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. 59–89

Chapter 2
Dual process frameworks on reasoning and linguistic discourse

A comparison

| University of Cologne
| Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf
| Sun Yat-sen University | Heinrich-Heine University Düsseldorf
The objective of the present paper is to compare two kinds of research traditions that developed in the course of the last decades to understand mental and linguistic processing. One tradition relies on the perspective and methodology commonly used in social psychology, cognitive psychology and related fields, while the other is rooted in some form or other in linguistics, drawing mainly or exclusively on language data. In both research traditions it has been argued that certain parts of human behavior exhibit a dualistic organization which can be described in terms of dual process frameworks of analysis. The paper argues that findings made in psychological and linguistic work exhibit a number of commonalities which are in need of explanation.
Keywords: analyzability, coherence, context, control, intuitive behavior, macrostructure, microstructure, reflective behavior
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Mental activity
    • 2.1The distinction
    • 2.2Features proposed
    • 2.3Interaction between the two types
    • 2.4Discussion
  • 3.Linguistic activity
    • 3.1Frameworks
      • 3.1.1Formulaic vs. novel speech
      • 3.1.2Thetical grammar vs. sentence grammar
      • 3.1.3Macrostructure vs. microstructure
    • 3.2Discussion
  • 4.Comparison
    • 4.1Themes
      • 4.1.1Interaction between types
      • 4.1.2Context
      • 4.1.3Coherence
      • 4.1.4Analyzability
      • 4.1.5Truth conditions
      • 4.1.6Self-control
      • 4.1.7Intuitive vs. reflective behavior
    • 4.2Discussion
  • 5.Conclusions
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 12 November 2020
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.70.02hei
References (91)
References
Barbey, A. K., & Sloman, S. A. 2007. Base-rate respect: From ecological validity to dual processes. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 30, 241–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bay, E. 1964. Principles 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. DOI logoGoogle 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
Biber, D., Johansson, S., Leech, G., Conrad, S., & Finegan, E. 1999. Longman grammar of spoken and written English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Brinton, L. J. 2008. The comment clause in English: Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. 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
Cleeremans, A., & Jiménez, L. 2002. Implicit 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. 2006. Dual processing in reasoning: two systems but one reasoner. Psychological Science 17(5), 428–433. DOI logoGoogle 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.
Dehé, N., & Kavalova, Y. 2007. Parentheticals. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dennett, D. C. 1978. Brainstorms: Philosophical Essays on Mind and Psychology. Montgomery, VT: Bradford Books.Google Scholar
Deulofeu, J. 2017. La macrosyntaxe comme moyen de tracer la limite entre organisation grammaticale et organisation du discours. Modèles Linguistiques, 74, 135–166.Google 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
Eichenbaum, H., & Cohen, N. J. 2001. From conditioning to conscious recollection: Memory systems of the brain. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Epstein, S. 1994. Integration of the cognitive and the psychodynamic unconscious. The American Psychologist 49(8), 709–724. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Evans, J. St. B. T. 2003. In two minds: dual process accounts of reasoning. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 7(10), 454–459. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. Dual processing accounts of reasoning, judgment and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278. 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. S. B. T., & Stanovich, K. E. 2013. Dual process theories of higher cognition: advancing the debate. Perspectives on Psychological Science 8(3), 223–241. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ferstl, E. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frankish, K. 2010. Dual process and dual system theories of reasoning. Philosophy Compass 5(10), 914–926. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Freud, S. [1900] 1953. The 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. 2013. Dual 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. 1990. Language comprehension as structure building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Groves, P. M. & Thompson, R. F. 1970. Habituation: A dual process theory. Psychological Review 77(5), 419–450. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1985. An introduction to Functional Grammar. London, New York, Melbourne, Auckland: Arnold.Google 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
Head, H. 1926. Aphasia and kindred disorders of speech. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Heine, B. 2019. Some observations on the dualistic nature of discourse processing. Folia Linguistica 53(2), 411–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., & Kuteva, T. 2016. On insubordination and cooptation. In N. Evans, & H. Watanabe (Eds.), Insubordination (39–63). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., Kuteva, T., & Long, H. 2013. An outline of discourse grammar. In S. Bischoff, & C. Jany (Eds.), Functional approaches to language (175–233). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2015. On some correlations between grammar and brain lateralization. Oxford Handbooks Online in Linguistics. New York: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2017. Cooptation as a discourse strategy. Linguistics, 55, 1–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Kuteva, T., & Kaltenböck, G. 2014. Discourse Grammar, the dual process model, and brain lateralization: Some correlations. Language & Cognition, 6, 146–180. DOI logoGoogle 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. 2001. Evidentials as Relevance. Amderdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
James, W. [1890] 1950. The principles of psychology. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
Joanette, Y., Goulet, P., & Hannequin, D. 1990. Right Hemisphere and Verbal Communication. New York: Springer-Verlag. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Joanette, Y., P. Goulet, B. Ska, & J. Nespoulous. 1989. Informative content of narrative discourse in right brain-damaged right-handers. Brain and Language, 29, 81–105. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Johnstone, B. 2002. Discourse analysis. Malden, Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Jucker, A. H. 1993. The discourse marker well: a relevance-theoretical account. Journal of Pragmatics 19(5), 435–452. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Jung-Beeman, M., Bowden, E., & Gernsbacher, M. 2000. Right and left hemisphere cooperation for drawing predictive and coherence inferences during normal story comprehension. Brain and Language, 71, 310–336. 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
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. 1972. Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430–454. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. 1973. On the psychology of prediction. Psychological Review, 80, 237–251. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, G., Heine, B., & Kuteva, T. 2011. On Thetical Grammar. Studies in Language, 35, 848–893. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kintsch, W. 1974. The representation of meaning in memory. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., Erb, H. P., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., & Chun, W. Y. 2006. On parametric continuities in the world of binary either ors. Psychological Inquiry, 17, 153–165. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kruglanski, A. W., & Gigerenzer, G. 2011. Intuitive and deliberative judgements are based on common principles. Psychological Review, 118, 97–109. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kuteva, T., & Heine, B. 2020. On 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. 2006. In your right hand: Right hemisphere contributions to language processing and production. Neuropsychological Review, 16(3), 131–148. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lohmann, A., & Koops, C. 2016. Aspects 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, D. L., & Baynes, K. 2002. Discourse representation in the two cerebral hemispheres. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 14(2), 228–242. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Luria, A. R. 1966. Higher Cortical Functions in Man. New York: Basic.Google Scholar
MacFarlane, J. 2014. Assessment Sensitivity: Relative Truth and its Applications. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 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
Marini, A., Carlomagno, S., Caltagirone, C., & Nocentini, U. 2005. The role played by the right hemisphere in the organization of complex textual structures. Brain and Language, 93, 46–54. 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
Mercier, H., & Sperber, D. 2009. Intuitive and reflective inferences. In J. St. B. T. Evans, & K. Frankish (Eds.), Two minds: Dual processes and beyond (149–170). Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Nespoulous, J. L., Code, C., Virbel, J., & Lecours, A. R. 1998. Hypotheses on the dissociation between “referential” and “modalizing” verbal behaviour in aphasia. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 311–331. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Osman, M. 2004. An evaluation of dual-process theories of reasoning. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 11, 988–1010.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) Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. 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
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. 1985. A comprehensive grammar of the English language. London, New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Reber, A. S. 1993. Implicit Learning and Tacit Knowledge. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google 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
Sloman, S. A. 1996. The empirical case for two systems of reasoning. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 3–22. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2002. Two 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. 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
Stanovich, K. E., & West, R. F. 2000. Individual differences in reasoning: Implications for the rationality debate? Behavioral & Brain Sciences, 23, 645–665. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Talmont-Kaminski, K. 2010. Review 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. 2014. On the use of uh and um in American English. Functions of Language, 21, 6–29. DOI logoGoogle 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.
Tsujii, T., & Watanabee, S. 2009. Neural correlates of dual-task effect on belief-bias syllogistic reasoning: A near-infrared spectroscopy study. Brain Research, 1287, 118–125. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. 1974. Judgement under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–31. 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. 1988. Nonpropositional speech: Neurolinguistic studies. In Ellis, A. (Ed.), Progress in the psychology of language (49–118). Volume 3. 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), 1–11. 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), 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, & K. M. Wheatley (Eds.) Formulaic Language. Volume 2: Acquisition, Loss, Psychological Reality, and Functional Explanations (445–470). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2012. Formulaic language and language disorders. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 62–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D., & Postman, W. A. 2006. Formulaic expressions in spontaneous speech of left- and right-hemisphere damaged subjects. Aphasiology 20(5), 411–426. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wason, P. C., & Evans, J. St. B. T. 1975. Dual Processes in Reasoning? Cognition 3(2), 141–154. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (5)

Cited by five other publications

Heine, Bernd
2023. The Grammar of Interactives, DOI logo
Farahani, Mehrdad Vasheghani & Mahmoud Elshahat Abdelghaffar Omar
2022. Book Review: Bernd Heine, Gunther Kaltenböck, Tania Kuteva and Haiping Long, The Rise of Discourse Markers. Discourse & Communication 16:6 ► pp. 735 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
Haselow, Alexander & Sylvie Hancil
2021. Grammar, discourse, and the grammar-discourse interface. In Studies at the Grammar-Discourse Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series, 219], ► pp. 2 ff. DOI logo
Kuteva, Tania & Bernd Heine
2021. On the Structure of Early Language. In Oxford Handbook of Human Symbolic Evolution, ► pp. 731 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 16 october 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.