Evidence from the Spanish Discourse Marker "o sea"
Reformulation studies offer a recent debate on reformulation and its semasiological-onomasiological treatment. Some researchers argue for a clear distinction between reformulation and other functions such as conclusion or correction; others defend the existence of different subtypes of reformulation based on such other functions, which are expressed by the same group of discourse markers in different languages. Both approaches are valid although their arguments and theoretical basis are opposed. The book presents an Eye-Tracking proposal to complement this debate experimentally. Results support an onomasiological approach to reformulation since experimental boundaries for each function (paraphrase, reformulation, conclusion and correction) have been detected.
Tab. 1.Reformulation markers in Spanish (Martín Zorraquino & Portolés, 1999, pp. 4122–4139)
Tab. 2.Discourse connection established by Sp. quiero decir in exemplification contexts.
Tab. 3.From first to bridge reformulation studies. PR represents paraphrastic reformulation; NPR represents nonparaphrastic reformulation. Shaded cells are approached as subtypes of reformulation. See also Murillo (2007) and Pons (2013).
Tab. 4.Classification of reformulation operations based on Rossari (1990: 353).
Tab. 5.Del Saz’s classification of reformulation and its markers (Del Saz, 2003, p. 242).
Tab. 6.Differences between exclusive and inclusive approaches in Pons (2013, 2017) and Murillo (2016).
Tab. 7.Temporal and movement parameters selected.
Tab. 8.Relationship between dependent, independent variables, and conditions.
Tab. 9.Participant distribution in the experiment. T. 1 and T. correspond to each theme (replication) of the experiment.
You are not authenticated to view the full text of this chapter or article.
This site requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books or journals.
Do you have any questions? Contact us.Or login to access all content.