20-21 May 2022 Rennes (France)

english version


***registrations opened until the 8 of May 2022***



To phrase and to re-phrase: bis repetita?



Language resorts to constant repetition, as if language were groping for meaning, while discourse is constructed by what is being phrased and re-phrased. Following the 34th CerLICO conference, organised by CeReS at the University of Limoges in 2021, LIDILE will host the 35th international CerLiCO conference at the University of Rennes 2 on the 20th and 21st of May 2022. To phrase and to re-phrase: bis repetita? will examine repetition, its parameters and variabilities, from a linguistic, translational and didactic point of view.


We will open the reflection to all types of authentic corpora, written and oral, from the most extensive to the most specific (learner, medical, political, commercial corpora, etc.), to parallel and comparable corpora of translation, as well as to didactic corpora. All languages and language combinations can be considered. No theoretical framework is excluded, provided it is made explicit.


The CerLiCO invites participants to submit papers around the following three axes:  


1. Linguistic studies


The papers will focus on delimiting the written and oral forms (enunciative, lexical, morphological, syntactic, phonetic, pragmatic) that take on a re-phrasing function within a given discourse. At what point do we consider that there is a repetition? Are we saying the same thing, are we progressing in the discourse and if so how, and how do we say that we are going to repeat ourselves? How do we identify repetition and the span of repetition? 


We will observe repetition as one of the constraints of the syntagmatic axis which states and states again, which repeats and rephrases, and thus weaves its coherence, its cohesion, as and when discourse is constructed. 


From a phonetic and phonological point of view, we will be interested in the variations that change the possibilities of interpretation: from interrogation to pastiche, from sarcasm to anger, through mockery for example. We invite submissions to shed light on the argumentative or pragmatic aims which language offers to repeat and signify the same thing or a different thing. We will therefore examine the different functions of repetition in the linearity of discourse, and the difference between self-reformulation and hetero-reformulation.


In addition, we will integrate into this line of thought research on corpora: how to annotate reformulation, according to the types of enunciators in the interaction, the types of discourse, of text? What are the identifiable patterns of repetition and reformulation? Is there a unity of repetition? How can it be measured? From the point of view of computer detection and human/machine learning: what are the methods of detection and automatic distinction between repetition and reformulation? How do we know that the discourse is evolving and building coherence? 

2. Translation, interpretation, technical writing


The conference also invites research in translation, interpretation and technical writing. 


If translation inevitably consists in repeating something different, it also calls for a reflection on what must be said, added, explained, may not be repeated, or even must not be repeated, because repetition occurs between different language-cultures. This brings to mind the balancing act that the translation of patents represents in this respect, even if such notions can of course be studied regardless of the field of translation. 


We can also question the thresholds of acceptability that the notions of phrasing and rephrasing, in a translation, generate according to the work languages/cultures, the types of text, and their purpose. In this respect, work in corpus translatology is particularly relevant for identifying trends, for example between translated and untranslated texts of the same language, which may point to the existence of translation universals, or contrasts between source and target languages. The famous translator's note does not appear in the subtitling done by audiovisual translation professionals, whereas it does in so-called "fan-subbing". Repetitions may be more acceptable in some languages than in others. 




Papers may also address the area of revision, based on both human and machine translations. How are translation and writing aids useful? Do they impose terminological uniformity or do they allow the translator to leave his or her mark? Like the reviser, the proofreader, who works in the same language as the writer, is led, beyond spelling and typographical corrections, to say things differently, to rephrase in order to achieve the intended communication objective.




In the field of technical writing, the conference will be an opportunity to examine in particular the words of the informants that the technical writer calls upon and even, upstream, the words of the technical writer. These two statements can be compared with the writer's own statement, after understanding what is to be communicated to the users of his texts.


Finally, the general theme of the conference calls for a questioning of the work of the interpreter, who is physically present at the moment of enunciation, and an analysis of how his or her rephrasing differs from that of the translator. As suggested above, the utterance that the interpreter initiates, in addition to the rephrasing of the first utterance, in a given situation, will be interesting to study, as well as, in a manner specific to his or her activity, the hesitation and reformulation that eventually allow him or her to achieve the desired rephrasing in relation to this utterance.


3. Language didactics


The studies will present the different didactic problems linked to the processes, forms and strategies of phrasing and rephrasing from the point of view of both the learner and the teacher.


Has the transition from the audio-oral structuralist approach, based on the repetition of forms, to the communicative approach and the actional perspective advocating free expression definitively removed rephrasing from the domain of pedagogy?


Between artifice and language learning reality, can rephrasing be considered an efficient teaching/learning strategy? In the multiplicity of forms of repetition, how can we take into consideration the parameters represented by the teaching/learning context, the level of the learners, the type of tasks and the constraints of the instructions?



