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. 233265
References

References

Aarts, B.
2017English Syntax and Argumentation (5th Edition). Basingstoke and London: Palgrave McMillan.Google Scholar
Beeman, M.
1998Coarse semantic coding and discourse comprehension. In M. C. Beeman & C. Chiarello (Eds.), Right hemisphere language comprehension: Perspectives from cognitive neuroscience (255–284). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Beeman, M., & Chiarello, C.
1998Complementary right- and left-hemisphere language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science 7(1), 1–8. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Berman, S. M., Mandelkern, M. A., Phan, H., & Zaidel E.
2003Complementary hemispheric specialization for word and accent detection. NeuroImage, 19, 319–331. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Blanken, G., & Marini, V.
1997Where do lexical speech automatisms come from? Journal of Neurolinguistics, 10, 19–31. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Borod, J. C., Rorie, K. D., Pick, L. H., Bloom, R. L., Andelman, F., & Campbell, A. L.
2000Verbal pragmatics following unilateral stroke: emotional content and valence. Neuropsychology 14(1), 1–13. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Buerki, A.
2016Formulaic sequences: a drop in the ocean of constructions or something more significant? European Journal of English Studies 20(1), 15–34. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Bybee, J.
2010Language, usage and cognition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Carol, L., Baum, S., & Pell, M.
2001The effect of compressed speech on the ability of right-hemisphere-damaged patients to use context. Cortex, 37, 327–344. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Code, C.
2005First in, last out? The evolution of aphasic lexical speech automatisms to agrammatism and the evolution of human communication. Interaction Studies, 6, 311–334. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Cowie, A. P.
1988Stable and creative aspects of vocabulary. In R. Carter, & M. McCarthy (Eds.), Vocabulary and language teaching (126–139). London, New York: Longman.Google Scholar
Croft, W., & Cruse, D. A.
2004Cognitive linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Damasio, H., Grabowski, T., Tranesl, D., Hichwa, R. & Damasio A.
1996A neural basis for lexical retrieval. Nature, 380, 449–505. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Davies, M.
2008The Corpus of Contemporary American English (COCA): 560 million words, 1990–present. Available online at https://​corpus​.byu​.edu​/coca/
Devinsky, O.
2000Right cerebral hemisphere dominance for a sense of corporeal and emotional self. Epilepsy and Behavior, 1, 60–73. CrossrefGoogle 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
Erman, B., & Warren, B.
2000The idiom principle and the open choice principle. Text 20(1), 29–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Espinal, M.
1991The representation of disjunct constituents. Language, 67, 726–62. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Goldberg, A. E.
2003Constructions: A new theoretical approach to language. Trends in Cognitive Science 7(5), 219–224. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Constructions at Work: the nature of generalization in language. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Haegeman, L.
1991Parenthetical adverbials: the radical orphanage approach. In S. Chiba, A. Ogawa, N. Yamada, O. Koma & T. Yagi (Eds.), Aspects of modern English linguistics: Papers presented to Masatomo Ukaji on his 60th birthday (232–54). Tokyo: Kaitakusha.Google Scholar
Heine, B.
2016On non-finiteness and canonical imperatives. In C. Chamoreau & Z. Estrada-Fernández (Eds.), Finiteness and nominalization (243–268). Amsterdam: Benjamin.Google Scholar
Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., Kuteva, T., & Long, H.
2013An outline of Discourse Grammar. In S. Bischoff & C. Jeny (Eds.), Functional approaches to language (155–206). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Kuteva, T., & Kaltenböck, G.
2014Discourse Grammar, the dual process model, and brain lateralization: some correlations, Language and Cognition, 6, 146–180. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., Kuteva, T., & Long, H.
2017Cooptation as a discourse strategy. Journal of Linguistics 55(4), 813–855.Google Scholar
Heine, B., Kuteva, T., & Kaltenböck, G.
2015On some correlations between grammar and brain lateralization. Oxford Handbooks Online. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Hellige, J. B.
1990Hemispheric asymmetry. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 55–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
1993Hemispheric asymmetry: What’s right and what’s left. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Helmstaedter, C., Kurthen, M., Linke, D. B., & Elger C. E.
1994Right hemisphere restitution of language and memory functions in right hemisphere language dominant patients with left temporal lobe epilepsy. Brain, 117, 729–737. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hird, K., & Kirsner, K.
2003The 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. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Howarth, P.
1998Phraseology and second language proficiency. Applied Linguistics 19(1), 24–44. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Hudson, J.
1998Perspectives on fixedness: applied and theoretical. Lund: University Press.Google Scholar
Jakobson, R.
1980Brain and language. Columbus, OH: Slavica Publishers.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, G., Heine, B., & Kuteva, T.
2011On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4), 848–893. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, G., & Heine, B.
2014Sentence Grammar vs. Thetical Grammar: two competing systems? In B. MacWhinney, A. Malchukov & E. Moravcsik (Eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage (348–363) Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Kaplan, J. A., Brownell, H. H., Jacobs, J. R., & Gardner, H.
