Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-tf8b9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T03:06:50.791Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Discourse Grammar, the dual process model, and brain lateralization: some correlations*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 January 2014

BERND HEINE ,
TANIA KUTEVA  and
GUNTHER KALTENBÖCK
BERND HEINE*
Affiliation:
University of Köln
TANIA KUTEVA
Affiliation:
University of Düsseldorf
GUNTHER KALTENBÖCK
Affiliation:
University of Vienna
*
†Address for correspondence: e-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Some more recent lines of research converge on claiming that human cognitive behavior in general and linguistic discourse in particular cannot reasonably be reduced to one monolithic system of cognitive activity. What this research suggests, rather, is that this behavior exhibits a dualistic organization. In the present paper, two frameworks representing this tradition are contrasted, namely Discourse Grammar and the dual process model. The former rests on observations on language structure and language use, while the latter was developed on the basis of neurolinguistic observations. The two frameworks converge on claiming that there is a significant correlation between linguistic categorization and hemisphere-based brain activity. The present paper argues that this correlation can be related to contrasting linguistic functions associated with each of the two hemispheres.

Keywords

aphasiaDiscourse Grammardual process modelformulaic speechright hemispherethetical
Type
Research Article
Information
Language and Cognition , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2014 , pp. 146 - 180
Copyright
Copyright © UK Cognitive Linguistics Association 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

*

We wish to express our gratitude to a number of colleagues who have been of help in writing this paper, providing many critical comments, most of all to Franck Floricic, but also to Walter Bisang, Laurel Brinton, Claudine Chamoreau, Ulrike Claudi, Bob Dixon, Wolfgang Dressler, Jack DuBois, Tom Givón, Martin Haspelmath, Jack Hawkins, Christa König, Haiping Long, Gábor Nagy, Heiko Narrog, Klaus-Uwe Panther, Seongha Rhee, Diana Sidtis, Kyung-An Song, Danjie Su, Arie Verhagen, as well as to the participants of the International Conference on Final Particles, held in Rouen on 27−28 May 2010, to the participants of the conference Beyond Dichotomies, held in Budapest on 25−26 October, 2010, to the participants of the conference on Competing Motivations, held in Leipzig on 23−25 November 2010, as well as to the participants of the International Conference on Grammaticalization, Rouen, 10−11 May 2012. Finally, we are also grateful to the Korean Ministry of Education, Science, and Technology for generously having sponsored the research leading to this paper within its World Class University Program, as well as to Matthias Brenzinger and the University of Cape Town for having provided an optimal research environment for part of this research.

References

references

Aikhenvald, A. Y. (2010). Imperatives and commands. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ameka, F. (1992a). Interjections: the universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics, 18 (2/3), 101–118.Google Scholar
Ameka, F. (1992b). The meaning of phatic and conative interjections. Journal of Pragmatics, 18 (2/3), 245–271.Google Scholar
Bartels-Tobin, L. R., & Hinckley, J. J. (2005). Cognition and discourse production in right hemisphere disorder. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 18 (6), 461–477.Google Scholar
Bates, K. (1976). Language and context. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Bay, E. (1964). Principles of classification and their influence on our concepts of aphasia. In De Reuck, A. V. S. & O’Connor, M. (Eds.), Disorders of language: CIBA Symposium (pp. 122–142). London: J. and A. Churchill.Google Scholar
Beeman, M. (1998). Coarse semantic coding and discourse comprehension. In Beeman, M. C. & Chiarello, C. (Eds.), Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 255–284). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Beeman, M., & Chiarello, C. (1998). Complementary right- and left-hemisphere language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 7 (1), 1−8.Google Scholar
Berman, S. M., Mandelkern, M. A., Phan, H., & Zaidel, E. (2003). Complementary hemispheric specialization for word and accent detection. NeuroImage, 19, 319–331.Google Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. (1999). Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Blake, M. L. (2006). Clinical relevance of discourse characteristics after right hemisphere brain damage. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15 (3), 255–267.Google Scholar
Blonder, L. X., Bowers, D., & Heilman, K. M. (1991). The role of the right hemisphere in emotional communication. Brain, 114 (3), 1115–1127.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Blonder, L. X., Pickering, J. E., Heath, R. L., Smith, C. D., & Butler, S. M. (1995). Prosodic characteristics of speech pre- and post-right hemisphere stroke. Brain and Language, 51 (2), 318–335.Google Scholar
