Some observations on the dualistic nature of discourse processing

References

Abusamra, Valeria, Hélène Côté, Yves Joanette & Aldo Ferreres. 2009. Communication impairments in patients with right hemisphere damage. Lifespan and Disability 12. 67–82.Search in Google Scholar

Bally, Charles. 1942. Syntaxe de la modalité explicite. Cahiers Ferdinand de Saussure 2. 3–13.Search in Google Scholar

Bartels-Tobin, Lori R. & Jacqueline J. Hinckley. 2005. Cognition and discourse production in right hemisphere disorder. Journal of neurolinguistics 18. 461–477.10.1016/j.jneuroling.2005.04.001Search in Google Scholar

Beeman, Mark & Christine Chiarello. 1998. Complementary right- and left-hemisphere language comprehension. Current directions in psychological science 7. 1–8.10.1111/1467-8721.ep11521805Search in Google Scholar

Blake, Margaret Lehman. 2006. Clinical relevance of discourse characteristics after right hemisphere brain damage. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 15. 255–267.10.1044/1058-0360(2006/024)Search in Google Scholar

Blake, Margaret Lehman. 2009a. Inferencing processes after right hemisphere brain damage: Maintenance of inferences. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 52. 359–372.10.1044/1092-4388(2009/07-0012)Search in Google Scholar

Blake, Margaret Lehman. 2009b. Inferencing processes after right hemisphere brain damage: Effects of contextual bias. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 52. 373–384.10.1044/1092-4388(2009/07-0172)Search in Google Scholar

Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511486456Search in Google Scholar

Blakemore, Diane. 2007. ‘Or’-parentheticals, ‘that is’-parentheticals and the pragmatics of reformulation. Journal of linguistics 43. 311–339.10.1017/S0022226707004598Search in Google Scholar

Bloom, Ronald L. 1994. Hemispheric responsibility and discourse production: Contrasting patients with unilateral left and right hemisphere damage. In R. Bloom, L. Obler, S. De Santi & J. Ehrlich (eds.), Discourse analysis and applications: Studies in adult clinical populations, 81–94. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Bottini, G., R. Corcoran, R. Sterzi, E. Paulesu, P. Schenone, P. Scarpa, et al. 1994. The role of the right hemisphere in the interpretation of figurative aspects of language. Brain 117. 1241–1253.10.1093/brain/117.6.1241Search in Google Scholar

Branch, C., B. Milner & T. Rasmussen. 1964. Intracarotid sodium amytal for the lateralization of cerebral speech dominance. Journal of neurosurgery 21. 399–405.10.3171/jns.1964.21.5.0399Search in Google Scholar

Broca, Paul. 1865. Sur la faculté du langage articulé. Bulletin de la Société d’Anthropolologie de Paris 6. 377–393.10.3406/bmsap.1865.9495Search in Google Scholar

Brownell, H., H. H. Potter, A. M. Bihrle & H. Gardner. 1986. Inference deficits in right brain-damaged patients. Brain and language 27. 310–321.10.1016/0093-934X(86)90022-2Search in Google Scholar

Cap, Piotr. 2011. Micropragmatics and macropragmatics. In Wolfram Bublitz & Neal R. Norrick (eds.), Foundations of pragmatics, 51–75. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.10.1515/9783110214260.51Search in Google Scholar

Caplan, R. & M. Dapretto. 2001. Making sense during conversation: An fMRI study. Neuro Report 12. 3625–3632.10.1097/00001756-200111160-00050Search in Google Scholar

Champagne-Lavau, M. & Y. Joanette. 2009. Pragmatics, theory of mind and executive functions after a right-hemisphere lesion: Different patterns of deficits. Journal of neurolinguistics 22. 413–426.10.1016/j.jneuroling.2009.02.002Search in Google Scholar

Cherney, L. R. & G. J. Canter. 1993. Informational content in the discourse of patients with probable Alzheimer’s disease and patients with right brain damage. Clinical Aphasiology 21. 123–134.Search in Google Scholar

Chiarello, Christine. 1995. Does the corpus callosum play a role in the activation and suppression of ambiguous word meanings? In F. L. Kitterle (ed.), Hemispheric communication: Mechanisms and models, 177–188. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.10.4324/9781315789156-4Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.10.1017/CBO9780511620539Search in Google Scholar

