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. 1–25

The brain and the mind behind grammar

Dualistic approaches in grammar research and (neuro)cognitive studies of language

| University of Münster
| University of Graz
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction: Two traditions of grammatical research
  • 2.Linguistic approaches to dualism
  • 3.Psychological approaches to dualism
  • 4.Neurological approaches to dualism
  • 5.The contributions to this volume
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.70.int
References (120)
References
Auer, P. 2009. On-line syntax: thoughts on the temporality of spoken language. Language Sciences 31(1), 1–13. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bahlmann, J., Gunter, T., & Friederici, A. 2006. Hierarchical and linear sequence processing: An electrophysiological exploration of two different grammar types. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 18, 1829–1842. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Berrendonner, A. 1990. Pour une macro-syntaxe. Travaux de Linguistiques, 21, 25–36.Google Scholar
2003. Eléments pour une macro-syntaxe: actions communicatives, types de clauses, structures périodiques. In: A. Scarano (Ed.), Macro-syntaxe et pragmatique. L’analyse linguistique de l’oral. Actes du colloque international de Florence, avril 1999 (93–110). Roma: Bulzoni.Google Scholar
Blakemore, D. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning: The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. ‘Or’-parentheticals, ‘that is’-parentheticals and the pragmatics of reformulation. Journal of Linguistics, 43, 311–339. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blanche-Benviste, C. et al. 1990. Le frainçais parlé: Etudes grammaticales. Paris: CNRS.Google Scholar
Blanken, G. 1991. The functional basis of speech automatisms (recurring utterances). Aphasiology, 5, 103–127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blonder, L., Bowers, D., & Heilman, K. 1991. The role of the RH in emotional communication. Brain 114 (3), 1115–1127. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. 1976. Meaning and memory. Forum Linguisticum 1, 1–14.Google Scholar
Borod, J., Bloom, R., Brickman, A., Nakhutina, L. & Curko, E. 2002. Emotional processing deficits in individuals with unilateral brain damage. Applied Neuropsychology 9(1), 23–36. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boye, K., & Harder, P. 2012. A usage-based theory of grammatical status and grammaticalization. Language, 88, 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
Brady, M., Armstrong, L., & Mackenzie, C. 2006. An examination over time of language and discourse production abilities following right hemisphere brain damage. Journal of Neurolinguistics 19(4), 291–310. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brauer, J., & Friederici, A. 2007. Functional neural networks of semantic and syntactic processes in the developing brain. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 19, 1609–1623. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brownell, H. & Joanette, Y. (Eds.). 1993. Narrative discourse in neurological impaired and normal aging adults. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Bybee, J. 2010. Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caplan, Rochelle & Mirella Dapretto. 2001. Making sense during conversation: An fMRI study. Neuroreport 12(16), 3625–3632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chafe, W. 1994. Discourse, consciousness and time. The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.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, 413–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chantraine, Y., Joanette, Y., & Ska, B. 1998. Conversational abilities in patients with right hemisphere damage. In M. Paradis (Ed.), Pragmatics in neurogenic communication disorders (21–32). Oxford: Pergamon Press.Google Scholar
Clark, H. H. 1996. Using Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. E. 2002. Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73–111. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Code, C. 1987. Language, aphasia, and the right hemisphere. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
1991. Speech automatisms and recurring utterances. In C. Code (Ed.), The characteristics of aphasia (155–177). London: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
1997. Can the right hemisphere speak? Brain and Language, 57, 38–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Coulmas, F. 1981. Conversational routine: Explorations in standardized communication situations and prepatterned speech. The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Cresti, E. 2000. Critère illocutoire et articulation informative. In: M. Bilger (Ed.), Corpus. Méthodologie et applications linguistiques (350–367). Paris: Champion.Google Scholar
Debaisieux, J.-M. 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
2018. Utterances: One speaker but two resources, micro and macro syntax. Paper presented at the International Workshop One Brain –Two Grammars? Examining dualistic approaches to grammar and cognition , Rostock, 1–2 March 2018.
