Cover not available

In:Studies at the Grammar-Discourse Interface: Discourse markers and discourse-related grammatical phenomena
Edited by Alexander Haselow and Sylvie Hancil
[Studies in Language Companion Series 219] 2021
► pp. 157–194

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

Chapter 6
Discourse markers and brain lateralization

Evidence for dual language processing from neurological disorders

 | University of Münster
Published online: 3 June 2021
DOI logo with link
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.219.06has
Abstract
This chapter contributes to recent lines of research proposing right-hemisphere dominance of discourse-related language tasks using neurolinguistic data on the incidence of discourse markers in the speech of unilaterally brain-damaged speakers (left- and right-hemispheric damage) compared to data produced by control (unimpaired) speakers. From a more general language-theoretic perspective these data will serve as the basis for the exploration of processing differences between two domains of language structure, one encompassing grammar and semantics, the other one the organization of discourse and interaction, which has important implications for linguistic modeling.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Microstructures, macrostructures and dualistic processing
    • 2.1Micro- and macrostructures in language
    • 2.2Language processing and hemispheric differences
    • 2.3Aphasic speakers and discourse structure
  • 3.Discourse markers
  • 4.Data: Discourse marker use and hemisphere-specific disorders
    • 4.1Aims of the study and database
    • 4.2Method
    • 4.3Discourse markers in the speech data
    • 4.4Results
  • 5.Discussion
  • 6.Conclusion
  • Transcription conventions
  • References
References (117)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English Discourse Particles. Evidence from a Corpus [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 10]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ameka, Felix. 1992. Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics 18: 101–118. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Barnes, Scott, Toocaram, Sophie, Nickels, Lyndsey, Beeke, Suzanne, Best, Wendy & Bloch, Steven. 2019. Everyday conversation after right hemisphere damage: A methodological demonstration and some preliminary findings. Journal of Neurolinguistics 52: 1–16. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bartels-Tobin, Lori R. & Hinckley, Jacqueline. 2005. Cognition and discourse production in right hemisphere disorder. Journal of Neurolinguistics 18: 461–477. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beeching, Kate & Detges Ulrich (eds). 2014. Discourse Functions at the Right and Left Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change. Leiden: Brill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Beeman, Mark & Chiarello, Christine. 1998. Complementary right- and left-hemisphere language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science 7(1): 1–8. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Berndt, Rita S. 1987. Symptom co-occurrence and dissociation in the interpretation of agrammatism. In The Cognitive Neuropsychology of Language, Max Coltheart, Giuseppe Sartori & Remo Job (eds), 221–233. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blake, Margaret Lehman. 2009. Inferencing processes after right hemisphere brain damage: Effects of contextual bias. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 52(2): 373–384. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire, Bilger, Mireille, Rouget, Christine & Van den Eynde, Karel. 1990. Le Français Parlé: Études Grammaticales. Paris: Éditions du CNRS.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Borod, Joan C., Bloom, Ronald, Brickman, Adam, Nakhutina, Luba & Curko, Elizabeth. 2002. Emotional processing deficits in individuals with unilateral brain damage. Applied Neuropsychology 9(1): 23–36. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bottini, Gabriella, Corcoran, Rhiannon, Sterzi, Roberto, Paulesu, Eraldo, Schenone, Pietro, Scarpa, Pina, Frackowiak, Richard & Frith, Chris D. 1994. The role of the right hemisphere inthe interpretation of figurative aspects of language: A positron emission tomographyactivation study. Brain 117: 1241–1253. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Boye, Kasper & Bastiaanse, Roelien. 2018. Grammatical versus lexical words in theory and aphasia: Integrating linguistics and neurolinguistics. Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics 3(1): 29. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brady, Marian, Armstrong, Linda & Mackenzie, Catherine. 2006. An examination over time of language and discourse production abilities following right hemisphere brain damage. Journal of Neurolinguistics 19(4): 291–310. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Brownell, Hiram H. & Joanette, Yves (eds). 1993. Narrative Discourse in Neurological Impaired and Normal Aging Adults. San Diego CA: Singular.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Butterworth, Brian. 1994. Disorders of sentence production. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 346: 55–61. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10: 425–455. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Caplan, Rochelle & Dapretto, Mirella. 2001. Making sense during conversation: An fMRI study. Neuroreport 12(16): 3625–3632. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Centeno, José & Obler, Loraine. 2001. Agrammatic verb errors in Spanish speakers and their normal discourse correlates. Journal of Neurolinguistics 14(2): 349–363. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Champagne-Lavau, Maud & Joanette, Yves. 2009. Pragmatics, theory of mind and executive functions after a right-hemisphere lesion: Different patterns of deficits. Journal of Neurolinguistics 22: 413–426. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Chantraine, Yves, Joanette, Yves & Ska, Bernadette. 