1990The effects of right hemisphere damage on the pragmatic interpretation of conversational remarks. Brain and Language, 38, 115–133. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Karow, C. M., & Connors, E. C.
2003Affective communication in normal and braindamaged adults: an overview. Seminars in Speech and Language 24(2), 69–91. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B.
2007The TalkBank Project. In J. C. Beal, K. P. Corrigan & H. L. Moisl (Eds.), Creating and digitizing language corpora: synchronic databases, Vol.1. (163–180). Houndmills: Palgrave-Macmillan. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, B., Fromm, D., Forbes, M., & Holland, A.
2011AphasiaBank: Methods for studying discourse. Aphasiology, 25, 1286–1307. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
McGilchrist, I.
2009The master and his emissary. The divided brain and the making of the western world. Newhaven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
2015The origins of emotion and language from the perspective of developmental neuropsychology. In U. Lüdtke (Ed.), Emotion in language (69–97). Amsterdam: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Moon, R.
1998Frequencies and forms of phrasal lexemes in English. In Cowie, Anthony (Ed.), Phraseology: theory, analysis and applications (79–100). Oxford: Clarendon.Google Scholar
Newell, A.
1990Unified theories of cognition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.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) (Typological Studies in Language, 82.) Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Pawley, A., Syder, F.
1983Two puzzles for linguistic theory: Nativelike selection and nativelike fluency. In J. Richards & R. Schmidt (Eds.), Language and communication (191–226). Harlow: Longman.Google Scholar
Semeza, C., Mondini, S., & Zettin, M.
1995The anatomical basis of proper names processing: A critical review. Neurocase: Case Studies in Neuropsychology, Neuropsychiatry, and Behavioural Neurology 1(2), 183–188. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Sherratt, S., & Bryan, K.
2012Discourse production after right brain damage: gaining a comprehensive picture using a multi-level processing model. Journal of Neurolinguistics, 25, 213–239. CrossrefGoogle 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
Sidtis, J., Dhawan, V., Eidelberg, D., & Van Lancker Sidtis, D.
2018Switching language modes: Complementary brain patterns for formulaic and propositional language. Brain Connectivity 8(3), 189–196. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Speedie, L. J., Wertman, E., Ta’ir, J., & Heilman, K. M.
1993Disruption of automatic speech following a right basal ganglia lesion. Neurology, 43, 1768–1774. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Springer, S. P., & Deutsch, G.
1983Left brain, right brain. A series of books in Psychology. New York: W. H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Van Lancker, D.
1988Nonpropositional speech: Neurolinguistic studies. In A. Ellis (Ed.), Progress in the Psychology of Language. Volume 3. (49–118). 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, 1–11. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker, S., & Rallon, G.
2004Tracking the incidence of formulaic expressions in everyday speech: methods for classification and verification. Language and Communication, 24, 207–240. 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), 144.Google 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, A. H. Ouali & K. M. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic language. Volume 2: Acquisition, loss, psychological reality, and functional explanations (445–70). (Typological Studies in Language, 83.) Amsterdam, Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012Formulaic language and language disorders. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 62–80. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2015Formulaic language in an emergentist framework. In B. McWhinney & W. O’Grady (Eds.), The handbook of language emergence (578–599). Malden, MA: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D., & Postman, W. A.
2006Formulaic expressions in spontaneous speech of left- and right-hemisphere damaged subjects. Aphasiology 20(5), 411–26. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, D., & Sidtis, J. J.
2018Cortical-subcortical production of formulaic language: A review of linguistic, brain disorder, and functional imaging studies leading to production model. Brain and Cognition, 126, 53–64. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A., & Perkins, M. A.
2000The functions of formulaic language: an integrated model. Language and Communication 20(1), 1–28. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A.
2002Formulaic language and the lexicon. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2009Identifying formulaic language: persistent challenges and new opportunities. In R. Corrigan, E. A. Moravcsik, H. Ouali & K. M. Wheatley (Eds.), Formulaic language. Volume 1: Distribution and historical change (27–51). (Typological Studies in Language, 82). Amsterdam and Philadelphia: Benjamins. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2006Formulaic language. In K. Brown (Ed.), Encyclopaedia of language and linguistics (2nd ed.), (590–597), Vol 4. Oxford: Elsevier. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
2012What do we (think we) know about formulaic language? An evaluation of the current state of play. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics, 32, 231–254. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
Wray, A., & Namba, K.
2003Formulaic language in a Japanese-English bilinguial child: A proactical approach to data analysis. Japan Journal for Multilingualism and Multiculturalism 9(1), 24–51.Google Scholar
Cited by

Cited by 1 other publications

No author info given
2021.  In Studies at the Grammar-Discourse Interface [Studies in Language Companion Series, 219], Crossref logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 april 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.