Degand, L. & Evers-Vermeul, J. 2015. Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers? More than a terminological issue. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16 (1), 59–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deloufeu, J. 2017. La macrosyntaxe comme moyen de tracer la limite entre organisation grammaticale et organisation du discours. Modèles Linguistiques, 73, 135–166.Google Scholar
Devinsky, O. 2000. Right cerebral hemisphere dominance for a sense of corporeal and emotional self. Epilepsy and Behavior 1(1), 60–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, S. C. 1997. The theory of Functional Grammar, Part 2: Complex and Derived Constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Edwards, S., & Knott, R. 1994. Assessing spontaneous language abilities of aphasic speakers. In: D. Graddol, & J. Swann (Eds.), Evaluating language (91–101). Clevedon, OH: Multilingual Matters.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. 2003. In two minds: dual processs accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(10), 454–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Dual processsing accounts of reasoning, judgment and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Questions and challenges for the new psychology of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning 18(1), 5–31. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. E. 1996. Rationality and Reasoning. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. 2013. Dual-process theories of higher cognition – Advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8(3), 23–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frankish, K. 2010. Dual-process and dual-system theories of reasoning. Philosophy Compass 5(10), 914–926. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frankish, K., & Evans, J. St. B. T. 2009. The duality of mind: An historical perspective. In: J. St. B. T. Evans, & K. Frankish (Eds.), Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond (1–29). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank-Job, B. 2006. A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In: K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse particles (359–374). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Friederici, A. 2004. The neural basis of syntactic processes. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (789–801). Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
Friederici, A., & Alter, K. 2004. Lateralization of auditory language functions: A dynamic dual pathway model. Brain and Language 89(2), 267–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friederici, A., Bahlmann, J., Heim, S., Schubotz, R. & Anwander, A. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, M. 1990. Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Goldinger, S. D. 1998. Echoes of echoes? An episodic theory of lexical acces. Psychological Review 105, 251–279. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graesser, A. C., Singer, M., & Trabasso, T. 1994. Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review, 101, 371–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greene, S. B., McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. 1992. Pronoun resolution and discourse models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition, 18, 266–283.Google Scholar
Griffin, R., Friedman, O., Ween, J., Winner, E., Happé, F., & Brownell, H. 2006. Theory of mind and the right cerebral hemisphere: refining the scope of impairment. Laterality, 11, 195–225. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hagoort, P. 2005. On Broca, brain, and binding: A new framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 416–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Happé, F., Brownell, H., & Winner, E. 1999. Acquired “theory of mind” impairments following stroke. Cognition, 70, 211–240. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haselow, A. 2013. Arguing for a wide conception of grammar: The case of final particles in spoken discourse. Folia Linguistica 47(2), 375–424. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016a. A processual view on grammar: Macrogrammar and the ‘final field’ in spoken syntax. Language Sciences, 54, 77–101. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2016b. Intensifying adverbs ʽoutside the clauseʼ. In: G. Kaltenböck, E. Keizer, & A. Lohmann (Eds.), Outside the Clause (379–415). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Spontaneous spoken English. An integrated approach to the emergent grammar of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. 2016. Extra-clausal constituents and language contact. The case of discourse markers. In G. Kaltenböck, E. Keizer, & A. Lohmann (Eds.), Outside the clause (243–272). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. Some observations on the dualistic nature of discourse processing. Folia Linguistica 53(2), 411–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Kuteva, T., Kaltenböck, G., & Long, H. 2013. An outline of Discourse Grammar. In: S. Bischoff & C. Jeny (Eds.), Reflections on functionalism in linguistics (175–233). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., Kuteva, T., & Long, H. 2017. Cooptation as a discourse strategy. Linguistics, 55, 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hengeveld, K., & Mackenzie, L. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar: A typologically based theory of language structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. Functional Discourse Grammar. In: B. Heine & H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis (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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ifantidou-Trouki, E. 1993. Sentential adverbs and relevance. Lingua, 90(1–2), 69–90. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, R. 1995. The boundaries of the lexicon. In M. Everaert, E.-J. van der Linden, A. Schenk, & R. Schreuder (Eds.), Idioms. Structural and psychological perspectives (133–169). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Joseph, R. 1990. Neuropsychiatry, neuropsychology and behavioral neurology. New York: Plenum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kac, M. B. 1972. Clauses of saying and the interpretation of because . Language 48(3), 626–632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. 2011. Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S. 2002. Representativeness revisited: Attribute substitution in intuitive judgement. In: T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (49–81). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, G., Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4), 848–893. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W. 1988. The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction–integration model. Psychological Review, 95, 163–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehman Blake, M. 2010. Communication deficits associated with right hemisphere brain damage. In J. S. Damico, N. Muller, & M. J. Ball (Eds.), The handbook of language and speech disorders (556–576). Chichester, UK: Wiley-Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lum, J. A. G., & Bleses, D. 2012. Declarative and procedural memory in Danish speaking children with specific language impairment. Journal of Communication Disorders 45(1), 46–58. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marini, A., Carlomagno, S., Caltagirone, C., & Nocentini, U. 2005. The role played by the RH in the organization of complex textual structures. Brain and Language, 93, 46–54. