Chapter 6
Discourse markers and brain lateralization
Evidence for dual language processing from neurological
disorders
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
Ameka, Felix. 1992. Interjections: The universal yet neglected part
of speech. Journal of Pragmatics 18: 101–118.
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.
Bartels-Tobin, Lori R. & Hinckley, Jacqueline. 2005. Cognition and discourse production in right
hemisphere disorder. Journal of Neurolinguistics 18: 461–477.
Beeching, Kate & Detges Ulrich (eds). 2014. Discourse Functions at the Right and Left Periphery:
Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language
Change. Leiden: Brill.
Beeman, Mark & Chiarello, Christine. 1998. Complementary right- and left-hemisphere language
comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science 7(1): 1–8.
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.
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.
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.
Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and
Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP.
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire, Bilger, Mireille, Rouget, Christine & Van den Eynde, Karel. 1990. Le Français Parlé: Études Grammaticales. Paris: Éditions du CNRS.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Brownell, Hiram H. & Joanette, Yves (eds). 1993. Narrative Discourse in Neurological Impaired and Normal
Aging Adults. San Diego CA: Singular.
Butterworth, Brian. 1994. Disorders of sentence production. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of
London B 346: 55–61.
Bybee, Joan L. 1995. Regular morphology and the
lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10: 425–455.
Caplan, Rochelle & Dapretto, Mirella. 2001. Making sense during conversation: An fMRI
study. Neuroreport 12(16): 3625–3632.
Centeno, José & Obler, Loraine. 2001. Agrammatic verb errors in Spanish speakers and
their normal discourse correlates. Journal of Neurolinguistics 14(2): 349–363.
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.
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..
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.
Code, Chris. 1997. Can the right hemisphere speak? Brain and Language 57: 38–59.
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.
Crible, Ludivine & Cuenca, María-Josep. 2017. Discourse markers in speech: Characteristics and
challenges for corpus annotation. Dialogue and Discourse 8(2): 149–166.
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.
Cuenca, María Josep & Crible, Ludivine. 2019. Co-occurrence of discourse markers in English:
From juxtaposition to composition. Journal of Pragmatics 140: 171–184.
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.
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.
Degand, Liesbeth & Simon, Anne-Catherine. 2009. On identifying basic discourse units in speech:
Theoretical and empirical issues. Discours 4.
Deulofeu, José. 2017. La macrosyntaxe comme moyen de tracer la limite
entre organisation grammaticale et organisation du
discours. Modèles Linguistiques 74: 135–166.
Devinsky, Orrin. 2000. Right cerebral hemisphere dominance for a sense
of corporeal and emotional self. Epilepsy and Behavior 1(1): 60–73.
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fischer, Kerstin. 2000. From Cognitive Semantics to Lexical Pragmatics: The
Functional Polysemy of Discourse Particles. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Fraser, Bruce. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31(7): 931–952.
Fraser, Bruce. 2015. The combining of discourse markers – A
beginning. Journal of Pragmatics 86: 48–53.
Friederici, Angela. 2004. The neural basis of syntactic
processes. In The Cognitive Neurosciences, Michael S. Gazzaniga (ed.), 789–801. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.
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.
Friederici, Angela & Alter, Kai. 2004. Lateralization of auditory language functions: A
dynamic dual pathway model. Brain and Language 89(2): 267–276.
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.
Gernsbacher, Morton. 1990. Language Comprehension as Structure Building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
González, Momtserrat. 2005. Pragmatic markers and discourse coherence
relations in English and Catalan oral
narrative. Discourse Studies 77(1): 53–86.
Graesser, Arthur C., Singer, Murray & Trabasso, Tom. 1994. Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review 101, 371–395.
Greene, Steven B., McKoon, Gail & Ratcliff, Roger. 1992. Pronoun resolution and discourse models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 18, 266–283.
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Hodder Arnold.
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.
Haselow, Alexander. 2017. Spontaneous Spoken English. An Integrated Approach to
the Emergent Grammar of Speech. Cambridge: CUP.
Haselow, Alexander. 2019. Discourse marker sequences: Insights into the
serial order of communicative tasks in real-time turn
production. Journal of Pragmatics 146: 1–18.
Heine, Bernd. 2019. Some observations on the dualistic nature of
discourse processing. Folia Linguistica 53(2): 411–442.
