1887
image of A multimodal approach to reformulation
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Reformulation is remarkably frequent in discourse and has been the subject of much work in spoken languages, both on written and oral data. Because of its metalinguistic nature, combined with its general aim of clarifying an expression, the act of reformulation offers a window to the way speakers process and adjust their expression in discourse. However, to date, the study of reformulation has hardly taken into account the now increasingly recognized multimodal and semiotically composite nature of language. This study aims to revisit the notion of reformulation from a multimodal perspective by comparing the use and semiotic composition of reformulations in the discourse of speakers and signers, as well as in the productions of interpreters. In doing so, we lay the foundations for a comparative study of discourse in signed and spoken language that accounts for the multimodality and semiotic complexity of language practices in different human ecologies.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00025.meu
2022-07-01
2022-08-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Blakemore, D.
    1993 The Relevance of Reformulations. Language and Literature2(2): 101–120. 10.1177/096394709300200202
    https://doi.org/10.1177/096394709300200202 [Google Scholar]
  2. Briz, A.
    2001 El uso de o sea en la conversacion. InLingüística con Corpus. Catorce aplicaciones sobre el español, J. De Kock (ed.), 287–318. Salamanca: Ediciones de la Universidad de Salamanca.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Capirci, O., Bonsignori, C. and Di Renzo, A.
    2022 Signed Languages: A Triangular Semiotic Dimension. Frontiers in Psychology12(802911): 1–15. 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.802911
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.802911 [Google Scholar]
  4. Clark, H. H.
    1996Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
    https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  5. Cuenca, M. J.
    2003 Two Ways to Reformulate: A Contrastive Analysis of Reformulation Markers. Journal of Pragmatics34: 1069–1093. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(03)00004‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(03)00004-3 [Google Scholar]
  6. Cuenca, M. J. and Bach, C.
    2007 Contrasting the Form and Use of Reformulation Markers. Discourse Studies9(2): 149–175. 10.1177/1461445607075347
    https://doi.org/10.1177/1461445607075347 [Google Scholar]
  7. Cuxac, C.
    2007 Une manière de reformuler en langue des signes française. La linguistique43: 117–128. 10.3917/ling.431.0117
    https://doi.org/10.3917/ling.431.0117 [Google Scholar]
  8. Enfield, N. 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]
  9. Eshkol-Taravella, I. and Grabar, N.
    2018 Reformulations: de l’étude outillée dans les corpus disponibles vers leur détection automatique. Langages (4): 5–16. 10.3917/lang.212.0005
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.212.0005 [Google Scholar]
  10. Ferrara, L. and Hodge, G.
    2018 Language as Description, Indication, and Depiction. Frontiers in Psychology9(716):1–15. 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00716
    https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00716 [Google Scholar]
  11. Gabarró-López, S.
    2018CorMILS: Pilot Multimodal Corpus of French ― French Belgian Sign Language (LSFB) Interpreters. Institutionen för lingvistik, Stockholms universitet, Sweden, and LSFB-Lab, Université de Namur, Belgium.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Gonçalves, M. A. and Valentim, H.
    2017 Marqueurs discursifs et reformulation en portugais. Pragmalingüística1: 18–33.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Gülich, E. and Kotschi, T.
    1983 Les marqueurs de la reformulation paraphrastique. InCahiers de linguistique française: Vol. 5. Connecteurs pragmatiques et structure du discours; actes du 2ème Colloque de Pragmatique de Genève (7–9 mars 1983), J. Moeschler (ed.), 305–351. Genève: Université de Genève.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Hodge, G. and Ferrara, L.
    2014 Showing the Story: Enactment as Performance in Auslan Narratives. InSelected Papers from the 44th conference of the Australian Linguistic Society, L. Gawne and J. Vaughan (eds), 372–397. Melbourne: University of Melbourne.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Holmström, I. and Schönström, K.
    2018 Deaf Lecturers’ Translanguaging in a Higher Education Setting. A Multimodal Multilingual Perspective. Applied Linguistics Review9(1): 90–111. 10.1515/applirev‑2017‑0078
    https://doi.org/10.1515/applirev-2017-0078 [Google Scholar]
  16. Kendon, A.
    2014Gesture. Visible Action as Utterance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Ladd, P.