Bloom, R. (1994). Hemispheric responsibility and discourse production: contrasting patients with unilateral left and right hemisphere damage. In Bloom, R., Obler, L., De Santi, S., & Ehrlich, J. (Eds.), Discourse analysis and applications: Studies in adult clinical populations (pp. 81–94). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bloom, R., Borod, J., Obler, L. K., & Gerstman, L. (1992). Impact of emotional content on discourse production in patients with unilateral brain damage. Brain and Language, 42, 153–164.Google Scholar
Borod, J. C., Andelman, F., Obler, L. K., Tweedy, J. R., & Welkowitz, J. (1992). Right hemisphere specialization for the identification of emotional words and sentences: evidence from stroke patients. Neuropsychologia, 30 (9), 827–844.Google Scholar
Borod, J. C., Bloom, R. L., Brickman, A. M., Nakhutina, L., & Curko, E. A. (2002). Emotional processing deficits in individuals with unilateral brain damage. Applied Neuropsychology, 9 (1), 23–36.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Borod, J. C., Bloom, R. L., & Santschi Haywood, C. (1998). Verbal aspects of emotional communication in the right cerebral hemisphere. In Beeman, M. & Chiarello, C. (Eds.), Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (pp. 285–307). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Borod, J. C., Rorie, K. D., Haywood, C. S., Andelman, F., Obler, L. K., Welkowitz, J.et al. (1996). Hemispheric specialization for discourse reports of emotional experiences: relationships to demographic, neurological and perceptual variables. Neuropsychologia, 34 (5), 351–359.Google Scholar
Borod, J. C., Rorie, K. D., Pick, L. H., Bloom, R. L., Andelman, F., Campbell, A. L.et al. (2000). Verbal pragmatics following unilateral stroke: emotional content and valence. Neuropsychology, 14 (1), 1–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bozic, M., Tyler, L. K., Ives, D. T., Randall, B., & Marslen-Wilson, W. D. (2010). Bihemispheric foundations for human speech comprehension. PNAS (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) 107 (40), 17439–17444.Google Scholar
Bridges, K. A., Van Lancker Sidtis, D., & Sidtis, J. J. (2013). The role of subcortical structures in recited speech: studies in Parkinson’s disease. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26, 591–601.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. (2008). The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development (Studies in English Language). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2005). Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Brownell, H. H., Potter, H. H., & Bihrle, A. M. (1986). Inference deficits in right brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language, 27 (2), 310–321.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cancelliere, A. E. B., & Kertesz, A. (1990). Lesion localization in acquired deficits of emotional expression and comprehension. Brain and Cognition, 13 (2), 133–147.Google Scholar
Caplan, R., & Dapretto, M. (2001). Making sense during conversation: an fMRI study. Neuro Report, 12 (16), 3625–3632.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Champagne-Lavau, M., & Joanette, Y. (2009). Pragmatics, theory of mind and executive functions after a right-hemisphere lesion: different patterns of deficits. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 22 (5), 413–426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chantraine, Y., Joanette, Y., & Ska, B. (1998). Conversational abilities in patients with right hemisphere damage. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 11 (1/2), 21–32.Google Scholar
Chiarello, C. (1995). Does the corpus callosum play a role in the activation and suppression of ambiguous word meanings? In Kitterle, F. L. (Ed.), Hemispheric communication: Mechanisms and models (pp. 177–188). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. (1996). Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. E. (2002). Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73–111.Google Scholar
Cutica, I., Bucciarelli, M., & Bara, B. G. (2006). Neuropragmatics: extralinguistic pragmatic ability is better preserved in left-hemisphere-damaged patients than in right-hemisphere-damaged patients. Brain and Language, 98 (1), 12–25.Google Scholar
Delis, D., Wapner, W., Gardner, H., & Moses, J. (1983). The contribution of the right hemisphere to the organization of paragraphs. Cortex, 19, 43–50.Google Scholar
Devinsky, O. (2000). Right cerebral hemisphere dominance for a sense of corporeal and emotional self. Epilepsy and Behavior, 1 (1), 60–73.Google Scholar
Drews, E. (1987). Quantitatively different organization structure of lexical knowledge in the left and right hemisphere. Neuropsychologia, 25, 419–427.Google Scholar
Dik, Simon C. (1997). The theory of Functional Grammar, Part 2: Complex and derived constructions (Functional Grammar Series, 21). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Ferré, P., Ska, B., Lajoie, C., Bleau, A., & Joanette, Y. (2011). Clinical focus on prosodic, discursive and pragmatic treatment for right hemisphere damaged adults: what’s right? Rehabilitation Research and Practice 2011 (2011), 1–10.Google Scholar