Clark, Herbert H. & Jean E. Fox Tree. 2002. Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition84. 73–111.10.1016/S0010-0277(02)00017-3Search in Google Scholar

Davis, G. Albyn, Therese M. O’Neil-Pirozzi & Maribeth Coon. 1997. Referential cohesion and logical coherence of narration after right hemisphere stroke. Brain and language 56. 183–210.10.1006/brln.1997.1741Search in Google Scholar

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.Search in Google Scholar

Debaisieux, Jeanne-Marie. 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.Search in Google Scholar

Degand, Liesbeth & Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul. 2015. Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers? More than a terminological issue. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16. 59–85.10.1075/jhp.16.1.03degSearch in Google Scholar

Dehé, Nicole & Yordanka Kavalova. 2007. Parentheticals. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/la.106Search in Google Scholar

Deulofeu, José. 2017. La macrosyntaxe comme moyen de tracer la limite entre organisation grammaticale et organisation du discours. Modèles Linguistiques 2016. 135–166.10.4000/ml.2040Search in Google Scholar

Dik, Simon C. 1997. The theory of Functional Grammar, Part 2: Complex and derived constructions. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110218374Search in Google Scholar

Espinal, M. Teresa. 1991. The representation of disjunct constituents. Language 67. 726–762.10.2307/415075Search in Google Scholar

Evans, K. M. & K. D. Federmeier. 2007. The memory that’s right and the memory that’s left: Event-related potentials reveal hemispheric asymmetries in the encoding and retention of verbal information. Neuropsychologia 45. 1777–1790.10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2006.12.014Search in Google Scholar

Ferré, Perrine, Bernadette Ska, Camille Lajoie, Amélie Bleau & Yves Joanette. 2011. Clinical focus on prosodic, discursive and pragmatic treatment for right hemisphere damaged adults: What’s right? Rehabilitation research and practice 2011. 1–10.10.1155/2011/131820Search in Google Scholar

Ferstl, Evelyn C. & D. Yves von Cramon. 2001. The role of coherence and cohesion in text comprehension: An event-related fMRI study. Cognitive Brain Research 11. 325–340.10.1016/S0926-6410(01)00007-6Search in Google Scholar

Foldi, Nancy S. 1987. Appreciation of pragmatic interpretations of indirect commands: Comparison of right and left hemisphere brain-damaged patients. Brain and language 31. 88–108.10.1016/0093-934X(87)90062-9Search in Google Scholar

Frank-Job, Barbara. 2006. A dynamic-interactional approach to discourse markers. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 359–374. Amsterdam: Elsevier.10.1163/9780080461588_020Search in Google Scholar

Furkó, Bálint Péter. 2014. Cooptation over grammaticalization. Argumentum 10. 289–300.Search in Google Scholar

Gardner, Howard. 1982. Art, mind, and brain: A cognitive approach to creativity. New York: Basic Books.Search in Google Scholar

Gazzaniga, Michael S. 2000. Cerebral specialization and interhemispheric communication: Does the corpus callosum enable the human condition? Brain 123(7). 1293–1326.10.1093/brain/123.7.1293Search in Google Scholar

Gernsbacher, Morton. 1990. Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.10.21236/ADA221854Search in Google Scholar

Givón, T. 1995. Functionalism and grammar. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/z.74Search in Google Scholar

Glosser, Guila. 1993. Discourse production patterns in neurologically impaired and aged populations. In H. H. Brownell & Yves Joanette (eds.), Narrative discourse in neurologically impaired and normal aging adults, 191–212. San Diego: Singular.Search in Google Scholar

Graesser, Arthur C., Murray Singer & Tom Trabasso. 1994. Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological review 101. 371–395.10.1037/0033-295X.101.3.371Search in Google Scholar

Greene, Steven B., Gail McKoon & Roger Ratcliff. 1992. Pronoun resolution and discourse models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 18. 266–283.10.1037/0278-7393.18.2.266Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Search in Google Scholar

Halliday, M. A. K. & Ruqaya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Haselow, Alexander. 2013. Arguing for a wide conception of grammar: The case of final particles in spoken discourse. Folia Linguistica 47. 375–424.10.1515/flin.2013.015Search in Google Scholar

