Cover not available
Article published In:
The Semiotic Diversity of Language: The Case of Signed Languages
Edited by Alysson Lepeut and Inez Beukeleers
[Belgian Journal of Linguistics 36] 2022
► pp. 145–178

Put another way

Reformulation as a window into discourse and interaction in LSFB (French Belgian Sign Language)

 | University of Namur, NaLTT, LSFB-Lab
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 1996; Ferrara 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.
Keywords: reformulation, discourse, interaction, language heterogeneity, semiotic complexity, LSFB (French Belgian Sign Language)
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Reformulation beyond written and oral data
    • 2.1Pluri-semiotic reformulations in spoken languages
    • 2.2Reformulation in signed languages
  • 3.Discourse heterogeneity and composite utterances
    • 3.1Discourse heterogeneity and its explicit traces in discourse
    • 3.2Composite utterances
  • 4.Methodology
    • 4.1Reformulations with marker
    • 4.2Data sample
    • 4.3Annotation scheme and coding process
  • 5.Analysis
    • 5.1Pattern 1: Intense (depictive) involvement in the conversation topic
    • 5.2Pattern 2: Sign accuracy, at the expense of the fluidity of the story
    • 5.3Pattern 3: Dynamic and balanced interaction
    • 5.4Pattern 4: Asymmetric positions and reduced interaction in conversation
  • 6.Reformulation as a window into language use and linguistic sociality
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 9 June 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/bjl.00074.meu
References (51)
References
Authier-Revuz, Jacqueline. 1995. Ces 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
Bailes, Cynthia. 2001. “Integrative ASL-English Language Arts: Bridging Paths to Literacy.” Sign Language Studies 1(2): 147–174. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Baker, Mona. 2018. In Other Words: A Coursebook on Translation. London: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bakhtine, Mikhail. 1978. Esthétique et théorie du roman [Aesthetic and theory of the novel]. Paris: Gallimard.Google Scholar
Bergman, Brita, and Östen Dahl. 1994. “Ideophones in Sign Language? The Place of Reduplication in the Tense–Aspect System of Swedish Sign Language.” In Tense, Aspect and Action. Empirical and Theoretical Contributions to Language Typology, ed. by Carl Bache, Hans Basbøll, and Carl-Erik Lindberg, 397–422. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.
Beukeleers, Inez, and Myriam Vermeerbergen. 2022. “Show Me What You’ve B/Seen: A Brief History of Depiction.” Frontiers in Psychology 131: 808814. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Buyn, Kang-Suk, Connie de Vos, Anastasia Bradford, Ulrike Zeshan, and Stephen Levinson. 2018. “First encounters: Repair Sequences in Cross-Signing”. Topics in Cognitive Science 101: 314–334. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Capirci, Olga, Chiara Bonsignori, and Alessio Di Renzo. 2022. “Signed Languages: A Triangular Semiotic Dimension”. Frontiers in Psychology 121: 802911. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016. “Depicting as a Method of Communication”. Psychological Review 123(3): 324–347. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuenca, Maria-Josep. 2003. “Two Ways to Reformulate: a Contrastive Analysis of Reformulation Markers.” Journal of Pragmatics 341: 1069–1093. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuxac, Christian. 2000. La LSF. Les Voies de l’Iconicité [French Sign Language. The paths of iconicity]. Paris: Ophrys.Google Scholar
. 2007. “Une manière de reformuler en langue des signes française [A way to reformulate in French Sign Language].” La linguistique 431: 117–128. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dingemanse, Mark, Blasi, Damián E., Lupyan, Gary, Christiansen, Morten H., and Monaghan, Padraic. 2015. “Arbitrariness, Iconicity, and Systematicity in Language.” Trends in Cognitive Sciences 19 (10): 603–615. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, Oswald. 1984. Le dire et le dit [The saying and the said]. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
Enfield, Nick J. 2009. The Anatomy of Meaning: Speech, Gesture, and Composite Utterances. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Engberg-Pedersen, Elisabeth. 1993. Space in Danish Sign Language: The Semantics and Morphosyntax of the Use of Space in a Visual Language. Hamburg: Signum Verlag.Google Scholar
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].” Langages 2121: 5–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, Lindsay, and Rolf P. Halvorsen. 2017. “Depicting and Describing with Iconic Signs in Norwegian Sign Language.” Gesture 161: 371–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferrara, Lindsay, and Gabrielle Hodge. 2018. “Language as Description, Indication, and Depiction.” Frontiers in Psychology 91: 716. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gülich, Elisabeth, and Thomas Kotschi. 1983. “Les marqueurs de la reformulation paraphrastique [The markers of paraphrastic reformulation].” Cahiers de Linguistique Française 51: 305–351.Google Scholar