Foldi, N. S. (1987). Appreciation of pragmatic interpretations of indirect commands: comparison of right and left hemisphere brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language, 31, 88–108.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. D., & Alter, K. (2004). Lateralization of auditory language functions: a dynamic dual pathway model. Brain and Language, 89 (2), 267–276.Google Scholar
Hagoort, P, Brown, C. M., & Swaab, T. Y. (1996). Lexical-semantic event-related potential effects in patients with left hemisphere lesions and aphasia, and patients with right hemisphere lesions without aphasia. Brain, 119, 627–649.Google Scholar
Head, H. (1926). Aphasia and kindred disorders of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B. (2013). On discourse markers: grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics, 51 (6), 1205–1247.Google Scholar
Heine, B., & Kaltenböck, G. (in press). Sentence Grammar vs. Thetical Grammar: two competing systems? In Moravcsik, E., Malchukov, A., & McWhinney, B. (Eds.), Competing motivations.Google Scholar
Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., Kuteva, T., & Long, H. (2013). An outline of Discourse Grammar. In Bischoff, S. & Carmen, J. (Eds.), Reflections on functionalism in linguistics (pp. 175–233). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K., & Mackenzie, J. L. (2008). Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K., & Mackenzie, J. L. (2011). Functional Discourse Grammar. In Heine, B. & Narrog, H. (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (pp. 367–400). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Hirst, W., LeDoux, J., & Stein, S. (1984). Constraints on the processing of indirect speech acts: evidence from aphasiology. Brain and Language, 23, 26–33.Google Scholar
Hough, M. (1990). Narrative comprehension in adults with right and left hemisphere brain damage: theme organization. Brain and Language, 38, 253–277.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R., & Pullum, G. K. (2002). The Cambridge grammar of the English language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Hughlings Jackson, J. (1874 [1932]). On the nature of the duality of the brain. In Taylor, J. (Ed.), Selected writings of John Hughlings Jackson, Volume 2 (pp. 129–145). London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1960). Linguistics and poetics. In Sebeok, T. A. (Ed.), Style in language (pp. 350–377). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. (1980). Brain and language. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Joanette, Y., Goulet, P., & Hannequin, D. (1990). Right hemisphere and verbal communication. New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Joanette, Y., Goulet, P., Ska, B., & Nespoulous, J. (1989). Informative content of narrative discourse in right brain-damaged right-handers. Brain and Language, 29, 81–105.Google Scholar
Joseph, R. (2000). Neuropsychiatry, neuropsychology, clinical neuroscience. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Jung-Beeman, M. (2005). Bilateral brain processes for comprehending natural language. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 512–518.Google Scholar
Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E., & Gernsbacher, M. (2000). Right and left hemisphere cooperation for drawing predictive and coherence inferences during normal story comprehension. Brain and Language, 71, 310–336.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. (2012 ). Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin Books. [First published 2011 by Farrar, Straus, and Giroux, USA.]Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, G., Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. (2011). On thetical grammar. Studies in Language, 35 (4), 848–893.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Karow, C. M., & Connors, E. C. (2003). Affective communication in normal and brain-damaged adults: an overview. Seminars in Speech and Language, 24 (2), 69–91.Google Scholar
Kasparian, K. (2013). Hemispheric differences in figurative language processing: contributions of neuroimaging methods and challenges in reconciling current empirical findings. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26 (1), 1–21.Google Scholar
Kavalova, Y. (2007). And-parenthetical clauses. In Dehé, N. & Kavalova, Y. (Eds.), Parentheticals (Linguistics Today, 106) (pp. 145–172). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Kempler, D., & Van Lancker, D. (1996). The formulaic and novel language comprehension test (FANL-C). Los Angeles: Sparkle Freeway Publications.Google Scholar
Knecht, S., Deppe, M., Dräger, B., Bobe, L., Lohmann, H., Ringelstein, E.-B., & Henningsen, H. (2000). Language lateralization in healthy right-handers. Brain, 123 (1), 74–81.Google Scholar
Kreiman, J., & Sidtis, S. (2011). Foundations of voice studies: An interdisciplinary approach to voice production and perception. London: Wiley, Blackwell.Google Scholar