Haselow, Alexander. 2016a. A processual view on grammar: Macrogrammar and the final field in spoken syntax. Language Sciences 54. 77–101.10.1016/j.langsci.2015.12.001Search in Google Scholar

Haselow, Alexander. 2016b. Intensifying adverbs ‘outside the clauseʼ. In Gunther Kaltenböck, Evelien Keizer & Arne Lohmann (eds.), Outside the clause, 379–415. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/slcs.178.13hasSearch in Google Scholar

Haselow, Alexander. 2018. Structural planning in real-time speech production: The integration–Aggregation dualism. Paper presented at the international workshop One Brain – Two Grammars? Examining dualistic approaches to grammar and cognition, Rostock, 1-2 March 2018.Search in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck & Tania Kuteva. 2016. On insubordination and cooptation. In Nicholas Evans & Honoré Watanabe (eds.), Insubordination, 39–63. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.115.02heiSearch in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck, Tania Kuteva & Haiping Long. 2013. An outline of discourse grammar. In Shannon Bischoff & Carmen Jany (eds.), Functional approaches to language, 175–233. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.10.1515/9783110285321.155Search in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck, Tania Kuteva & Haiping Long. 2015. On some correlations between grammar and brain lateralization. Oxford Handbooks Online in Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press.10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935345.013.16Search in Google Scholar

Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck, Tania Kuteva & Haiping Long. 2017. Cooptation as a discourse strategy. Linguistics 55. 1–43.10.1515/ling-2017-0012Search in Google Scholar

Hengeveld, Kees. 2018. Functional Discourse Grammar as a dualistic model of language. Paper presented at the international workshop One Brain – Two Grammars? Examining dualistic approaches to grammar and cognition, Rostock, 1-2 March 2018.Search in Google Scholar

Hengeveld, Kees & J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2008. Functional Discourse Grammar. Oxford: Oxford University Press.10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199278107.001.0001Search in Google Scholar

Hengeveld, Kees & J. Lachlan Mackenzie. 2010. Functional Discourse Grammar. In Bernd Heine & Heiko Narrog (eds.), The Oxford handbook of linguistic analysis, 367–400. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Hird, K. & P. K. Kirsner. 2003. The effect of right cerebral hemisphere damage on collaborative planning in conversation: An analysis of intentional structure. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics 17. 309–315.10.1080/0269920031000080037Search in Google Scholar

Hirst, W., J. LeDoux & S. Stein. 1984. Constraints on the processing of indirect speech acts: Evidence from aphasiology. Brain and language 23. 26–33.10.1016/0093-934X(84)90003-8Search in Google Scholar

Hough, Monica S. 1990. Narrative comprehension in adults with right and left hemisphere brain damage: Theme organization. Brain and language 38. 253–277.10.1016/0093-934X(90)90114-VSearch in Google Scholar

Hutner, Nancy & Jacqueline Liederman. 1991. Right hemisphere participation in reading. Brain and language 41. 475–495.10.1016/0093-934X(91)90169-2Search in Google Scholar

Ifantidou-Trouki, Elly. 1993. Sentential adverbs and relevance. Lingua 90. 69–90.10.1016/0024-3841(93)90061-ZSearch in Google Scholar

Joanette, Yves, P. Goulet & D. Hannequin. 1990. Right hemisphere and verbal communication. New York: Springer.10.1007/978-1-4612-4460-8Search in Google Scholar

Joanette, Yves, P. Goulet, Bernadette Ska & Jean Luc Nespoulous. 1989. Informative content of narrative discourse in right brain-damaged right-handers. Brain and Language 29. 81–105.10.1016/0093-934X(86)90035-0Search in Google Scholar

Johns, C. L., K. Tooley & M. J. Traxler. 2008. Discourse impairments following right hemisphere brain damage: A critical review. Language and linguistics compass 2. 1038–1062.10.1111/j.1749-818X.2008.00094.xSearch in Google Scholar

Johnstone, Barbara. 2002. Discourse analysis. Malden, Oxford: Blackwell.Search in Google Scholar

Jucker, Andreas H. 1993. The discourse marker well: A relevance-theoretical account. Journal of pragmatics 19. 435–452.10.1016/0378-2166(93)90004-9Search in Google Scholar

Jung-Beeman, Mark. 2005. Bilateral brain processes for comprehending natural language. Trends in cognitive sciences 9. 512–518.10.1016/j.tics.2005.09.009Search in Google Scholar