1998. Conversational abilities in patients with right hemisphere damage. In Pragmatics in Neurogenic Communication Disorders, Michel Paradis (ed.), 21–32. Oxford: Pergamon Press.. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Code, Chris. 1996. Speech from the isolated right hemisphere? Left hemispherectomy cases E. G. and N. F. In: Classic Cases in Neuropsychology, Vol. 1, Chris Code, Claus-W. Wallesch, Yves Joanette, André Roch Lecours (eds), 319–336. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1997. Can the right hemisphere speak? Brain and Language 57: 38–59. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cowell, Simon F., Egan, Gary, Code, Chris, Harasty, Jenny & Watson, John. 2000. The functional neuroanatomy of simple calculation and number repetition: A parametric PET activation study. Neuroimage 12: 565–573. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crible, Ludivine & Cuenca, María-Josep. 2017. Discourse markers in speech: Characteristics and challenges for corpus annotation. Dialogue and Discourse 8(2): 149–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Crible, Ludivine & Degand, Liesbeth. 2019. Reliability vs. granularity in discourse annotation: What is the trade-off? Corpus Linguistics and Linguistic Theory 15(1): 71–99. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cuenca, María Josep & Crible, Ludivine. 2019. Co-occurrence of discourse markers in English: From juxtaposition to composition. Journal of Pragmatics 140: 171–184. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Davis, Albyn, O’Neill-Pirozzi, Therese & Coon, Maribeth. 1997. Referential cohesion and logical coherence of narration after right hemisphere stroke. Brain and Language 56: 183–210. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Debaisieux, Jeanne-Marie. 2007. La distinction entre dépendance grammaticale et dépendance macrosyntaxique comme moyen de résoudre les paradoxes de la subordination. Faits de Langue 28: 119–132.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Simon, Anne-Catherine. 2009. On identifying basic discourse units in speech: Theoretical and empirical issues. Discours 4. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Deulofeu, José. 2017. La macrosyntaxe comme moyen de tracer la limite entre organisation grammaticale et organisation du discours. Modèles Linguistiques 74: 135–166. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Devinsky, Orrin. 2000. Right cerebral hemisphere dominance for a sense of corporeal and emotional self. Epilepsy and Behavior 1(1): 60–73. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2013. ‘Same same but different’ – Modal particles, discourse markers and the art (and purpose) of categorization. In Discourse Markers and Modal Particles. Categorization and Description [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 234], Liesbeth Degand, Paola Pietrandrea & Bert Cornillie (eds), 19–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin. 2000. From Cognitive Semantics to Lexical Pragmatics: The Functional Polysemy of Discourse Particles. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31(7): 931–952. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2015. The combining of discourse markers – A beginning. Journal of Pragmatics 86: 48–53. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friederici, Angela. 2004. The neural basis of syntactic processes. In The Cognitive Neurosciences, Michael S. Gazzaniga (ed.), 789–801. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friederici, Angela, Rüschemeyer, Shirley-Ann, Hahne, Anja & Fiebach, Christian J. 2003. The role of left inferior frontal and superior temporal cortex in sentence comprehension: Localizing syntactic and semantic processes. Cerebral Cortex 13: 170–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friederici, Angela & Alter, Kai. 2004. Lateralization of auditory language functions: A dynamic dual pathway model. Brain and Language 89(2): 267–276. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Friederici, Angela, Bahlmann, Jörg, Heim, Stefan, Schubotz, Ricarda & Anwander, Alfred. 2006. The brain differentiates human and non-human grammars: Functional localization and structural connectivity. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 103(7): 2458–2463. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, Morton. 1990. Language Comprehension as Structure Building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
González, Momtserrat. 2005. Pragmatic markers and discourse coherence relations in English and Catalan oral narrative. Discourse Studies 77(1): 53–86. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Graesser, Arthur C., Singer, Murray & Trabasso, Tom. 1994. Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review 101, 371–395. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Greene, Steven B., McKoon, Gail & Ratcliff, Roger. 1992. Pronoun resolution and discourse models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 18, 266–283.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hannay, Mike & Kroon, Caroline. 2005. Acts and the relationship between discourse and grammar. Functions of Language 12: 87–124. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hansen, Maj-Britt Mosegaard. 2006. A dynamic polysemy approach to the lexical semantics of discourse markers (with an exemplary analysis of French toujours). In Approaches to Discourse Particles, Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 21–41. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2017. Spontaneous Spoken English. An Integrated Approach to the Emergent Grammar of Speech. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2019. Discourse marker sequences: Insights into the serial order of communicative tasks in real-time turn production. Journal of Pragmatics 146: 1–18. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander & Kaltenböck, Gunther (eds). 2020. Grammar and Cognition: Dualistic Models of Language Structure and Language Processing [Human Cognitive Processing 70]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2019. Some observations on the dualistic nature of discourse processing. Folia Linguistica 53(2): 411–442. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kuteva, Tania & Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2014. Discourse grammar, the dual process model, and brain lateralization: Some correlations. Language & Cognition 6: 146–180. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kuteva, Tania, Kaltenböck, Gunther & Long, Haiping. 2015. On some correlation between grammar and brain lateralization. Oxford Handbooks Online. Oxford: OUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kuteva, Tania & Long, Haiping. 2020. Dual process frameworks on reasoning and linguistic discourse. In Haselow & Kaltenböck (eds), 59–89.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Helasuvo, Marja-Liisa, Klippi, Anu & Laakso, Minna. 2001. Grammatical structuring in Broca’s and Wernicke’s aphasia in Finnish. Journal of Neurolinguistics 14(2): 231–254. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Hird, Kathryn & Kirsner, Kim. 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. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Howard, David & Orchard-Lisle, Virginia. 1984. On the origin of semantic errors in naming: Evidence from the case of a global aphasic. Cognitive Neuropsychology 1(2): 163–190. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Howes, D. 1964. Application of the word frequency concept to aphasia. In Disorders of Language, Anthony V. S. DeReuck & Maeve O’Connor (eds), 47–75. London: Churchill. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. Language Description: The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2020. Formulaic language and Discourse Grammar: Evidence from speech disorder. In Grammar and Cognition: Dualistic Models of Language Structure and Language Processing [Human Cognitive Processing 70], Alexander Haselow & Gunther Kaltenböck (eds), 233–266. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35: 852–897. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Keizer, Evelien. 2015. A Functional Discourse Grammar for English. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kennedy, Mary, Strand, Edythe A., Burton, Wendy & Peterson, Connie. 1994. Analysis of first-encounter conversations of right hemisphere damaged participants. Clinical Aphasiology 22: 67–80.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Kintsch, Walter. 1988. The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review 95, 163–182. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehman-Blake, Margaret. 2006. Clinical relevance of discourse characteristics after right hemisphere brain damage. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 15(3): 255–267. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Lehman Blake, Margaret. 2010. Communication deficits associated with right hemisphere brain damage. In The Handbook of Language and Speech Disorders, Jack S. Damico, Nicole Muller & Martin J. Ball (eds), 556–576. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Long, Debra, Baynes, Kathleen, & Prat, Chantel. 2005. The propositional structure of discourse in the two cerebral hemispheres. Brain and Language 95(3), 383–394. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mackenzie, Catherine & Marian Brady. 2008. Communication difficulties following right hemisphere stroke: applying evidence to clinical management. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention 2 (4), 235–247. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Maschler, Yael. 2009. Metalanguage in Interaction: Hebrew Discourse Markers [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 181]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marini, Andrea, Carlomagno, Sergio, Caltagirone, Carlo & Nocentini, Ugo. 2005. The role played by the RH in the organization of complex textual structures. Brain and Language 93: 46–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Marini, Andrea. 2012. Characteristics of narrative discourse processing after damage to the right hemisphere. Seminars in Speech and Language 33(1): 68–78. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McDonald, Skye. 1999. Exploring the process of inference generation in sarcasm: A review of normal and clinical studies. Brain and Language 68(3): 486–506. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian, Fromm, Davida, Forbes, Margret & Holland, Audrey. 2011. AphasiaBank: Methods for studying discourse. Aphasiology 25: 1286–1307. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McEldruff, Kathleen & Drummond, Sakina. 1991. Communication functions of automatic speech in non fluent aphasia. Aphasiology 5: 265–278. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
McKoon, Gail & Ratcliff, Roger. 1992. Inference during reading. Psychological Review 99, 440–466. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Mitchell, Rachel L. C. & Crow, Tim J. 2005. Right hemisphere language functions and schizophrenia: The forgotten hemisphere? Brain 128(5): 963–978. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Myers, Penelope S. 1994. Communication disorders associated with right-hemisphere brain damage. In Language Intervention Strategies in Aphasia and Related Neurogenic Communication Disorders, 3d edn, Roberta Chapey (ed.), 514–534. Baltimore MD: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
