In:Grammar and Cognition: Dualistic models of language structure and language processing
Edited by Alexander Haselow and Gunther Kaltenböck
[Human Cognitive Processing 70] 2020
► pp. 233–265
Chapter 7Formulaic language and Discourse Grammar
Evidence from speech disorder
Published online: 12 November 2020
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.70.07kal
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.70.07kal
Abstract
This chapter proposes a dualistic classification of formulaic sequences based on the assumptions of Discourse Grammar, which distinguishes two components of language organisation and processing, viz. Sentence grammar and Thetical grammar. Accordingly, we can distinguish between Sentence grammar formulaic sequences (SG-FS) and Thetical grammar formulaic sequences (TG-FS). This classification is in line with some of the main taxonomies of formulaic language in the literature and corresponds with hemispheric differences identified for brain function. The proposed classification is tested in an empirical study of speech data from speakers with either left-hemisphere disorder (Broca’s aphasia) or right-hemisphere disorder. The results show that the two types of speech disorder differ significantly with regard to the frequencies of each formulaic type, thus providing evidence for the classification proposed.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Discourse Grammar and hemispheric differences
- 2.1The concept of Discourse Grammar
- 2.2Neurolinguistic correlations
- 3.Formulaic language and brain lateralization
- 3.1What are formulaic sequences? Delimiting an elusive concept
- 3.2Formulaic language: A right-hemisphere phenomenon?
- 3.3Classifying formulaic sequences
- 3.3.1 Hudson‘s (1998) fixed expressions
- 3.3.2 Erman and Warren‘s (2000) prefabs
- 3.3.3 Cowie’s (1988) formulae and composites
- 3.3.4 Wray‘s (2002) heteromorphic distributed lexicon
- 3.4Interim conclusion
- 4.Formulaic sequences in aphasia and right hemisphere disorder
- 4.1Outline of the study: Aim and database
- 4.2Data analysis
- 4.2.1Identifying formulaic sequences
- 4.2.2Classification as SG-FS or TG-FS
- 4.3Results
- 4.4Discussion
- 5.Conclusion
Notes References
References (67)
Aarts, B. 2017. English Syntax and Argumentation (5th Edition). Basingstoke and London: Palgrave McMillan.
Beeman, M. 1998. Coarse semantic coding and discourse comprehension. In M. C. Beeman & C. Chiarello (Eds.), Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (255–284). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Beeman, M., & Chiarello, C. 1998. Complementary right- and left-hemisphere language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science 7(1), 1–8.
Berman, S. M., Mandelkern, M. A., Phan, H., & Zaidel E. 2003. Complementary hemispheric specialization for word and accent detection. NeuroImage, 19, 319–331.
Blanken, G., & Marini, V. 1997. Where do lexical speech automatisms come from? Journal of Neurolinguistics, 10, 19–31.
Borod, J. C., Rorie, K. D., Pick, L. H., Bloom, R. L., Andelman, F., & Campbell, A. L. 2000. Verbal pragmatics following unilateral stroke: emotional content and valence. Neuropsychology 14(1), 1–13.
Buerki, A. 2016. Formulaic sequences: a drop in the ocean of constructions or something more significant? European Journal of English Studies 20(1), 15–34.
Carol, L., Baum, S., & Pell, M. 2001. The effect of compressed speech on the ability of right-hemisphere-damaged patients to use context. Cortex, 37, 327–344.
Code, C. 2005. First in, last out? The evolution of aphasic lexical speech automatisms to agrammatism and the evolution of human communication. Interaction Studies, 6, 311–334.
Cowie, A. P. 1988. Stable and creative aspects of vocabulary. In R. Carter, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (126–139). London, New York: Longman.
Damasio, H., Grabowski, T., Tranesl, D., Hichwa, R. & Damasio A. 1996. A neural basis for lexical retrieval. Nature, 380, 449–505.
Davies, M. 2008. The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990–present. Available online at [URL]
Devinsky, O. 2000. Right cerebral hemisphere dominance for a sense of corporeal and emotional self. Epilepsy and Behavior, 1, 60–73.
Dik, S. C. 1997. The theory of Functional Grammar, Part 2: Complex and derived constructions. (Functional Grammar Series, 21.) Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Goldberg, A. E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science 7(5), 219–224.
2006. Constructions at Work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Haegeman, L. 1991. Parenthetical adverbials: the radical orphanage approach. In S. Chiba, A. Ogawa, N. Yamada, O. Koma & T. Yagi (Eds.), Aspects of modern English linguistics: Papers presented to Masatomo Ukaji on his 60th birthday (232–54). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.
Heine, B. 2016. On non-finiteness and canonical imperatives. In C. Chamoreau & Z. Estrada-Fernández (Eds.), Finiteness and nominalization (243–268). Amsterdam: Benjamin.
Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., Kuteva, T., & Long, H. 2013. An outline of Discourse Grammar. In S. Bischoff & C. Jeny (Eds.), Functional approaches to language (155–206). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Heine, B., Kuteva, T., & Kaltenböck, G. 2014. Discourse Grammar, the dual process model, and brain lateralization: some correlations, Language and Cognition, 6, 146–180.
Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., Kuteva, T., & Long, H. 2017. Cooptation as a discourse strategy. Journal of Linguistics 55(4), 813–855.
Heine, B., Kuteva, T., & Kaltenböck, G. 2015. On some correlations between grammar and brain lateralization. Oxford Handbooks Online. New York: Oxford University Press.