Jung-Beeman, Mark, E. Bowden & Morton Gernsbacher. 2000. Right and left hemisphere cooperation for drawing predictive and coherence inferences during normal story comprehension. Brain and language 71. 310–336.10.1006/brln.1999.2268Search in Google Scholar

Kac, Michael B. 1972. Clauses of saying and the interpretation of because. Language 48. 626–632.10.2307/412038Search in Google Scholar

Kahneman, Daniel. 2012. Thinking, fast and slow. London: Penguin Books. (First published 2011 by Farrar, Straus & Giroux, USA).Search in Google Scholar

Kaltenböck, Gunther, Bernd Heine & Tania Kuteva. 2011. On Thetical Grammar. Studies in Language 35. 848–893.10.1075/sl.35.4.03kalSearch in Google Scholar

Kintsch, W. 1974. The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Kintsch, W. 1988. The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological review 95. 163–182.10.1016/S0166-4115(08)61551-4Search in Google Scholar

Lehman-Blake, Margaret T. & D. S. Lesniewick. 2005. Contextual bias and predictive inferencing in adults with and without right hemisphere brain damage. Aphasiology 19. 423–434.10.1080/02687030444000868Search in Google Scholar

Leonard, Carol, Shari R. Baum & Mark D. Pell. 2001. The effect of compressed speech on the ability of right-hemisphere-damaged patients to use context. Cortex 37. 327–344.10.1016/S0010-9452(08)70577-XSearch in Google Scholar

Lindell, Annukka K. 2006. In your right hand: Right hemisphere contributions to language processing and production. Neuropsychological Review 16. 131–148.10.1007/s11065-006-9011-9Search in Google Scholar

Lojek-Osiejuk, Emilia. 1996. Knowledge of scripts reflected in discourse of aphasics and right-brain-damaged patients. Brain and language 53. 58–80.10.1006/brln.1996.0037Search in Google Scholar

Long, Debra L. & Kathleen Baynes. 2002. Discourse representation in the two cerebral hemispheres. Journal of cognitive neuroscience 14. 228–242.10.1162/089892902317236867Search in Google Scholar

Long, Debra L., Kathleen Baynes & Chantel S. Prat. 2003. Sentence and discourse representation in the two cerebral hemispheres. In C. Perfetti & F. Schmalhofer (eds.), Higher-level language processes in the brain, 329–354. New Jersey: Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

Long, Debra L., Kathleen Baynes & Chantel S. Prat. 2005. The propositional structure of discourse in the two cerebral hemispheres. Brain and language 95. 383–394.10.1016/j.bandl.2005.02.004Search in Google Scholar

Long, Debra L., Clinton L. Johns & Eunike Jonathan. 2012. Hemispheric differences in the organization of memory for text ideas. Brain and language 123. 145–153.10.1016/j.bandl.2012.08.006Search in Google Scholar

Mackenzie, C. & M. Brady. 2008. Communication difficulties following right-hemisphere stroke: Applying evidence to clinical management. Evidence-based communication assessment and intervention 2. 235–247.10.1080/17489530802615336Search in Google Scholar

Mar, R. A. 2004. The neuropsychology of narrative: Story comprehension, story production and their interrelation. Neuropsychologia 2004. 1414–1434.10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2003.12.016Search in Google Scholar

Marini, Andrea. 2012. Characteristics of narrative discourse processing after damage to the right hemisphere. Seminars in speech and language 33. 68–78.10.1055/s-0031-1301164Search in Google Scholar

Marini, Andrea, S. Carlomagno, C. Caltagirone & U. Nocentini. 2005. The role played by the right hemisphere in the organization of complex textual structures. Brain and language 93. 46–54.10.1016/j.bandl.2004.08.002Search in Google Scholar

Martinet, André. 1960. Eléments de linguistique générale. Paris: Colin.Search in Google Scholar

Maschler, Yael. 1994. Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society 23. 325–366.10.1017/S0047404500018017Search in Google Scholar

Maschler, Yael. 2009. Metalanguage in interaction: Hebrew discourse markers. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/pbns.181Search in Google Scholar

McDonald, S. & R. Wales. 1986. An investigation of ability to process inferences in language following right hemisphere brain damage. Brain and language 29. 68–80.10.1016/0093-934X(86)90034-9Search in Google Scholar