Kriendler, A., & Fradis, A. (1968). Performances in aphasia. Paris: Gautier-Villars.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. (1972). The categorical and the thetic judgment: evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language, 9, 153–185.Google Scholar
Kurthen, M., Helmstaedter, Ch., Linke, D. B., Solymosi, L., Elger, C. E., & Schramm, J. (1992). Interhemispheric dissociation of expressive and receptive language functions in patients with complex-partial seizures: an amobarbital study. Brain & Language, 43 (4), 694–712.Google Scholar
Lambrecht, K. (1994). Information structure and sentence form. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ley, R. G. (1980). Emotion and the right hemisphere. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation)University of Waterloo.Google Scholar
Ley, R. G., & Bryden, M. P. (1983). Right hemisphere involvement in imagery and effect. In Perecman, E. (Ed.), Cognitive processing in the right hemisphere (pp. 111–123). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Lojek-Osiejuk, E. (1996). Knowledge of scripts reflected in discourse of aphasics and right-brain-damaged patients. Brain and Language, 53, 58–80.Google Scholar
Luria, A. R. (1966). Higher cortical functions in man. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
Luria, A. R. (1974). Language and brain: towards the basic problems of neurolinguistics. Brain and Language, 1, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyons, J. (1977). Semantics (2 volumes). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, C., & Brady, M. (2008). Communication difficulties following right-hemisphere stroke: applying evidence to clinical management. Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 2 (4), 235–247.Google Scholar
Mackenzie, J. L. (1998). The basis of syntax in the holophrase. In Hannay, M. & Bolkestein, A. M. (Eds.), Functional Grammar and verbal interaction (pp. 267–295). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Marini, A. (2012). Characteristics of narrative discourse processing after damage to the right hemisphere. Seminars in Speech and Language, 33 (1), 68–78.Google Scholar
Marini, A., Carlomagno, S., Caltagirone, C., & Nocentini, U. (2005). The role played by the right hemisphere in the organization of complex textual structures. Brain and Language, 93, 46–54.Google Scholar
Maschler, Y. (1994). Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society, 23, 325–366.Google Scholar
McDonald, S., & Wales, R. (1986). An investigation of ability to process inferences in language following right hemisphere brain damage. Brain and Language, 29 (1), 68–80.Google Scholar
Menenti, L, Segaert, K., & Hagoort, P. (2012). The neuronal infrastructure of speaking. Brain and Language, 122 (2), 71–80.Google Scholar
Mitchell, R. L. C., & Crow, T. J. (2005). Right hemisphere language functions and schizophrenia: the forgotten hemisphere? Brain, 128, 963–978.Google Scholar
Molloy, R., Brownell, H. H., & Gardner, H. (1990). Discourse comprehension by right-hemisphere stroke patients: deficits in prediction and revision. In Joanette, Y. & Brownell, H. H. (Eds.), Discourse ability and brain damage: Theoretical and empirical perspectives (pp. 113–130). New York: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Moscovitch, M. (1983). The linguistic and emotional functions of the normal right hemisphere. In Perecman, E. (Ed.), Cognitive processing in the right hemisphere (pp. 57–82). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Myers, P. S. (1978). Analysis of right hemisphere communication deficits: implications for speech pathology. In Brookshire, R. A. (Ed.), Clinical aphasiology: Proceedings of the conference (pp. 49–57). Minneapolis: BRK Publishers.Google Scholar
Myers, P. S. (1994). Communication disorders associated with right-hemisphere brain damage. In Chapey, R. (Ed.), Language intervention strategies in adult aphasia, 3rd ed. (pp. 514–534). Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkens.Google Scholar
Myers, P. S. (1999). Right hemisphere damage: Disorders of communication and cognition. London: Singular Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Norrick, N. R. (2009). Interjections as pragmatic markers. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 866–891.Google Scholar
Ozonoff, S., & Miller, J. N. (1996). An exploration of right-hemisphere contributions to the pragmatic impairments of autism. Brain and Language, 52, 411–436.Google Scholar
Pawley, A. (1992). Formulaic speech. In Bright, W. H. (Ed.), Oxford international encyclopedia of linguistics, Volume 2 (pp. 22–25). New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pawley, A. (2009). Grammarians’ languages versus humanists’ languages and the place of speech act formulas in models of linguistic competence. In Corrigan, R.Moravcsik, E. A.Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. M. (Eds.), Formulaic language. Volume 1: Distribution and historical change (Typological Studies in Language, 82), (pp. 3–26). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Penn, C. (2000). Paying attention to conversation. Brain and Language, 71 (1), 185–189.Google Scholar
Price, C., Thierry, G., & Griffiths, T. (2006). Speech-specific auditory processing: where is it? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9 (6), 271–276.Google Scholar