Helmstaedter, C., Kurthen, M., Linke, D. B., & Elger C. E. 1994. Right hemisphere restitution of language and memory functions in right hemisphere language dominant patients with left temporal lobe epilepsy. Brain, 117, 729–737.
Hird, K., & Kirsner, K. 2003. The effect of right cerebral hemisphere damage on collaborative planning in conversation: an analysis of intentional structure. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 17(4/5), 309–315.
Kaltenböck, G., Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4), 848–893.
Kaltenböck, G., & Heine, B. 2014. Sentence Grammar vs. Thetical Grammar: two competing systems? In B. MacWhinney, A. Malchukov & E. Moravcsik (Eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage (348–363) Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kaplan, J. A., Brownell, H. H., Jacobs, J. R., & Gardner, H. 1990. The effects of right hemisphere damage on the pragmatic interpretation of conversational remarks. Brain and Language, 38, 115–133.
Karow, C. M., & Connors, E. C. 2003. Affective communication in normal and braindamaged adults: an overview. Seminars in Speech and Language 24(2), 69–91.
MacWhinney, B. 2007. The TalkBank Project. In J. C. Beal, K. P. Corrigan & H. L. Moisl (Eds.), Creating and digitizing language corpora: synchronic databases, Vol.1. (163–180). Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan.
MacWhinney, B., Fromm, D., Forbes, M., & Holland, A. 2011. AphasiaBank: Methods for studying discourse. Aphasiology, 25, 1286–1307.
McGilchrist, I. 2009. The master and his emissary. The divided brain and the making of the western world. Newhaven and London: Yale University Press.
2015. The origins of emotion and language from the perspective of developmental neuropsychology. In U. Lüdtke (Ed.), Emotion in language (69–97). Amsterdam: Benjamins.
Moon, R. 1998. Frequencies and forms of phrasal lexemes in English. In Cowie, Anthony (Ed.), Phraseology: theory, analysis and applications (79–100). Oxford: Clarendon.
Pawley, A. 2009. Grammarians’ languages versus humanists’ languages and the place of speech act formulas in models of linguistic competence. In R. Corrigan, E. A. Moravcsik, H. Ouali & K. M. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic language. Volume 1: Distribution and historical change (3–26) (Typological Studies in Language, 82.) Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.
Pawley, A., Syder, F. 1983. Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (191–226). Harlow: Longman.
Semeza, C., Mondini, S., & Zettin, M. 1995. The anatomical basis of proper names processing: A critical review. Neurocase: Case Studies in Neuropsychology, Neuropsychiatry, and Behavioural Neurology 1(2), 183–188.
Sherratt, S., & Bryan, K. 2012. Discourse production after right brain damage: gaining a comprehensive picture using a multi-level processing model. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 25, 213–239.
Sidtis, D., Canterucci, G., & Katsnelson, D. 2009. Effects of neurological damage on production of formulaic language. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 23(4), 270–284.
Sidtis, J., Dhawan, V., Eidelberg, D., & Van Lancker Sidtis, D. 2018. Switching language modes: Complementary brain patterns for formulaic and propositional language. Brain Connectivity 8(3), 189–196.
Speedie, L. J., Wertman, E., Ta’ir, J., & Heilman, K. M. 1993. Disruption of automatic speech following a right basal ganglia lesion. Neurology, 43, 1768–1774.
Springer, S. P., & Deutsch, G. 1983. Left brain, right brain. A series of books in Psychology. New York: W. H. Freeman.
Van Lancker, D. 1988. Nonpropositional speech: Neurolinguistic studies. In A. Ellis (Ed.), Progress in the Psychology of Language. Volume 3. (49–118). London: L. Erlbaum.
1997. Rags to riches: our increasing appreciation of cognitive and communicative abilities of the human right cerebral hemisphere. Brain and Language, 57, 1–11.
Van Lancker, S., & Rallon, G. 2004. Tracking the incidence of formulaic expressions in everyday speech: methods for classification and verification. Language and Communication, 24, 207–240.
Van Lancker Sidtis, D. 2004. When novel sentences spoken or heard for the first time in the history of the universe are not enough: Toward a dual–process model of language. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 39(1), 144.
2009. Formulaic and novel language in a ‘dual process’ model of language competence: Evidence from surveys, speech samples, and schemata. In R. Corrigan, E. A. Moravcsik, A. H. Ouali & K. M. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic language. Volume 2: Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations (445–70). (Typological Studies in Language, 83.) Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins.
2015. Formulaic language in an emergentist framework. In B. McWhinney & W. O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (578–599). Malden, MA: John Wiley and Sons.
Van Lancker Sidtis, D., & Postman, W. A. 2006. Formulaic expressions in spontaneous speech of left- and right-hemisphere damaged subjects. Aphasiology 20(5), 411–26.
Van Lancker Sidtis, D., & Sidtis, J. J. 2018. Cortical-subcortical production of formulaic language: A review of linguistic, brain disorder, and functional imaging studies leading to production model. Brain and Cognition, 126, 53–64.
Wray, A., & Perkins, M. A. 2000. The functions of formulaic language: an integrated model. Language and Communication 20(1), 1–28.
2009. Identifying formulaic language: persistent challenges and new opportunities. In R. Corrigan, E. A. Moravcsik, H. Ouali & K. M. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic language. Volume 1: Distribution and historical change (27–51). (Typological Studies in Language, 82). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins.
2006. Formulaic language. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed.), (590–597), Vol 4. Oxford: Elsevier.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Wray, Alison
Haselow, Alexander
2021. Discourse markers and brain lateralization. In Studies at the Grammar-Discourse Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series, 219], ► pp. 157 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 10 december 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.