McKoon, G. & R. Ratcliff. 1980. Priming in item recognition: The organization of propositions in memory for text. Journal of verbal learning and verbal behavior 19. 369–386.10.1016/S0022-5371(80)90267-4Search in Google Scholar

McKoon, G. & R. Ratcliff. 1992. Inference during reading. Psychological review 99. 440–466.10.1037/0033-295X.99.3.440Search in Google Scholar

McKoon, G. & R. Ratcliff. 1998. Memory-based language processing: Psycholinguistic research in the 1990s. Annual review of psychology 49. 25–42.10.1146/annurev.psych.49.1.25Search in Google Scholar

Menenti, Laura, Katrien Segaert & Peter Hagoort. 2012. The neuronal infrastructure of speaking. Brain and language 122. 71–80.10.1016/j.bandl.2012.04.012Search in Google Scholar

Mitchell, Rachel L. C. & Tim J. Crow. 2005. Right hemisphere language functions and schizophrenia: The forgotten hemisphere? Brain 128. 963–978.10.1093/brain/awh466Search in Google Scholar

Myers, P. S. 1999. Right hemisphere damage: Disorders of communication and cognition. London: Singular.Search in Google Scholar

Myers, P. S. 2001. Communication disorders associated with right hemisphere damage. In R. Chapey (ed.), Language intervention strategies in aphasia and related neurogenic communication disorders, 4th edn, 809–828. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins.Search in Google Scholar

Nespoulous, Jean Luc. 1980. De deux comportements verbaux de base: Référentiel et modalisateur. De leur dissociation dans le discours aphasique. Cahiers de Psychologie 23. 195–210.Search in Google Scholar

Nespoulous, Jean Luc, C. Code, J. Virbel & A. R. Lecours. 1998. Hypotheses on the dissociation between “referential” and “modalizing” verbal behaviour in aphasia. Applied psycholinguistics 19. 311–331.10.1017/S0142716400010080Search in Google Scholar

Parola, Alberto, Ilaria Gabbatore, Francesca M. Bosco, Bruno G. Bara, Federico M. Cossa, Patrizia Gindri & Katiuscia Sacco. 2016. Assessment of pragmatic impairment in right hemisphere damage. Journal of neurolinguistics 39. 10–25.10.1016/j.jneuroling.2015.12.003Search in Google Scholar

Pawley, Andrew. 1992. Formulaic speech. In William H. Bright (ed.), Oxford international encyclopedia of linguistics, vol. 2, 22–25. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Search in Google Scholar

Pawley, Andrew. 2009. Grammarians’ languages versus humanists’ languages and the place of speech act formulas in models of linguistic competence. In Roberta Corrigan, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali & Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds.), Formulaic language, vol. 1, 3–26. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.82.01graSearch in Google Scholar

Piazza, Roberta & Melanie Green. 2015. Argumentation in discourse and grammar. In Jan-Ola Östman & Jef Verschueren (eds.), Handbook of pragmatics: 2015 installment, 1–26. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/hop.19.arg2Search in Google Scholar

Prat, Chantel S., Debra L. Long & Kathleen Baynes. 2007. The representation of discourse in the two hemispheres: An individual differences investigation. Brain and language 100. 283–294.10.1016/j.bandl.2006.11.002Search in Google Scholar

Prutting, C. & D. Kirchner. 1987. A clinical appraisal of the pragmatic aspects of language. Journal of Speech and Language Disorders 52. 105–119.10.1044/jshd.5202.105Search in Google Scholar

Quirk, Randolph, Sidney Greenbaum, Geoffrey Leech & Jan Svartvik. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London: Longman.Search in Google Scholar

Rehak, A., J. A. Kaplan & H. Gardner. 1992. Sensitivity to conversational deviance in right-hemisphere-damaged patients. Brain and language 42. 203–217.10.1016/0093-934X(92)90125-XSearch in Google Scholar

Robertson, D. A., Morton A. Gernsbacher, S. J. Guidotti, R. R. W. Robertson, W. Irwin, BY. J. Mock, et al. 2000. Functional neuroanatomy of the cognitive process of mapping during discourse comprehension. Psychological Sciences 11. 255–260.10.1111/1467-9280.00251Search in Google Scholar