1999. Right Hemisphere Damage: Disorders of Communication and Cognition. San Diego CA: Singular.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2001. Communication disorders associated with right hemispheredamage. In Language Intervention Strategies in Aphasia and Related Neurogenic Communication Disorders, 4th edn, Roberta Chapey (ed.), 963–987. Baltimore MD: Lippincott Williams and Wilkins.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Oelschlaeger, Mary & Damico, Jack S. 1998. Spontaneous verbal repetition: A social strategy in aphasic conversation. Aphasiology 12: 971–988. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pallier, Christophe, Devauchelle, Anne-Dominique & Dehaene, Stanislas. 2011. Cortical representation of the constituents structure of sentences. PNAS 108(6): 2522–2527. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pawley, Andrew. 2009. Grammarians’ languages versus humanists’ languages and the place of speech act formulas in models of linguistic competence. In Formulaic Language, Vol. 1: Distribution and Historical Change [Typological Studies in Language 82], Roberta Corrigan, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali & Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds), 3–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Pedersen, Palle, Vinter, Kirsten & Olsen, Tom S. 2004. Aphasia after stroke: Type, severity and prognosis. The Copenhagen aphasia study. Cerebrovascular Diseases 17(1): 35–43. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Prat, Chantel S., Long, Debra L. & Baynes, Kathleen. 2007. The representation of discourse in the two hemispheres: An individual differences investigation. Brain and Language 100(3): 283–294. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Purdy, Mary H. 2002. Script knowledge following stroke. Journal of Medical Speech Language Pathology 10(3): 173–181.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Redeker, Gisela. 2006. Discourse markers as attentional cues at discourse transitions. In Approaches to Discourse Particles, Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 339–358. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sakai, Kuniyoshi L., Tatsuno, Yoshinori, Suzuki, Kei, Kimura, Harumi & Ichida, Yasuhiro. 2005. Sign and speech: Amodal commonality in left hemisphere dominance for comprehension of sentences. Brain 128(6): 1407–1417. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schnitzer, Marc L. 1989. The Pragmatic Basis of Aphasia. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence. 1985. Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 1999. Discourse markers. Lingua 107: 227–265. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sherrat, Sue & Penn, Claire. 1990. Discourse in a right-hemisphere brain-damaged subject. Aphasiology 4(6): 539–560. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Sherratt, Sue & Bryan, Karen. 2012. Discourse production after right brain damage: Gaining a comprehensive picture using a multi-level processing model. Journal of Neurolinguistics 25: 213–239. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Squire, Larry R. 2004. Memory systems of the brain: A brief history and current perspective. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 82: 171–177. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistic Philosophy 25(5–6): 701–721. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Steen, Gerard. 2005. Basic discourse acts: Towards a psychological theory of discourse segmentation. In Cognitive Linguistics: Internal Dynamics and Interdisciplinary Interaction [Cognitive Linguistics Research 32], M. Sandra Peňa Cervel & Francisco Ruiz de Mendoza Ibáñez (eds), 283–312. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph P. & MacWhinney, Brian. 1986. Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms. Memory and Cognition 14: 17–26. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Tompkins, Connie A. 1995. Right Hemisphere Communication Disorders: Theory and Management. San Diego CA: Singular.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2008. Theoretical considerations for understanding “Understanding” by adults with right hemisphere brain damage. Perspectives on Neurophysiology and Neurogenetic Speech and Language Disorders 18(2): 45–54. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Ullman, Michael T. 2004. Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition 92(1–2): 231–270. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
2015. The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language learning, knowledge, and use. In Neurobiology of Language, Gregory Hickok & Steven L. Small (eds), 953–968. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun. 1980. Macrostructures. An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana. 2001. Preserved formulaic expressions in a case of transcortical sensory aphasia compared to incidence in normal everyday speech. Brain and Language 79(1): 38–41.Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 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: 1–44. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2009. Formulaic and novel language in a ‘dual process’ model of language competence: Evidence from surveys, speech samples, and schemata. In Formulaic Language, Vol. 2: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, and Functional Explanations [Typological Studies in Language 83], Roberta Corrigan, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali & Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds), 445–470. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
. 2012. Formulaic language and language disorders. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 62–80. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana & Rallon, Gail. 2004. Tracking the incidence of formulaic expressions in everyday speech: Methods for classification and verification. Language and Communication 24: 207–240. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana & Postman, Whitney A. 2006. Formulaic expressions in spontaneous speech of left- and right-hemisphere-damaged subjects. Aphasiology 20(5): 411–426. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana & Sidtis, John. 2018. The affective nature of formulaic language: A right-hemisphere subcortical process. Frontiers in Neurology 9: 573. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: CUP. Google Scholar logo with link to Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Heine, Bernd
2023. The Grammar of Interactives, DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 3 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.

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