia
    2016 “Sobre la reformulación y sus marcadores [On reformulation and its markers].” Cuadernos AISPI: Estudios de lenguas y literaturas hispánicas81: 237–258.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Nilsson, Anna-Lena
    2004 “Form and Discourse Function of the Pointing Toward the Chest in Swedish Sign Language.” Sign language & Linguistics7 (1): 3–30. 10.1075/sll.7.1.03nil
    https://doi.org/10.1075/sll.7.1.03nil [Google Scholar]
  38. Peirce, Charles S.
    1955Philosophical Writings of Peirce. New York: Dover Publications.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Puupponen, Anna
    2019 “Towards Understanding Nonmanuality: A Semiotic Treatment of signers’ head movements.” Glossa41: 39. 10.5334/gjgl.709
    https://doi.org/10.5334/gjgl.709 [Google Scholar]
  40. Quinto-Pozos, David
    2007 “Can Constructed Action be Considered Obligatory?” Lingua117 (7): 1285–1314. 10.1016/j.lingua.2005.12.003
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2005.12.003 [Google Scholar]
  41. Quinto-Pozos, David, and Wanette Reynolds
    2012 “ASL Discourse Strategies: Chaining and Connecting–Explaining Across Audiences.” Sign Language Studies12 (2): 41–65. 10.1353/sls.2011.0021
    https://doi.org/10.1353/sls.2011.0021 [Google Scholar]
  42. Rabatel, Alain
    2010Les reformulations pluri-sémiotiques en contexte de formation [Multi-semiotic reformulations in educational contexts]. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. 2017 “Frontières supra-catégorielles, catégorielles, infra-et trans-catégorielles de la reformulation [Supra-categorical, categorical, infra-and trans-categorical boundaries of reformulation].” Analele Universităţii din Craiova. Seria Ştiinţe Filologice. Limbi şi literaturi romanice21 (1): 65–103.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Roulet, Eddy
    1987 “Complétude interactive et connecteurs reformulatifs [Interactive completeness and reformulative connectors].” Cahiers de linguistique française81: 111–140.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Sallandre, Marie-Anne
    2007 “Simultaneity in French Sign Language discourse.” InSimultaneity in Signed Languages: Form and function, ed. byMyriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson, and Onno Crasborn, 103–125. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.281.05sal
    https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.281.05sal [Google Scholar]
  46. Schegloff, Emanuel, Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks
    1977 “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language53 (2): 361–382. 10.1353/lan.1977.0041
    https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1977.0041 [Google Scholar]
  47. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  48. Ursi, Biagio, Carole Etienne, Florence Oloff, Lorenza Mondada, and Véronique Traverso
    2018 “Diversité des répétitions et des reformulations dans les interactions orales: défis analytiques et conception d’un outil de détection automatique [Diversity of repetitions and reformulations in oral interactions: analytical issues and design of an automatic detection tool].” Langages2121: 87–104. 10.3917/lang.212.0087
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.212.0087 [Google Scholar]
  49. Vandenitte, Sébastien
    2022 “Making Referents Seen and Heard Across Signed and Spoken Languages: Documenting and Interpreting Cross-Modal Differences in the Use of Enactment.” Frontiers in Psychology131: 784339. 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.784339
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.784339 [Google Scholar]
  50. Vermeerbergen, Myriam
    2006 “Past and Current Trends in Sign Language Research.” Language & Communication261: 168–192. 10.1016/j.langcom.2005.10.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langcom.2005.10.004 [Google Scholar]
  51. Wittenburg, Peter, Hennie Brugman, Albert Russel, Alex Klassmann, and Han Sloetjes
    2006 “ELAN: a Professional Framework for Multimodality Research”. Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference of Language Resources and Evaluation, LREC 2006, ed. byNicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Aldo Gangemi, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk, and Daniel Tapias, 1556–1559. Genoa: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).
    [Google Scholar]

Data & Media loading...

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error