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. 233–265

Chapter 7
Formulaic language and Discourse Grammar

Evidence from speech disorder

| University of Graz
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.
Keywords: formulaic language, Discourse Grammar, thetical, brain lateralisation, aphasia, right hemisphere disorder
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
Published online: 12 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.70.07kal
References (67)
References
Aarts, B. 2017. English Syntax and Argumentation (5th Edition). Basingstoke and London: Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Beeman, M., & Chiarello, C. 1998. Complementary right- and left-hemisphere language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science 7(1), 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berman, S. M., Mandelkern, M. A., Phan, H., & Zaidel E. 2003. Complementary hemispheric specialization for word and accent detection. NeuroImage, 19, 319–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blanken, G., & Marini, V. 1997. Where do lexical speech automatisms come from? Journal of Neurolinguistics, 10, 19–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A. 2004. Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Damasio, H., Grabowski, T., Tranesl, D., Hichwa, R. & Damasio A. 1996. A neural basis for lexical retrieval. Nature, 380, 449–505. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Erman, B., & Warren, B. 2000. The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text 20(1), 29–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Espinal, M. 1991. The representation of disjunct constituents. Language, 67, 726–62. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E. 2003. Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science 7(5), 219–224. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Constructions at Work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Heine, B. 2016. On non-finiteness and canonical imperatives. In C. Chamoreau & Z. Estrada-Fernández (Eds.), Finiteness and nominalization (243–268). Amsterdam: Benjamin.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Kuteva, T., & Kaltenböck, G. 2014. Discourse Grammar, the dual process model, and brain lateralization: some correlations, Language and Cognition, 6, 146–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., Kuteva, T., & Long, H. 2017. Cooptation as a discourse strategy. Journal of Linguistics 55(4), 813–855.Google Scholar
Heine, B., Kuteva, T., & Kaltenböck, G. 2015. On some correlations between grammar and brain lateralization. Oxford Handbooks Online. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hellige, J. B. 1990. Hemispheric asymmetry. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 55–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993. Hemispheric asymmetry: What’s right and what’s left. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Howarth, P. 1998. Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics 19(1), 24–44. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hudson, J. 1998. Perspectives on fixedness: applied and theoretical. Lund: University Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R. 1980. Brain and language. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, G., Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4), 848–893. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Fromm, D., Forbes, M., & Holland, A. 2011. AphasiaBank: Methods for studying discourse. Aphasiology, 25, 1286–1307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McGilchrist, I. 2009. The master and his emissary. The divided brain and the making of the western world. Newhaven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
2015. The origins of emotion and language from the perspective of developmental neuropsychology. In U. Lüdtke (Ed.), Emotion in language (69–97). Amsterdam: Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moon, R. 1998. Frequencies and forms of phrasal lexemes in English. In Cowie, Anthony (Ed.), Phraseology: theory, analysis and applications (79–100). Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Newell, A. 1990. Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Springer, S. P., & Deutsch, G. 1983. Left brain, right brain. A series of books in Psychology. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
1990. The neurology of proverbs. Behavioral Neurology, 3, 169–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. Rags to riches: our increasing appreciation of cognitive and communicative abilities of the human right cerebral hemisphere. Brain and Language, 57, 1–11. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle 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), 144.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Formulaic language and language disorders. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 62–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.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), 411–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, A., & Perkins, M. A. 2000. The functions of formulaic language: an integrated model. Language and Communication 20(1), 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. 2002. Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2006. Formulaic language. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed.), (590–597), Vol 4. Oxford: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. What do we (think we) know about formulaic language? An evaluation of the current state of play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 231–254. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, A., & Namba, K. 2003. Formulaic language in a Japanese-English bilinguial child: A proactical approach to data analysis. Japan Journal for Multilingualism and Multiculturalism 9(1), 24–51.Google Scholar
Cited by (2)

Cited by two other publications

Wray, Alison
2024. Formulaic Sequences and Language Disorders. In The Handbook of Clinical Linguistics, Second Edition, ► pp. 177 ff. DOI logo
Haselow, Alexander
2021. Chapter 6. Discourse markers and brain lateralization. In Studies at the Grammar-Discourse Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series, 219], ► pp. 158 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 19 july 2024. 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.