Cover not available

Article published In: Languages in Contrast
Vol. 16:1 (2016) ► pp.1–30

Get fulltext from our e-platform
JBE logo with link
PDF logo with download linkDownload PDF
authorization required

Reformulation markers and polyphony

A contrastive English–Spanish analysis

 | University of Zaragoza (Spain)
Published online: 10 March 2016
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/lic.16.1.01mur
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.
References (61)
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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Aikhenvald, A.Y. 2004. Evidentiality. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Anscombre, J.-C. and Ducrot, O. 1983. L’argumentation dans la langue. Brussels: Mardaga.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Bosque, I. (ed). 2004. Redes. Diccionario combinatorio del español contemporáneo. Madrid: SM.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Chalker, S. 1996. Linking Words. London: Harper Collins.Google Scholar logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Clift, R. 2006. Indexing Stance: Reported Speech as an Interactional Evidential. Journal of Sociolinguistics 10(5):569–595. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuenca, M.J. 2003. Two Ways to Reformulate: a Contrastive Analysis of Reformulation Markers. Journal of Pragmatics 35(7):1069–1093. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuenca, M.J. and Bach, C. 2007. Contrasting the Form and Use of Reformulation Markers. Discourse Studies 9(2):149–175. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Downing, A. and Locke, P. 2006. English Grammar. A University Course. London and New York: Routledge. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1982. La notion de sujet parlant. Recherches sur la philosophie et le langage 21:65–93.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2001. Quelques raisons de distinguer locuteurs et énonciateurs . Polyphonie 31. Available at [URL] [last accessed 26 July 2013].Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Figueras Solanilla, C. 2001. Pragmática de la puntuación. Barcelona: Octaedro.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2002. Fragments guillemetés dans une perspective polyphonique. Tribune 131. Available at [URL] [last accessed 23 July 2013].Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2010. EU Discourse: Polyphony and Unclearness. Journal of Pragmatics 42(4): 990–999. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fløttum, K., Dahl, T. and Kinn, T. 2006. Academic Voices – across Languages and Disciplines. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Garcés Gómez, M.P. 2008. La organización del discurso: marcadores de ordenación y de reformulación. Madrid/Frankfurt: Iberoamericana/Vervuert. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gülich, E. and Kotschi, T. 1983. Les marqueurs de la reformulation paraphrastique. Cahiers de Linguistique Française 51:305–351.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E. 2005. The Semantics and Pragmatics of Metadiscourse. Journal of Pragmatics 37(9):1325–1353. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lorés Sanz, R. 2003. The Translation of Tourist Literature: the Case of Connectors. Multilingua 22(3):291–308. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Meyer, C.F. 1992. Apposition in Contemporary English. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murat, M. and Cartier-Bresson, B. 1987. C’est-à-dire ou la reprise interprétative. Langue Française 731:5–15. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Murillo, S. 2004. A Relevance Reassessment of Reformulation Markers. Journal of Pragmatics 36(11):2059–2068. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Nølke, H., Fløttum, K. and Norén, C. 2004. ScaPoLine. La théorie scandinave de la polyphonie linguistique. Paris: Kimé.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Pons Bordería, S. 1998. Reformulación y reformuladores. A propósito de Les opérations de reformulation. Oralia 11:183–198.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2013. Un solo tipo de reformulación. Cuadernos AISPI 21:151–170.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Reyes, G. 2002. Metapragmática: lenguaje sobre lenguaje, ficciones y figuras. Valladolid: Universidad de Valladolid.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Rossari, C. [1994] 1997. Les opérations de reformulation. Bern: Peter Lang.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Santos Río, L. 2003. Diccionario de partículas. Salamanca: Luso-Española de Ediciones.Google Scholar logo with link to 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Sheen, R. 2002. Focus on Form and Focus on Forms . English Language Teaching Journal 56(3):303–305. Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sperber, D. and Wilson, D. [1986] 1995. Relevance: Communication and Cognition. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar logo with link to Google 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 logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Garcés Gómez, Pilar
2024. Relaciones enunciativas de explicación y de corrección en los discursos digitales. Círculo de Lingüística Aplicada a la Comunicación 100 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo
Crible, Ludivine & Sílvia Gabarró-López
2021. Coherence relations across speech and sign language. Languages in Contrast 21:1 ► pp. 58 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
Murillo, Silvia
2018. Not the same, but how different?. In Intercultural Perspectives on Research Writing [AILA Applied Linguistics Series, 18], ► pp. 237 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 26 november 2025. 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.

Mobile Menu Logo with link to supplementary files background Layer 1 prag Twitter_Logo_Blue