Cover not available
Part of
Grammar and Cognition: Dualistic models of language structure and language processing
Edited by Alexander Haselow and Gunther Kaltenböck
[Human Cognitive Processing 70] 2020
► pp. 133–155

Chapter 4
Dual processing in a functional-cognitive theory of grammar and its neurocognitive basis

| University of Copenhagen
| University of Copenhagen
Functional-cognitive linguists are typically more interested in what is shared between grammar and other aspects of language than in what is special about grammar. Construction grammar as the currently most prominent functional-cognitive theory of grammar explicitly downplays the grammar-lexicon distinction and suggests a model based on the notion of ‘constructicon’ as a unified inventory of linguistic expressions. In a neurocognitive perspective, this goes naturally with the idea of a single processing mechanism. Neurolinguistic evidence does not support this extreme position, however, but rather suggests a significant difference between lexical and grammatical processing. There is thus a need for a more well-developed functional-cognitive theory of the neurocognitive underpinning of the grammar-lexicon distinction. In this chapter we present a theory of the specific nature of grammar, which integrates three recent theories: a usage-based linguistic theory of the grammar-lexicon distinction (Boye & Harder 2012), a theory of the distinction between declarative and procedural memory (Ullman 2001, 2004), and a theory of brain organization (Mogensen 2011).
Keywords: grammar, procedural knowledge, functional-cognitive linguistics, construction grammar
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Construction grammar and the distinction between lexicon and grammar
  • 3.Our proposal: Secondary prominence and dependency
  • 4.Modularity vs. parallel distributed processing
  • 5.A neurocognitive framework: The REF model
  • 6.Two aspects of the language ability: The ability to retrieve from the cognitive store – and the ability to combine retrieved items
  • 7.Grammar in a differentiated spectrum of ‘dualities’
  • 8.Summary and conclusions
  • Note
  • References
Published online: 12 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.70.04boy
References (48)
References
Bates, E. 1999. Plasticity, localization and language development. In S. Broman, & J. M. Fletcher (Eds.), The changing nervous system: Neurobehavioral consequences of early brain disorders (214–253). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Berwick, R. C., & Chomsky, N. 2016. Why Only Us. Language and evolution. Cambridge, M.A.: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bock, K. 1987. An effect of the accessibility of word forms on sentence structures. Journal of memory and language 26(2), 119–137. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, K., & Harder, P. 2012. A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language 88(1), 1–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, K., & Bastiaanse, R. 2018. Grammatical versus lexical words in theory and aphasia: Integrating linguistics and neurolinguistics. Glossa: a journal of general linguistics 3(1), 29. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bundesen, C. 1990. A theory of visual attention. Psychological Review, 97, 523–547. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Christensen, M. H., Vinther, N. M., Kristensen, L. B., & Boye, K. (Under revision). Grammar as a backgrounder in sentence processing.
Croft, W. 2007. Construction Grammar. In D. Geeraerts & H. Cuyckens (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Cognitive Linguistics (463–508). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Curtiss, S. 2013. Revisiting modularity: Using language as a window to the mind. In M. Piatelli Palmarini & R. C. Berwick (Eds.), Rich languages from poor inputs (68–90). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dabrowska, Ewa. 2004. Rules or schemas? Evidence from Polish. Language and Cognitive Processes 19(2), 225–271. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Damasio, A. R. 1992. Aphasia. The New England Journal of Medicine, 326(8), 531–539. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Danelli, L., Cossu, G., Berlingeri, M., Bottini, G., Sberna, M., & Paulesu, E. 2013. Is a lone right hemisphere enough? Neurolinguistic architecture in a case with a very early left hemispherectomy. Neurocase 19(3), 209–231. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ellis, N. C. 2007. The weak interface, consciousness, and form-focused instruction: mind the doors. In S. Fotos & H. Nassaji (Eds.), Form-focused Instruction and Teacher Education. Studies in honour of Rod Ellis (17–34). Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fadiga, L., Craighero, L., & D’Ausilio, A. 2009. Broca’s Area in Language, Action, and Music. Ann.NYAcad.Sci, 1169, 448–458. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Garrett, M. F. 1975. The analysis of sentence production. In G. Bower (Ed.), Psychology of learning and motivation (133–177). New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Harder, P. 2010. Meaning in Mind and Society. A Functional Contribution to the Social Turn in Cognitive Linguistics. (Cognitive Linguistics Research 41). Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K., & J. L. Mackenzie. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically-based theory of language structure. Oxford: University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ibbotson, P., & Tomasello, M. 2016. Evidence Rebuts Chomsky’s Theory of Language Learning. Scientific American, 7 September, 2016.Google Scholar
