Cover not available
Article published In:
Languages in Contrast
Vol. 16:1 (2016) ► pp.1–30

Reformulation markers and polyphony

A contrastive English–Spanish analysis

| University of Zaragoza (Spain)

Reformulation markers (RMs) — in other words, that is, that is to say, i.e. and namely in English, and es decir, o sea, esto es and a saber in Spanish — are used to articulate different voices (Ducrot, 1984) or points of view (Anscombre, 1990; Nølke et al., 2004) in discourse. This paper offers a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the RMs found in a corpus of journalistic English and Spanish according to their different polyphonic arrangements. The theoretical framework used is a combination of insights from Relevance Theory — to explain the general role and the specific functions of RMs in the two languages —, and the Theory of Argumentation in Language — to account for their polyphonic meaning. The results show that instances of a high degree of polyphony are generally associated with particular discourse processes introduced by RMs, related to more interpretive uses such as definition, conclusion and consequence. However, significant differences emerge in the comparison of the specific RMs in English and in Spanish. Although the markers are often regarded as synonyms within each language or directly translatable from one language to another, their polyphonic potential may be considered a differentiating element between some of them.

Keywords: polyphony, discourse processes, English/Spanish, reformulation markers, discourse markers
Published online: 10 March 2016
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.16.1.01mur
References
Aijmer, K. and Simon-Vandenbergen, A.M
2006 Introduction. In Pragmatic Markers in Contrast, K. Aijmer and A.M. Simon-Vandenbergen (eds), 1–10. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A.Y
2004 Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Altenberg, B. and Granger, S
2002 Recent Trends in Cross-linguistic Lexical Studies. In Lexis in Contrast. Corpus-based Approaches, B. Altenberg and S. Granger (eds), 3–48. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anscombre, J.-C
1990 Thème, espaces discursifs et représentation événementielle. In Fonctionnalisme et pragmatique. À propos de la notion de thème, J.-C. Anscombre and G. Zaccaria (eds), 43–150. Milan: Unicopli.Google Scholar
Anscombre, J.-C. and Ducrot, O
1983 L’argumentation dans la langue. Brussels: Mardaga.Google Scholar
Bach Martorell, C
1996 Reformular: ¿una operación argumentativa aséptica? Estudio del conector de reformulación parafrástica és a dir. Sendebar 71:255–271.Google Scholar
2004 Els connectors reformulatius catalans: anàlisi i proposta d’aplicació lexicogràfica. PhD Thesis, Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
Blakemore, D
1992 Understanding Utterances. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Bosque, I
(ed) 2004 Redes. Diccionario combinatorio del español contemporáneo. Madrid: SM.Google Scholar
Carston, R
2004 Relevance Theory and the Saying/Implicating Distinction. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, L.R. Horn and G. Ward (eds), 633–656. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Chalker, S
1996 Linking Words. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar
Charolles, M. and Coltier, D
1986 Le contrôle de la compréhension dans une activité rédactionnelle: éléments pour l’analyse des reformulations paraphrastiques. Pratiques 491:51–66. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clift, R
2006 Indexing Stance: Reported Speech as an Interactional Evidential. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10(5):569–595. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuenca, M.J
2003 Two Ways to Reformulate: a Contrastive Analysis of Reformulation Markers. Journal of Pragmatics 35(7):1069–1093. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuenca, M.J. and Bach, C
2007 Contrasting the Form and Use of Reformulation Markers. Discourse Studies 9(2):149–175. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dendale, P
2006 Three Linguistic Theories of Polyphony/Dialogism: an External Point of View and Comparison. Sproglig polyfoni. Arbejdspapirer 51:3–32.Google Scholar
Downing, A. and Locke, P
2006 English Grammar. A University Course. London and New York: Routledge. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ducrot, O
1980 Analyse de textes et linguistique de l’énonciation. In Les mots du discours, D. Bourcier and O. Ducrot (eds), 7–56. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
1982 La notion de sujet parlant. Recherches sur la philosophie et le langage 21:65–93.Google Scholar
1984 Esquisse d’une théorie polyphonique de l’énonciation. In Le dire et le dit, O. Ducrot (ed.), 171–233. Paris: Minuit.Google Scholar
2001 Quelques raisons de distinguer locuteurs et énonciateurs . Polyphonie 31. Available at [URL] [last accessed 26 July 2013].Google Scholar
Fernández Polo, F.J
1999 Traducción y retórica contrastiva. A propósito de la traducción de textos de divulgación científica del inglés al español. Santiago de Compostela: Servicio de Publicacións da Universidade de Santiago de Compostela.Google Scholar
Figueras Solanilla, C
2001 Pragmática de la puntuación. Barcelona: Octaedro.Google Scholar
Fløttum, K
1994 À propos de c’est-à-dire et ses correspondants norvégiens. Cahiers de Linguistique Française 151:109–130.Google Scholar
2002 Fragments guillemetés dans une perspective polyphonique. Tribune 131. Available at [URL] [last accessed 23 July 2013].Google Scholar
2010 EU Discourse: Polyphony and Unclearness. Journal of Pragmatics 42(4): 990–999. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fløttum, K., Dahl, T. and Kinn, T
2006 Academic Voices – across Languages and Disciplines. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garcés Gómez, M.P
2008 La organización del discurso: marcadores de ordenación y de reformulación. Madrid/Frankfurt: Iberoamericana/Vervuert. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gülich, E. and Kotschi, T
1983 Les marqueurs de la reformulation paraphrastique. Cahiers de Linguistique Française 51:305–351.Google Scholar