Prutting, C. A., & Kirchner, D. M. (1987). A clinical appraisal of the pragmatic aspects of language. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52, 105–119.Google Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London & New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Robertson, D. A., Gernsbacher, M. A., Guidotti, S. J., et al. (2000). Functional neuroanatomy of the cognitive process of mapping during discourse comprehension. Psychological Science, 11 (3), 255–260.Google Scholar
Ross, E. D., Thompson, R. D., & Yenkisky, J. (1997). Lateralization of affective prosody in brain and the callosal integration of hemispheric language functions. Brain and Language, 56 (1), 27–54.Google Scholar
Rota, G. (2009). Direct brain feedback and language learning from the gifted. In Dogil, G. & Reiterer, S. M. (Eds.), Language talent and brain activity (pp. 337–350). Berlin: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sasse, H.-J. (1987). The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. Linguistics, 25, 511–580.Google Scholar
Sasse, H.-J. (2006). Theticity. In Bernini, G. & Schwartz, M. L. (Eds.), Pragmatic organization of discourse in the languages of Europe (pp. 255–308). Berlin & New York: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Shammi, P., & Stuss, D. T. (1999). Humour appreciation: a role of the right frontal lobe. Brain, 122 (4), 657–666.Google Scholar
Sherratt, S. (2007). Right brain damage and the verbal expression of emotion: a preliminary investigation. Aphasiology, 21 (3/4), 320–333.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Shields, J. (1991). Semantic-pragmatic disorder: a right hemisphere syndrome? British Journal of Disorders of Communication, 26, 383–392.Google Scholar
Sidtis, D., Canterucci, G., & Katsnelson, D. (2009). Effects of neurological damage on production of formulaic language. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 23 (4), 270–284.Google Scholar
St George, M., Kutas, M., Martinez, A., & Sereno, M. I. (1999). Semantic integration in reading: engagement of the right hemisphere during discourse processing. Brain, 122, 1317–1325.Google Scholar
Tompkins, C. A. (1995). Right hemisphere communication disorders: Theory and management. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C., & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change (Cambridge Studies in Linguistics, 96). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tsur, R. (2010). Poetic conventions as cognitive fossils. Style, 44 (4), 496–523.Google Scholar
Van Lancker, D. (1988). Nonpropositional speech: neurolinguistic studies. In Ellis, A. (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of language, Volume 3 (pp. 49–118). London: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Van Lancker, D. (1990). The neurology of proverbs. Behavioral Neurology, 3, 169–187.Google Scholar
Van Lancker, D. (1997). Rags to riches: our increasing appreciation of cognitive and communicative abilities of the human right cerebral hemisphere. Brain and Language, 57 (1), 1–11.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Lancker, D., & Cummings, J. L. (1999). Expletives: neurolinguistic and neurobehavioral perspectives on swearing. Brain Research Reviews, 31, 83–104.Google Scholar
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), 1–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Van Lancker Sidtis, D. (2009). Formulaic and novel language in a ‘dual process’ model of language competence: evidence from surveys, speech samples, and schemata. In Corrigan, R.Moravcsik, E. A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. M. (Eds.), Formulaic language. Volume 2: Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations (Typological Studies in Language, 83), (pp. 445–470). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D. (2012). Formulaic language and language disorders. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 62–80.Google Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D., & Postman, W. A. (2006). Formulaic expressions in spontaneous speech of left- and right-hemisphere damaged subjects. Aphasiology, 20 (5), 411–426.Google Scholar
Wager, T. D., Phan, K. L., Liberzon, I., & Taylor, S. F. (2003). Valence, gender, and lateralization of functional brain anatomy in emotion: a meta-analysis of findings from neuroimaging. NeuroImage, 19, 513–531.Google Scholar
Weylman, S. T., Brownell, H. H., Roman, M., & Gardner, H. (1989). Appreciation of indirect requests by left- but not right-brain-damaged patients: the effects of verbal context and conventionality of wording. Brain and Language, 36, 580–591.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2002). Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wray, A. (2009). Identifying formulaic language: persistent challenges and new opportunities. In Corrigan, R., Moravcsik, E. A., Ouali, H., & Wheatley, K. M. (Eds.), Formulaic language. Volume 1: Distribution and historical change (Typological Studies in Language, 82), (pp. 27–51). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: Benjamins.Google Scholar