Ishkhanyan, B., Sahraoui, H., Harder, P., Mogensen, J., & Boye, K. 2017. Grammatical and lexical pronoun dissociation in French speakers with agrammatic aphasia: A usage-based account and REF-based hypothesis. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 44, 1–16. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ishkhanyan, B., Boye, K. & Mogensen, J. 2019. The meeting point: Where language production and working memory share resources. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research 48(1), 61–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Krifka, M. 2007. Functional similarities between bimanual coordination and topic/comment structure. In S. Ishihara, S. Jannedy, & A. Schwarz (Eds.), Interdisciplinary studies on information structure (ISIS) 8 (Working Papers of the SFB 632) (61–96). Potsdam: Universitätsverlag.Google Scholar
Langacker, R. W. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar. Vol 1, Theoretical prerequisites. Stanford, CA. Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Levelt, W. J. M. 1989. Speaking: From intention to articulation. Cambridge: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Martínez-Ferreiro, S., Ishkhanyan, B., Rosell-Clarí, V., & Boye, K. 2017. Grammatical verbs in Spanish-speaking individuals with aphasia. Studies in Language and Mind, 2, 175–209.Google Scholar
2019. Prepositions and pronouns in connected discourse of individuals with aphasia. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics 33(6), 497–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McClelland, J. L., & Patterson, K. 2002. Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: What does the evidence rule out? Trends in Cognitive Sciences 6(11), 465–472. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Messerschmidt, M., Boye, K., Overmark, M. M., Kristensen, S. T., & Harder, P. 2018. Sondringen mellem grammatiske og leksikalske præpositioner. [The distinction between grammatical and lexical prepositions]. Ny forskning i grammatik, 25, 89–106.Google Scholar
Michel Lange, V., Messerschmidt, M., Harder, P., Siebner, H. R., & Boye, K. 2017. Planning and production of grammatical and lexical verbs in multi-word messages. PLoS ONE, 12.11. e0186685. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Michel Lange, V., Messerschmidt, M., & Boye, K. 2018. Contrasting grammatical and lexical determiners. Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 47, 467. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mogensen, J. 2011. Almost unlimited potentials of a limited neural plasticity: Levels of plasticity in development and reorganization of the injured brain. Journal of Consciousness Studies, 18, 13–45.Google Scholar
2014. Reorganization of Elementary Functions (REF) after brain injury and in the intact brain: A novel understanding of neurocognitive organization and reorganization. In J. Costa, & E. Villalba (Eds.), Horizons in neuroscience research, Vol. 15 (99–140). New York: Nova Science Publishers.Google Scholar
Nevat, M., Ullman, M. T., Eviatar, Z., & Bitan, T. (submitted). The neural bases of the learning and generalization of morphological inflection. Neuropsychologia.
Pinker, S. 1999. Words and Rules. The ingredients of language. New York. Basic Books.Google Scholar
Pinker, S., & Prince, A. 1988. On language and connectionism: Analysis of a parallel distributed processing model of language acquisition. Cognition, 28, 73–193. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pulvermüller, F., Capelle, B., & Shtyrov, Y. 2013. Brain basis of meaning, words, constructions, and grammar. In T. Hoffmann, & G. Trousdale (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of construction grammar. Oxford Handbooks Online, DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rosenberg, B., Zurif, E., Brownell, H., Garrett, M., & Bradley, D. 1985. Grammatical class effects in relation to normal and aphasic sentence processing. Brain and Language 26(2), 287–303. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rumelhart, D., & McClelland, J. 1986. Parallel distributed processing. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sidtis, J. J., D. V. L. Sidtis, V. Dhawan and D. Eidelberg. 2018. Switching Language Modes: Complementary Brain Patterns for Formulaic and Propositional Language. Brain Connectivity 8(3): 189–196. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sperber, D., & D. Wilson. 1995. Relevance: Communication and cognition. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.Google Scholar
Trousdale, G. 2014. On the relationship between grammaticalization and constructionalization. Folia Linguistica, 48, 557–577. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M., Corkin, S., Coppola, M., Hickok, G., Growdon, J. H., Koroshetz, W. J., & Pinker, S. 1997. A neural dissociation within language: Evidence that the mental dictionary is part of declarative memory, and that grammatical rules are processed by the procedural system. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 9, 289–299. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M. 2001. The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: the declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition 4(2), 105–122. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative-procedural model. Cognition 92(1), 231–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ullman, M. T. 2016. The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language learning, knowledge and use. In G. Hickok, & S. A. Small (Eds.). The neurobiology of language (953–968). Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker-Sidtis, D., A. R. McIntosh and S. Grafton. 2003. PET activation studies comparing two speech tasks widely used in surgical mapping. Brain and Language 85, 245–261. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D. 2012. Formulaic Language and Language Disorders. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 62–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Valin, R. 1993. A synopsis of Role and Reference Grammar. In R. Van Valin (Ed.), Advances in Role and Reference Grammar (1–164). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Vinther, N. M., Boye, K., & Kristensen, L. B. 2014. Grammatikken i baggrunden: Opmærksomhed under læsning [Grammar in the background: Attention in reading]. NyS, 47, 99–139. DOI logoGoogle Scholar