As we know, in class, the teacher's reformulations are meant to structure knowledge. The teacher has to reformulate his own words as well as the learners' answers. But isn't the reformulation, of instructions for example, preceded by an identical repetition of the first statement? Doesn't the reformulation of the learner's words begin with a repetition of his answer? We could look at the co-presence, the succession of these two moments, repetition and reformulation, in foreign language lessons. Does the rephrasing say more or less than the phrasing itself? Does it use periphrasis? translation? gestures? transcription in API?


On the learner's side, repetition, even in the teaching of pronunciation, is nowadays questioned. 


However, written and oral mediation activities are part of rephrasing and are in fact developed in the CEFR Supplementary Volume (2018). Although the learner-user is most often asked to summarise, to 'prune a text' and to 'eliminate repetitions and digressions', it may also involve 'amplifying a dense text' to make it more comprehensible and to do so 'using repetition and redundancy, for example by paraphrasing in different ways' (ibid: 133). One might ask how written and oral mediation activities can concretely engage learners (and teachers) not to systematically consider repetition as an error to be tracked down but as part of the "mediation strategies" to be developed.


Guidelines for submission

The final date for submissions is set at 15th October 2021.

Anonymous abstracts for 30-minute presentations should include a title, research questions, approaches (approximately 500 words / 3000 signs) and a short bibliography. They can be written in English or in French and will have to be submitted in WORD and PDF formats. Each abstract will be double-blind peer-reviewed by two members of the scientific committee.

Please send your abstract attached in .doc(x) and .pdf formats which the following details should be mentioned:


- the author’s name (it should not be on the abstract),

- your affiliation,

- the title of your paper,

Practical information:

deadline for all abstracts: October 15th, 2021.

Notification of acceptance will be sent at the end of November 2021.

Date of the conference: 20 and 21 May, 2021.

Location: Rennes 2 University (France)


Details will be made available on the CerLiCO website (https://cerlicoasso.wordpress.com/) and on the Science Conf platform (https://cerlico2022.sciencesconf.org).

Abstracts will be published on the CerLiCO website after registration.


Organizing committee: 

Marie-Françoise Bourvon, Clara Destais, Griselda Drouet, Aura Duffé,Thomas Gaillat, David Le Roux, Jenyu Li, María Lomeña Galiano, Margarita Munoz-Garcia, Dolly Ramella, Elisabeth Richard, Cristian Valdez


Scientific committee:

Sophie Anquetil (Limoges), Encarnación Arroyo González  (Toulouse), Marie Françoise Bourvon (Rennes 2), Katarina Chovancova (UMB, Banská-Bystrica, Slovaquie), Claire Doquet (Bordeaux), Sophie Dufossé (Limoges), Griselda Drouet (Rennes 2), Thomas Gaillat (Rennes 2), Djaouida Hamdani (UQUAM, Canada), Cindy Lefebvre-Scodeller (Limoges), Intareeya Leekancha (Thaïlande), David Le Roux (Rennes 2), María Lomeña Galiano (Rennes 2),  Claire Martinot (Sorbonne Université), Margarita Munoz-Garcia (Rennes 2), Sylvester Osu (Tours), Blandine Pennec (Toulouse), Olivier Polge (Limoges), Elisabeth Richard (Rennes 2), Audrey Roig (Paris),   Cristian Valdez (G. Eiffel, Marne la Vallée), Bernadeta Wojciechowska  (UAM, Pologne)

Indicative bibliography


AUTHIER-REVUZ Jacqueline (2020), La représentation du discours autre, principes pour une description, De Gruyter, Berlin/Boston.


AUTHIER-REVUZ Jacqueline (1995), Ces mots qui ne vont pas de soi : boucles réflexives et non-coïncidences du dire, tomes 1 et 2, Paris, Larousse. 


BASTIN George (1990), « Traduire, adapter, réexprimer », Meta: le journal des traducteurs, vol. 35, n° 3, p. 470-475.


BOT Hanneke (2005), « Dialogue Interpreting as a specific case of reported speech », Interpreting, Vol.7-2, p. 237-261.


CHEVALIER Jean-Claude & DELPORT Marie-France (2006), « Traduction, traductologie et linguistique », in Michel Ballard, Qu’est-ce que la traductologie ? Arras, Artois Presses Universités (collection « Traductologie »), p. 119-132.

GARCIA-DEBANC Claudine (2006), « Une méthodologie pour déterminer les objets effectivement enseignés : l'étude des reformulations dans l'interaction didactique » in Bernard Schneuwly et Thérèse Thévenaz-Christen (ed.), Analyse des objets enseignés : le cas du français. De Boeck Université, p. 111-141.

CORNISH, Francis (1999), Anaphora, Discourse, and Understanding. Evidence from English and French. Oxford University Press.


DE GAULMYN Marie-Madeleine (1987a), « Actes de reformulation et processus de reformulation », in Bange Pierre, La Dame de Caluire: une consultation, p. 83-98. 