    2003Understanding Deaf Culture: In Search of Deafhood. Clevedon: Multilingual Matters. 10.21832/9781853595479
    https://doi.org/10.21832/9781853595479 [Google Scholar]
  18. Martinot, C.
    2010 Reformulation et acquisition de la complexité linguistique. Travaux de linguistique (2): 63–96. 10.3917/tl.061.0063
    https://doi.org/10.3917/tl.061.0063 [Google Scholar]
  19. Metzger, M.
    1995 Constructed Dialogue and Constructed Action in American Sign Language. InSociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, C. Lucas (ed.), 255–271. Washington: Gallaudet University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Meurant, L.
    2015Corpus LSFB. First Digital Open Access Corpus of Movies and Annotations of French Belgian Sign Language (LSFB). University of Namur, LSFB-Lab. Available atwww.corpus-lsfb.be
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Meurant, L. and Sinte, A.
    2016 La reformulation en langue des signes de Belgique francophone (LSFB). Narration, explication, conversation. L’Information grammaticale149: 32–44.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Meurant, L., Lepeut, A., Tavier, A., Gabarró-López, S. and Sinte, A.
    ongoing. The Multimodal FRAPé Corpus: Towards Building a Comparable LSFB and Belgian French Corpus. University of Namur: Laboratory of French Belgian Sign Language (LSFB-Lab).
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Murillo, S.
    2016 Sobre la reformulación y sus marcadores. Cuadernos AISPI: Estudios de lenguas y literaturas hispánicas8: 237–258.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Notarrigo, I.
    2017 Marqueurs de (dis)fluence en langue des signes de Belgique francophone. PhD Thesis, University of Namur.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Pierce, C. S.
    1955Philosophical Writings of Peirce. Dover: Justus Buchler.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Pons Bordería, S.
    2013 Un solo tipo de reformulación. Cuadernos AISPI: Estudios de lenguas y literaturas hispánicas2: 151–169.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Quinto-Pozos, D. and Reynolds, W.
    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]
  28. Rabatel, A.
    2007 Répétitions et reformulations dans L’Exode: coénonciation entre Dieu, ses représentants et le narrateur. InUsages et analyses de la reformulation. Recherches linguistiques, M. Kara (ed.), 75–96. Metz: Université de Metz.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. 2010Les reformulations pluri-sémiotiques en contexte de formation. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Rossari, C.
    1994Les opérations de reformulation: analyse du processus et des marques dans une perspective contrastive français-italien. Berne: Lang.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Roulet, E.
    1987 Complétude interactive et connecteurs reformulatifs. Cahiers de linguistique française8: 111–140.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Schegloff, E., Jefferson, G. and Sacks, H.
    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]
  33. Steuckardt, A.
    2009 Décrire la reformulation: le paramètre rhétorique. Cahiers de praxématique52: 159–172. 10.4000/praxematique.1415
    https://doi.org/10.4000/praxematique.1415 [Google Scholar]
  34. Tannen, D.
    1989Talking Voices: Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Tsuchiya, K. and Handford, M.
    2014 A Corpus-Driven Analysis of Repair in a Professional ELF Meeting: Not ‘letting it pass’. Journal of Pragmatics64: 117–131. 10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.004
    https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2014.02.004 [Google Scholar]
  36. Ursi, B., Etienne, C., Oloff, F., Mondada, L. and Traverso, V.
    2018 Diversité des répétitions et des reformulations dans les interactions orales : défis analytiques et conception d’un outil de détection automatique. Langages212: 87–104. 10.3917/lang.212.0087
    https://doi.org/10.3917/lang.212.0087 [Google Scholar]
  37. Vandenitte, S.
    2021 Construire l’action pour rendre les référents visibles en LSFB. Une étude pilote des mouvemets corporels dépictifs. Travaux du Cercle belge de linguistique. Available athttps://sites.uclouvain.be/bkl-cbl/en/journals/papers-of-the-lsb/volume-15-2021/
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Wittenburg, P., Brugman, H., Russel, A., Klassmann, A. and Sloetjes, H.
    2006 ELAN: A Professional Framework for Multimodality Research. Proceedings of Fifth International Language Resources and Evaluation Conference (LREC 2006). Genoa, Italy, 24–26 May 2006. European Language Resources Association. 1556–1559.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Woroch, J.
    2010 La reformulation comme fondement de l’interprétation de conference. PhD Thesis, Uniwersytet im. Adama Mickiewicza w Poznaniu.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00025.meu
Loading
/content/journals/10.1075/lic.00025.meu
Loading

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