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marini, A. 2012. Characteristics of narrative discourse processing after damage to the right hemisphere. Seminars in Speech and Language 33(1), 68–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Y. 1994. Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society, 23, 325–366. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2009. Metalanguage in interaction: Hebrew discourse markers. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McDonald, S. 1999. Exploring the process of inference generation in sarcasm: a review of normal and clinical studies. Brain and Language 68(3), 486–506. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKoon, G., & Ratcliff, R. 1990. Priming in item recognition: The organization of propositions in memory for text. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 19, 369–386. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1992. Inference during reading. Psychological Review, 99, 440–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1998. Memory based language processing: Psycholinguistic research in the 1990’s. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 25–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, R. L. C., & Crow, T. J. 2005. Right hemisphere language functions and schizophrenia: The forgotten hemisphere? Brain 128(5), 963–978. 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
Moon, R. E. 1998. Fixed expressions and text: A study of the distribution and textual behavior of fixed expressions in English. Oxford: Clarendon Press.Google Scholar
Myers, P. 1994. Communication disorders associated with right-hemisphere brain damage. In Chapey, R. (Ed.), Language intervention strategies in aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders (514–534). Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Google Scholar
Myers, P. S. 1999. Right hemisphere damage: Disorders of communication and cognition. San Diego, CA: Singular.Google Scholar
Okada, R., Okuda, T., Nakano, N., Nishimatsu, K., Fukushima, H. et al. 2013. Brain areas associated with sentence processing: A functional MRI study and a lesion study. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 26, 470–478. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Parola, A., Gabbatore, I., Bosco, F., Bara, B., Cossa, F., Gindri, P. & Sacco, K. 2016. Assessment of pragmatic impairment in right hemisphere damage. Journal of Neurolinguistics 39 (1), 10–25. DOI logoGoogle 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). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pallier, C., Devauchelle, A., & Dehaene, S. 2011. Cortical representation of the constituent structure of sentences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 108, 2522–2527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Prat, C. S., Long, D. L., & Baynes, K. 2007. The representation of discourse in the two hemispheres: An individual differences investigation. Brain and Language 100(3), 283–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Roll, M., Gosselke, S., Lindgren, M., & Horne, M. 2013. Time-driven effects on processing grammatical agreement. Frontiers in Psychology 4, 1004. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sabbagh, M. A. 1999. Communicative intentions and language: evidence from right hemisphere damage and autism. Brain and Language 70(1), 29–69. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schremm, A., Horne, M., & Roll, M. 2015. Brain responses to syntax constrained by time-driven implicit prosodic phrases. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 35, 68–84. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sebeok, T. A. 1972. Perspectives in Zoosemiotics. The Hague: Mouton.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 (4), 213–239. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sinclair, J. 1991. Corpus, Concordance, Collocation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sloman, S. A. 1996. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Speedie, L. J., Wertmann, E., Ta’ir, J., & Heilman, K. 1993. Disruption of automatic speech following a right basal ganglia lesion. Neurology, 43, 1768–1774. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E. 1999. Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2004. The robot’s rebellion: Finding meaning in the age of Darwin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tenpenny, P. L. 1995. Abstractionist versus episodic theories of repetition priming and word identification. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 3, 339–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tompkins, C., Fassbinder, W., Lehman-Blake, M., & Baumgaertner, A. 2002. The nature and implications of right hemisphere language disorders: Issues in search of answers. In: A. E. Hillis (Ed.), The handbook of adult language disorders: Integrating cognitive neuropsychology, neurology, and rehabilitation (429–448). New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Traugott, E. C. 1995. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the International Conference of Historical Linguistics XII, Manchester (available at [URL])
Ullman, M. T. 2004. Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition 92(1–2), 231–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiological model of language learning, knowledge, and use. In: Gregory Hickok and Steven L. Small (Eds.), Neurobiology of language (953–968). Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Ullman, M. T., 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
van Dijk, T. A. 1980. Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction, and cognition. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Van Lancker, D. 1990. The neurology of proverbs. Behavioral Neurology, 3, 169–187. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1993. Nonpropositional speech in aphasia. In G. Blanken, J. Dittmann, H. Grimm, J. C. Marshall, & C.-W. Wallesch (Eds.), Linguistic disorders and pathologies. An international handbook (215–224). Berlin: Walter de Gruyter.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. DOI logoGoogle 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, H. Ouali, & Kathleen M. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic Language. Volume 2: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, and Functional Explanations (445–470). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D., & Postman, W. 2006. Formulaic expressions in spontaneous speech of left and right-hemisphere-damaged subjects. Aphasiology 20(5), 411–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D. & Sidtis, J. 2018. The affective nature of formulaic language: A right- hemisphere subcortical process. Frontiers in Neurology, 9, 573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vigneau, M., Beauscousin, V., Herve, P., Duffau, H., Crivello, F., Houde, O., Mazoyer, B., & Tzourio-Mazoyer, N. 2006. Meta-analyzing left hemisphere language areas: Phonology, semantics, and sentence processing. NeuroImage, 30, 1414–1432. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wharton, T. 2003. Interjections, language, and the ‘showing/saying’ continuum. Pragmatics & Cognition, 11(1), 39–91. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua, 90(1–2), 1–25. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, A. 2002. Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, A., & Perkins, M. 2000. The functions of formulaic language: An integrated model. Language & Communication 20(1), 1–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar