Chapter published in:
Grammar and Cognition: Dualistic models of language structure and language processing
Edited by Alexander Haselow and Gunther Kaltenböck
[Human Cognitive Processing 70] 2020
► pp. 5989


Barbey, A. K., & Sloman, S. A.
2007Base-rate respect: From ecological validity to dual processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30, 241–297. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bay, E.
1964Principles of classification and their influence on our concepts of aphasia. In De Reuck, A. V. S., & Maeve O’Connor (Eds.), Disorders of language: CIBA Symposium. London: J. and A. Churchill. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Beeman, M., & Chiarello, C.
1998Complementary right- and left-hemisphere language comprehension. Current directions in psychological science 7(1), 1–8. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E.
1999Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J.
2008The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Clark, H. H., & Fox Tree, J. E.
2002Using uh and um in spontaneous speaking. Cognition, 84, 73–111. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cleeremans, A., & Jiménez, L.
2002Implicit learning and consciousness: A graded, dynamical perspective. In R. M. French, & A. Cleeremans (Eds.), Implicit learning and consciousness: An empirical, philosophical and computational consensus in the making (1–40). Hove, U.K.: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
De Neys, W.
2006Dual processing in reasoning: two systems but one reasoner. Psychological Science 17(5), 428–433. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Debaisieux, J.-M.
2007La distinction entre dépendance grammaticale et dépendance macrosyntaxique comme moyen de résoudre les paradoxes de la subordination. Faits de Langue, 28, 119–132.Google Scholar
2018Utterances: 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.
Dehé, N., & Kavalova, Y.
2007Parentheticals. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. C.
1978Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology. Montgomery, VT: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Deulofeu, J.
2017La macrosyntaxe comme moyen de tracer la limite entre organisation grammaticale et organisation du discours. Modèles Linguistiques, 74, 135–166.Google Scholar
Dik, S. C.
1997The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 2: Complex and Derived Constructions. (Functional Grammar Series, 21.) Berlin, New York: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Eichenbaum, H., & Cohen, N. J.
2001From conditioning to conscious recollection: Memory systems of the brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, S.
1994Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. The American Psychologist 49(8), 709–724. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T.
2003In two minds: dual process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(10), 454–459. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2008Dual processing accounts of reasoning, judgment and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Questions and challenges for the new psychology of reasoning. Thinking & Reasoning 18(1), 5–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T., & Over, D. E.
1996Rationality and Reasoning. Hove: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Evans, J. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E.
2013Dual process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8(3), 223–241. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Ferstl, E. C., & D. Yves von Cramon
2001The role of coherence and cohesion in text comprehension: an event-related fMRI study. Cognitive Brain Research, 11, 325–340. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Frankish, K.
2010Dual process and dual system theories of reasoning. Philosophy Compass 5(10), 914–926. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Freud, S.
[1900] 1953The interpretation of dreams. In J. Strachey (Ed. & Trans.), The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vols. 4 and 5). London: Hogarth.Google Scholar
Gawrowski, B. & Creighton, L. A.
2013Dual process theories. In D. E. Carlston (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of social cognition (282–312). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gernsbacher, M.
1990Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Groves, P. M. & Thompson, R. F.
1970Habituation: A dual process theory. Psychological Review 77(5), 419–450. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K.
1985An introduction to Functional Grammar. London, New York, Melbourne, Auckland: Arnold.Google Scholar
Haselow, A.
2013Arguing for a wide conception of grammar: The case of final particles in spoken discourse. Folia Linguistica 47(2), 375–424. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016aA processual view on grammar: macrogrammar and the final field in spoken syntax. Language Sciences, 54, 77–101. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2016bIntensifying adverbs ʽoutside the clauseʼ. In G. Kaltenböck, E. Keizer, & A. Lohmann (Eds.), Outside the clause. (379–415). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Head, H.
1926Aphasia and kindred disorders of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B.
2019Some observations on the dualistic nature of discourse processing. Folia Linguistica 53(2), 411–442. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., & Kuteva, T.
2016On insubordination and cooptation. In N. Evans, & H. Watanabe (Eds.), Insubordination (39–63). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., Kuteva, T., & Long, H.
2013An outline of discourse grammar. In S. Bischoff, & C. Jany (Eds.), Functional approaches to language (175–233). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015On some correlations between grammar and brain lateralization. Oxford Handbooks Online in Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2017Cooptation as a discourse strategy. Linguistics, 55, 1–43. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Kuteva, T., & Kaltenböck, G.
2014Discourse Grammar, the dual process model, and brain lateralization: Some correlations. Language & Cognition, 6, 146–180. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hughlings Jackson, J.
1874 [1932]On the nature of the duality of the brain. In J. Taylor (Ed.), Selected Writings of John Hughlings Jackson, Volume 2 (129–145). London: Hodder and Stoughton.Google Scholar
Ifantidou, E.
2001Evidentials as Relevance. Amderdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
James, W.
[1890] 1950The principles of psychology. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Joanette, Y., Goulet, P., & Hannequin, D.
1990Right Hemisphere and Verbal Communication. New York: Springer-Verlag. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Joanette, Y., P. Goulet, B. Ska, & J. Nespoulous
1989Informative content of narrative discourse in right brain-damaged right-handers. Brain and Language, 29, 81–105. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, B.
2002Discourse analysis. Malden, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H.
1993The discourse marker well: a relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 19(5), 435–452. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E., & Gernsbacher, M.
2000Right and left hemisphere cooperation for drawing predictive and coherence inferences during normal story comprehension. Brain and Language, 71, 310–336. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D.
2011Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.Google Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Frederick, S.
2002Representativeness 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A.
1972Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430–454. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A.
1973On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237–251. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, G., Heine, B., & Kuteva, T.
2011On Thetical Grammar. Studies in Language, 35, 848–893. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W.
1974The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., Erb, H. P., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., & Chun, W. Y.
2006On parametric continuities in the world of binary either ors. Psychological Inquiry, 17, 153–165. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., & Gigerenzer, G.
2011Intuitive and deliberative judgements are based on common principles. Psychological Review, 118, 97–109. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kuteva, T., & Heine, B.
2020On the structure of early language. Analytic vs holistic language processing and grammaticalization. In: C. Sinha (Ed.) Oxford handbook of human symbolic evolution. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Lindell, A. K.
2006In your right hand: Right hemisphere contributions to language processing and production. Neuropsychological Review, 16(3), 131–148. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Lohmann, A., & Koops, C.
2016Aspects of discourse marker sequencing – Empirical challenges and theoretical implications. In G. Kaltenböck, E. Keizer, & A. Lohmann (Eds.), Outside the clause: Form and function of extra-clausal constituents (417–446). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Long, D. L., & Baynes, K.
2002Discourse representation in the two cerebral hemispheres. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(2), 228–242. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Luria, A. R.
1966Higher Cortical Functions in Man. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, J.
2014Assessment Sensitivity: Relative Truth and its Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marini, A.
2012Characteristics of narrative discourse processing after damage to the right hemisphere. Seminars in Speech and Language 33(1), 68–78. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Marini, A., Carlomagno, S., Caltagirone, C., & Nocentini, U.
2005The role played by the right hemisphere in the organization of complex textual structures. Brain and Language, 93, 46–54. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Y.
1994Metalanguaging and discourse markers in bilingual conversation. Language in Society, 23, 325–366. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Metalanguage in interaction: Hebrew discourse markers. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D.
2009Intuitive and reflective inferences. In J. St. B. T. Evans, & K. Frankish (Eds.), Two minds: Dual processes and beyond (149–170). Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Nespoulous, J. L., Code, C., Virbel, J., & Lecours, A. R.
1998Hypotheses on the dissociation between “referential” and “modalizing” verbal behaviour in aphasia. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 311–331. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Osman, M.
2004An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11, 988–1010.Google Scholar
Pawley, A.
2009Grammarians’ 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Prat, C. S., Long, D. L., & Baynes, K.
2007The representation of discourse in the two hemispheres: An individual differences investigation. Brain and Language, 100(3), 283–294. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J.
1985A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London, New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Reber, A. S.
1993Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Sidtis, D., Canterucci, G., & Katsnelson, D.
2009Effects of neurological damage on production of formulaic language. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 23(4), 270–284. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sloman, S. A.
1996The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3–22. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2002Two systems of reasoning. In T. Gilovich, D. Griffin, & D. Kahneman (Eds.), Heuristics and biases: The psychology of intuitive judgment (379–398). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E.
1999Who is rational? Studies of individual differences in reasoning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2004The Robot’s Rebellion: Finding Meaning in the Age of Darwin. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F.
2000Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 23, 645–665. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Talmont-Kaminski, K.
2010Review of Jonathan St. B. T. Evans and Keith Frankish (eds.), Two Minds: Dual Processes and Beyond. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Philosophy in Review, 30(5), 331–333.Google Scholar
Tottie, G.
2014On the use of uh and um in American English. Functions of Language, 21, 6–29. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Traugott, E. C.
1995The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the International Conference of Historical Linguistics XII, Manchester.
Tsujii, T., & Watanabee, S.
2009Neural correlates of dual-task effect on belief-bias syllogistic reasoning: A near-infrared spectroscopy study. Brain Research, 1287, 118–125. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D.
1974Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
van Dijk, T. A.
1980Macrostructures: An interdisciplinary study of global structures in discourse, interaction, and cognition. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Van Lancker, D.
1988Nonpropositional speech: Neurolinguistic studies. In Ellis, A. (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of language (49–118). Volume 3. London: L. Erlbaum.Google Scholar
1990The neurology of proverbs. Behavioral Neurology 3, 169–87. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1997Rags to riches: Our increasing appreciation of cognitive and communicative abilities of the human right cerebral hemisphere. Brain and Language 57(1), 1–11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D.
2004When 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Formulaic 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, & K. M. Wheatley (Eds.) Formulaic Language. Volume 2: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, and Functional Explanations (445–470). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Formulaic language and language disorders. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 62–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D., & Postman, W. A.
2006Formulaic expressions in spontaneous speech of left- and right-hemisphere damaged subjects. Aphasiology 20(5), 411–426. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wason, P. C., & Evans, J. St. B. T.
1975Dual Processes in Reasoning? Cognition 3(2), 141–154. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 2 other publications

Haselow, Alexander
2021.  In Studies at the Grammar-Discourse Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series, 219],  pp. 158 ff. Crossref logo
Haselow, Alexander & Sylvie Hancil
2021.  In Studies at the Grammar-Discourse Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series, 219],  pp. 2 ff. Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 11 november 2021. 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.