Heine, Bernd, Kuteva, Tania & Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2014. Discourse grammar, the dual process model, and
brain lateralization: Some correlations. Language & Cognition 6: 146–180.
Heine, Bernd, Kuteva, Tania, Kaltenböck, Gunther & Long, Haiping. 2015. On some correlation between grammar and brain
lateralization. Oxford Handbooks Online. Oxford: OUP.
Heine, Bernd, Kuteva, Tania & Long, Haiping. 2020. Dual process frameworks on reasoning and
linguistic discourse. In Haselow & Kaltenböck (eds), 59–89.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. Language Description: The Cambridge Grammar of the
English Language. Cambridge: CUP.
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35: 852–897.
Keizer, Evelien. 2015. A Functional Discourse Grammar for English. Oxford: OUP.
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.
Kintsch, Walter. 1988. The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review 95, 163–182.
Lehman-Blake, Margaret. 2006. Clinical relevance of discourse characteristics
after right hemisphere brain damage. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 15(3): 255–267.
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.
Long, Debra, Baynes, Kathleen, & Prat, Chantel. 2005. The propositional structure of discourse in the two cerebral hemispheres. Brain and Language 95(3), 383–394.
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.
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.
Marini, Andrea. 2012. Characteristics of narrative discourse processing
after damage to the right hemisphere. Seminars in Speech and Language 33(1): 68–78.
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.
MacWhinney, Brian, Fromm, Davida, Forbes, Margret & Holland, Audrey. 2011. AphasiaBank: Methods for studying
discourse. Aphasiology 25: 1286–1307.
McEldruff, Kathleen & Drummond, Sakina. 1991. Communication functions of automatic speech in
non fluent aphasia. Aphasiology 5: 265–278.
McKoon, Gail & Ratcliff, Roger. 1992. Inference during reading. Psychological Review 99, 440–466.
Mitchell, Rachel L. C. & Crow, Tim J. 2005. Right hemisphere language functions and
schizophrenia: The forgotten hemisphere? Brain 128(5): 963–978.
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.
Myers, Penelope S. 1999. Right Hemisphere Damage: Disorders of Communication and
Cognition. San Diego CA: Singular.
Myers, Penelope S. 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.
Oelschlaeger, Mary & Damico, Jack S. 1998. Spontaneous verbal repetition: A social strategy
in aphasic conversation. Aphasiology 12: 971–988.
Pallier, Christophe, Devauchelle, Anne-Dominique & Dehaene, Stanislas. 2011. Cortical representation of the constituents
structure of sentences. PNAS 108(6): 2522–2527.
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.
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.
Purdy, Mary H. 2002. Script knowledge following stroke. Journal of Medical Speech Language Pathology 10(3): 173–181.
Redeker, Gisela. 2006. Discourse markers as attentional cues at
discourse transitions. In Approaches to Discourse Particles, Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 339–358. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
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.
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP.
Schnitzer, Marc L. 1989. The Pragmatic Basis of Aphasia. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Schourup, Lawrence. 1985. Common Discourse Particles in English
Conversation. New York NY: Garland.
Schourup, Lawrence. 1999. Discourse markers. Lingua 107: 227–265.
Sherrat, Sue & Penn, Claire. 1990. Discourse in a right-hemisphere brain-damaged
subject. Aphasiology 4(6): 539–560.
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.
Squire, Larry R. 2004. Memory systems of the brain: A brief history and
current perspective. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 82: 171–177.
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistic Philosophy 25(5–6): 701–721.
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.
Stemberger, Joseph P. & MacWhinney, Brian. 1986. Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly
inflected forms. Memory and Cognition 14: 17–26.
Tompkins, Connie A. 1995. Right Hemisphere Communication Disorders: Theory and
Management. San Diego CA: Singular.
Tompkins, Connie A. 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.
Ullman, Michael T. 2004. Contributions of memory circuits to language: The
declarative/procedural model. Cognition 92(1–2): 231–270.
Ullman, Michael T. 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.
van Dijk, Teun. 1980. Macrostructures. An Interdisciplinary Study of Global
Structures in Discourse, Interaction and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
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.
Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana. 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.
Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana. 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.
Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana. 2012. Formulaic language and language
disorders. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 62–80.
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.
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.
Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana & Sidtis, John. 2018. The affective nature of formulaic language: A
right-hemisphere subcortical process. Frontiers in Neurology 9: 573.
Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: CUP.
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Heine, Bernd
2023.
The Grammar of Interactives,
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.