. 1987. “Les actes de reformulations dans la consultation. La dame de Caluire [The acts of reformulations in the consultation. The lady of Caluire ]”. In L’analyse des interactions verbales. La dame de Caluire: Une consultation [Analysis of verbal interactions. The lady of Caluire: A consultation], ed. by Pierre Bange, 15–81. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Gumperz, John J. 1982. Discourse Strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Review 15 (2): 84–94. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Janzen, Terry. 2017. “Composite Utterances in a Signed Language: Topic Constructions and Perspective-Taking in ASL.” Cognitive Linguistics 28 (3): 511–538. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lacan, Jacques. 1957. L’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
Manrique, Elizabeth. 2016. “Other-Initiated Repair in Argentine Sign Language.” Open Linguistics 21: 1–34. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Martinot, Claire. 2010. “Reformulation et acquisition de la complexité linguistique [Reformulation and acquisition of linguistic complexity].” Travaux de linguistique (2): 63–96. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Metzger, Melanie. 1995. “Constructed Dialogue and Constructed Action in American Sign Language.” In Sociolinguistics in Deaf Communities, ed. by Ceil Lucas, 255–271. Washington, DC: Gallaudet University Press.Google Scholar
Meurant, Laurence. 2008. Le 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
. 2015. Corpus LSFB. First digital open access corpus of movies and annotations of French Belgian Sign Language (LSFB). University of Namur, LSFB-Lab. URL: [URL]
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 grammaticale 1491: 32–44.Google Scholar
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 Contrast 22 (2): 322–360. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murillo, Silvia. 2016. “Sobre la reformulación y sus marcadores [On reformulation and its markers].” Cuadernos AISPI: Estudios de lenguas y literaturas hispánicas 81: 237–258.Google Scholar
Nilsson, Anna-Lena. 2004. “Form and Discourse Function of the Pointing Toward the Chest in Swedish Sign Language.” Sign language & Linguistics 7 (1): 3–30. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Peirce, Charles S. 1955. Philosophical Writings of Peirce. New York: Dover Publications.Google Scholar
Puupponen, Anna. 2019. “Towards Understanding Nonmanuality: A Semiotic Treatment of signers’ head movements.” Glossa 41: 39. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quinto-Pozos, David. 2007. “Can Constructed Action be Considered Obligatory?” Lingua 117 (7): 1285–1314. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Quinto-Pozos, David, and Wanette Reynolds. 2012. “ASL Discourse Strategies: Chaining and Connecting–Explaining Across Audiences.” Sign Language Studies 12 (2): 41–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rabatel, Alain. 2010. Les reformulations pluri-sémiotiques en contexte de formation [Multi-semiotic reformulations in educational contexts]. Besançon: Presses universitaires de Franche-Comté.Google Scholar
. 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 romanice 21 (1): 65–103.Google Scholar
Roulet, Eddy. 1987. “Complétude interactive et connecteurs reformulatifs [Interactive completeness and reformulative connectors].” Cahiers de linguistique française 81: 111–140.Google Scholar
Sallandre, Marie-Anne. 2007. “Simultaneity in French Sign Language discourse.” In Simultaneity in Signed Languages: Form and function, ed. by Myriam Vermeerbergen, Lorraine Leeson, and Onno Crasborn, 103–125. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schegloff, Emanuel, Gail Jefferson, and Harvey Sacks. 1977. “The Preference for Self-Correction in the Organization of Repair in Conversation.” Language 53 (2): 361–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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].” Langages 2121: 87–104. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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 Psychology 131: 784339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vermeerbergen, Myriam. 2006. “Past and Current Trends in Sign Language Research.” Language & Communication 261: 168–192. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. by Nicoletta Calzolari, Khalid Choukri, Aldo Gangemi, Bente Maegaard, Joseph Mariani, Jan Odijk, and Daniel Tapias, 1556–1559. Genoa: European Language Resources Association (ELRA).Google Scholar