1987 Les actes de reformulations dans la consultation. La dame de Caluire . In L’analyse des interactions verbales. La dame de Caluire: Une consultation, P. Bange (ed.), 15–81. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E
2005 The Semantics and Pragmatics of Metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 37(9):1325–1353. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, D.M
2006 Contrastive Analysis of Adversative Relational Markers, Using Comparable Corpora. In Pragmatic Markers in Contrast, K. Aijmer and A.M. Simon-Vandenbergen (eds), 139–153. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Li, C.N
1986 Direct and Indirect Speech: a Functional Study. In Direct and Indirect SpeechDirect and Indirect Speech, F. Coulmas (ed.), 29–45. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lorés Sanz, R
2003 The Translation of Tourist Literature: the Case of Connectors. Multilingua 22(3):291–308. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maldonado González, C
1999 Discurso directo y discurso indirecto. In Nueva gramática descriptiva de la lengua española I, Vol. 31, I. Bosque and V. Demonte (eds), 3549–3595. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Martín Zorraquino, M.A. and Portolés Lázaro, J
1999 Los marcadores del discurso. In Nueva gramática descriptiva de la lengua española I, Vol. 31, I. Bosque and V. Demonte (eds), 4051–4213. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
Meyer, C.F
1992 Apposition in Contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murat, M. and Cartier-Bresson, B
1987 C’est-à-dire ou la reprise interprétative. Langue Française 731:5–15. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Murillo, S
2004 A Relevance Reassessment of Reformulation Markers. Journal of Pragmatics 36(11):2059–2068. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009 Los marcadores de reformulación explicativa en español y en inglés: estudio contrastivo de ‘o sea’ y sus traducciones ‘that is (to say)’ e ‘in other words’. In La reformulación del discurso en español en comparación con otras lenguas, M.P. Garcés Gómez (ed.), 137–161. Madrid: Universidad Carlos III/B.O.E.Google Scholar
2012 The Use of Reformulation Markers in Business Management Research Articles: an Intercultural Analysis. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 17(1):62–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nølke, H
2006 Pour une théorie de la polyphonie: problèmes, avantages, perspectives. In Le sens et ses voix. Dialogisme et polyphonie en langue et en discours, L. Perrin (ed.), 243–269. Metz: Université Paul Verlaine.Google Scholar
Nølke, H., Fløttum, K. and Norén, C
2004 ScaPoLine. La théorie scandinave de la polyphonie linguistique. Paris: Kimé.Google Scholar
Pennec, B
2007  In other words: un connecteur de reformulation. In Les connecteurs, jalons du discours, A. Celle, S. Gresset and R. Huart (eds), 139–156. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Pons Bordería, S
1998 Reformulación y reformuladores. A propósito de Les opérations de reformulation. Oralia 11:183–198.Google Scholar
2013 Un solo tipo de reformulación. Cuadernos AISPI 21:151–170.Google Scholar
Portolés, J
2001 ¿Qué nos dicen del discurso los marcadores del español? In Meaning and the Component of Grammar/ El significado y los componentes de la gramática, J. Gutiérrez-Rexach (ed.), 263–278. Munich: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
2004 Consideraciones metodológicas para el estudio del significado de los marcadores del discurso. In Homenaje a Oswald Ducrot, E. Narvaja de Arnoux and M.M. García Negroni (eds), 315–336. Buenos Aires: Endeba.Google Scholar
2011 Las partículas focales desde una perspectiva polifónica. In Marcadores del discurso: de la descripción a la definición, H. Aschenberg and Ó. Loureda (eds), 51–76. Madrid-Frankfurt Iberoamericana Vervuert.Google Scholar
Preacher, K.J
2001 Calculation for the Chi-square Test: an Interactive Calculation Tool for Chi-square Tests of Goodness of Fit and Independence [Computer software]. Available at [URL] [last accessed 14 July 2014].
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G. and Svartvik, J
1985 A Comprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Reyes, G
2002 Metapragmática: lenguaje sobre lenguaje, ficciones y figuras. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid.Google Scholar
Rossari, C
[1994] 1997 Les opérations de reformulation. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Santos Río, L
2003 Diccionario de partículas. Salamanca: Luso-Española de Ediciones.Google Scholar
Saz Rubio, M.M. del
2003 An Analysis of English Discourse Markers of Reformulation. PhD Thesis, Universitat Universitat de València.
2007 English Discourse Markers of Reformulation. A Classification and Description. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar
Sheen, R
2002  Focus on Form and Focus on Forms . English Language Teaching Journal 56(3):303–305. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Simon-Vandenbergen, A.M. and Aijmer, K
2007 The Semantic Field of Modal Certainty: a Corpus-based Study of English Adverbs. Berlin: de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D
[1986] 1995 Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Willet, T.L
1988 A Cross-linguistic Survey of the Grammaticalization of Evidentiality. Studies in Language 12(1):51–97. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D. and Sperber, D
2004 Relevance Theory. In The Handbook of Pragmatics, L.R. Horn and G. Ward (eds), 607–632. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 4 other publications

Crible, Ludivine & Sílvia Gabarró-López
2021. Coherence relations across speech and sign language. Languages in Contrast 21:1 ► pp. 58 ff. DOI logo
Murillo, Silvia
2018. Chapter 11. Not the same, but how different?. In Intercultural Perspectives on Research Writing [AILA Applied Linguistics Series, 18], ► pp. 237 ff. DOI logo
Murillo Ornat, Silvia
2021. Reformulation Markers in Non-initial Position in Written English and Spanish. Complutense Journal of English Studies 29 ► pp. 35 ff. DOI logo
[no author supplied]
2018. Discourse Markers and (Dis)fluency [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 286], DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 april 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.