Rutherford, William W. 1970. Some observations concerning subordinate clauses in English. Language 46. 97–115.10.2307/412410Search in Google Scholar

Sakai, Kuniyoshi L., Yoshinori Tatsuno, Kei Suzuki, Harumi Kimura & Yasuhiro Ichida. 2005. Sign and speech: Amodal commonality in left hemisphere dominance for comprehension of sentences. Brain 128. 1407–1417.10.1093/brain/awh465Search in Google Scholar

Schourup, Lawrence. 2011. The discourse marker now: A relevance-theoretic approach. Journal of pragmatics 43. 2110–2129.10.1016/j.pragma.2011.01.005Search in Google Scholar

Sherratt, Sue & Karen Bryan. 2012. Discourse production after right brain damage: Gaining a comprehensive picture using a multi-level processing model. Journal of neurolinguistics 25. 213–239.10.1016/j.jneuroling.2012.01.001Search in Google Scholar

St George, M., M. Kutas, A. Martinez & M. I. Sereno. 1999. Semantic integration in reading: Engagement of the right hemisphere during discourse processing. Brain 122. 1317–1325.10.1093/brain/122.7.1317Search in Google Scholar

Taylor, Kirsten I. & Marianne Regard. 2003. Language in the right cerebral hemisphere: Contributions from reading studies. News in Physiological Sciences 18. 257–261.10.1152/nips.01454.2003Search in Google Scholar

Tompkins, C. A. 1995. Right hemisphere communication disorders: Theory and management. San Diego: Singular.Search in Google Scholar

Tompkins, C. A., W. Fassbinder, Margaret T. Lehman-Blake & A. Baumgaertner. 2002. The nature and implications of right hemisphere language disorders: Issues in search of answers. In Argye E. Hillis (ed.), The handbook of adult language disorders, 429–448. New York: Psychology Press.Search in Google Scholar

Traugott, Elizabeth C. 1995. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the 12th International Conference of Historical Linguistics, Manchester 1995.Search in Google Scholar

Ulatowska, H., A. Doyel, R. Stem, S. Hayes & A. North. 1983. Production of procedural discourse in aphasia. Brain and language 18. 315–341.10.1016/0093-934X(83)90023-8Search in Google Scholar

Ullman, Michael T. 2004. Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition 92. 231–270.10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008Search in Google Scholar

Ullman, Michael T., S. Corkin, M. Coppola, G. Hickok, J. H. Growdon, W. J. Koroshetz & S. Pinker. 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. 289–299.10.1162/jocn.1997.9.2.266Search in Google Scholar

Van Dijk, Teun A. 1980. Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction, and cognition. Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Search in Google Scholar

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. 1–44.10.1080/13682820310001601080Search in Google Scholar

Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana. 2009. Formulaic and novel language in a ‘dual process’ model of language competence. In Roberta Corrigan, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali & Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds.), Formulaic language, vol. 2, 445–470. Amsterdam: Benjamins.10.1075/tsl.83.11vanSearch in Google Scholar

Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana. 2012. Formulaic language and language disorders. Annual review of applied linguistics 32. 62–80.10.1017/S0267190512000104Search in Google Scholar

Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana & Whitney A. Postman. 2006. Formulaic expressions in spontaneous speech of left- and right-hemisphere damaged subjects. Aphasiology 20(5). 411–426.10.1080/02687030500538148Search in Google Scholar

Videsott, Gerda, Bärbel Herrnberger, Klaus Hoenig, Edgar Schilly, Jo Grothe, Werner Wiater, Manfred Spitzer & Markus Kiefer. 2010. Speaking in multiple languages: Neural correlates of language proficiency in multilingual word production. Brain and language 113. 103–112.10.1016/j.bandl.2010.01.006Search in Google Scholar

Weylman, S. T., H. H. Brownell, M. Roman & H. Gardner. 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. 580–591.10.1016/0093-934X(89)90087-4Search in Google Scholar

Wilson, Deidre & Dan Sperber. 1993. Linguistic form and relevance. Lingua 90. 1–25.10.1017/CBO9781139028370.010Search in Google Scholar

Witelson, S. F. & W. Pallie. 1973. Left hemisphere specialization for language in the newborn: Neuroanatomical evidence of asymmetry. Brain 96. 641–646.10.1093/brain/96.3.641Search in Google Scholar