DE GAULMYN Marie-Madeleine (1987b), « Reformulation et planification métadiscursives », in Cosnier Jacques & Kerbrat-Orecchioni Catherine (éds), Décrire la conversation, Lyon, Presses Universitaires de Lyon, p. 167- 198. 


FUCHS Catherine (1994), Paraphrase et énonciation, Ophrys, Paris. 


GÜLICH Elisabeth & KOTSCHI Thomas (1987), « Les actes de reformulation dans la consultation », in Bange Pierre, La Dame de Caluire : une consultation, p. 15-81.


HENRY Jacqueline (2016), « Reformuler, réécrire, recréer… : des concepts connexes à la verbalisation en traduction », TTR, 29-1, p. 17-31. 


KARA Mohammed (éd.), (2007),  Usages et analyses de la reformulation, Recherches linguistiques, n° 29. 


LE BOT Marie-Claude, SCHUWER Martine & RICHARD Élisabeth (éds) (2008a), La reformulation. Marqueurs linguistiques. Stratégies énonciatives, Rennes, Presses universitaires de Rennes. LE BOT 


LE BOT Marie-Claude, SCHUWER Martine & RICHARD Élisabeth (éds) (2008b), Pragmatique de la reformulation. Types de discours. Interactions didactiques, Rennes, Presses universitaires de Rennes. 


LOOCK Rudy (2016), La traductologie de corpus, Villeneuve-d’Ascq, Presses universitaires du Septentrion.


MARTINOT Claire,  Romero Clara (éds), (2009), « La reformulation : acquisition et diversité des discours», Les cahiers de praxématique, 59, Montpellier : Presses universitaires de la Méditerranée.


MARTINOT Claire, BOŠNJAK BOTICA Tomislava, GEROLIMICH Sonia &   PAPROCKA-PIOTROWSKA Urszula (2018), Reformulation et acquisition de la complexité linguistique, ISTE editions, Londres, Royaume-Uni.


MARTINOT Claire (2019), « Comment la reformulation articule la contrainte syntaxique et la contrainte sémantique : illustration dans la langue des enfants et des adultes », Acta universitatis Upsaliensis. Studia Romanica,numéro 87, in Houda Landolsi, Maria Svensson et Coco Norén (éds) La reformulation, à la recherche d’une frontière, 19-35.


MIGEOT François & VIPREY Jean-Marie (éds.) (2000), Répétition, Altération, Reformulation, Actes du colloque international des 22 au 24 juin 1998, Presses Universitaires franc-comtoises, Besançon. 


PENNEC Blandine (2017), Les phénomènes de réajustement du discours en anglais contemporain, ISTE éditions, Londres, Royaume-Uni.


PEYTARD Jean, JACOBI Daniel, PETROFF André (éds) (1984), Français technique et scientifique : reformulation, enseignement, Langue française, n°64, Larousse, Paris.


PRAK-DERRINGTON Emmanuelle (2021), Magie de la répétition, Collection Langage, ENS éditions, Lyon.


RABATEL Alain, MAGRI Véronique (éds) (2015), La répétition lexicale: approche discursive et pragmatique, SEMEN, 38, 


RICHARD Elisabeth (2014) Parcours de la répétition – Un cercle dynamique, Synthèse d’Habilitation à Diriger des Recherches, Strasbourg.


RICHARD Elisabeth (2002), La répétition: syntaxe et interprétation. Thèse de doctorat. UBO-Brest.


RIEGEL Martin & TAMBA Irène (éds) (1987), La reformulation du sens dans le discours, Langue française, n°73, Larousse. 


ROSSARI Corinne (1997), (2e éd.), Les opérations de reformulations, Bern, Peter Lang. 


SCHNEDECKER Catherine (2021), Les chaînes de références en français, Paris, Ophrys. 


SELESKOVITCH Danica & LEDERER Marianne (2014, 1re éd. en 1984), Interpréter pour traduire, Paris, Publications de la Sorbonne / Didier Erudition.


LEEKANCHA Intareeya (2021), reformulation et discours touristiques: analyse linguistique, Thèse de doctorat sous la direction de E. Richard, LIDILE, Université Rennes 2. 


LONGUET Frédérique, SPRINGER Claude (éds), 2021, Autour du CECR - Volume complémentaire (2018) : médiation et collaboration. Une didactique de la relation écologique et sociosémiotique, Editions des archives contemporaines, France, ISBN : 9782813004055, 362p., doi : https://doi.org/10.17184/eac.9782813004055


STEUCKARDT Agnès & Niklas-Salminen Aïno (éds) (2003), Le mot et sa glose, Publications de l’Université de Provence. 


TANNEN Deborah (2007), Talking Voices, Repetition, Dialogue, and Imagery in Conversational Discourse, rééd. 2007 (éd. or. 1989) augmentée d'une nouvelle introduction, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

Online user: 3