Cover not available
Part of
Studies at the Grammar-Discourse Interface: Discourse markers and discourse-related grammatical phenomena
Edited by Alexander Haselow and Sylvie Hancil
[Studies in Language Companion Series 219] 2021
► pp. 157–194

Chapter 6
Discourse markers and brain lateralization

Evidence for dual language processing from neurological disorders

| University of Münster
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.
Keywords: discourse markers, pragmatics of communication, discourse structure, neurological impairment
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
Published online: 3 June 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.219.06has
References (117)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 2002. English Discourse Particles. Evidence from a Corpus [Studies in Corpus Linguistics 10]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ameka, Felix. 1992. Interjections: The universal yet neglected part of speech. Journal of Pragmatics 18: 101–118. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bartels-Tobin, Lori R. & Hinckley, Jacqueline. 2005. Cognition and discourse production in right hemisphere disorder. Journal of Neurolinguistics 18: 461–477. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beeching, Kate & Detges Ulrich (eds). 2014. Discourse Functions at the Right and Left Periphery: Crosslinguistic Investigations of Language Use and Language Change. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beeman, Mark & Chiarello, Christine. 1998. Complementary right- and left-hemisphere language comprehension. Current Directions in Psychological Science 7(1): 1–8. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Biber, Douglas, Johansson, Stig, Leech, Geoffrey, Conrad, Susan & Finegan, Edward. 1999. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Harlow: Pearson Education.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 2002. Relevance and Linguistic Meaning: The Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blanche-Benveniste, Claire, Bilger, Mireille, Rouget, Christine & Van den Eynde, Karel. 1990. Le Français Parlé: Études Grammaticales. Paris: Éditions du CNRS.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brownell, Hiram H. & Joanette, Yves (eds). 1993. Narrative Discourse in Neurological Impaired and Normal Aging Adults. San Diego CA: Singular.Google Scholar
Butterworth, Brian. 1994. Disorders of sentence production. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London B 346: 55–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bybee, Joan L. 1995. Regular morphology and the lexicon. Language and Cognitive Processes 10: 425–455. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Caplan, Rochelle & Dapretto, Mirella. 2001. Making sense during conversation: An fMRI study. Neuroreport 12(16): 3625–3632. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Centeno, José & Obler, Loraine. 2001. Agrammatic verb errors in Spanish speakers and their normal discourse correlates. Journal of Neurolinguistics 14(2): 349–363. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
. 1997. Can the right hemisphere speak? Brain and Language 57: 38–59. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crible, Ludivine. 2017. Discourse markers and (dis)fluencies in English and French: Variation and combination in the DisFrEn corpus. International Journal of Corpus Linguistics 22(2): 242–269. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Crible, Ludivine & Cuenca, María-Josep. 2017. Discourse markers in speech: Characteristics and challenges for corpus annotation. Dialogue and Discourse 8(2): 149–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cuenca, María Josep & Crible, Ludivine. 2019. Co-occurrence of discourse markers in English: From juxtaposition to composition. Journal of Pragmatics 140: 171–184. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle 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.Google Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Simon, Anne-Catherine. 2009. On identifying basic discourse units in speech: Theoretical and empirical issues. Discours 4. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Deulofeu, José. 2017. La macrosyntaxe comme moyen de tracer la limite entre organisation grammaticale et organisation du discours. Modèles Linguistiques 74: 135–166. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Devinsky, Orrin. 2000. Right cerebral hemisphere dominance for a sense of corporeal and emotional self. Epilepsy and Behavior 1(1): 60–73. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2013. ‘Same same but different’ – Modal particles, discourse markers and the art (and purpose) of categorization. In Discourse Markers and Modal Particles. Categorization and Description [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 234], Liesbeth Degand, Paola Pietrandrea & Bert Cornillie (eds), 19–46. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dik, Simon C. 1997. The Theory of Functional Grammar, Part 2. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
Fischer, Kerstin. 2000. From Cognitive Semantics to Lexical Pragmatics: The Functional Polysemy of Discourse Particles. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fraser, Bruce. 1999. What are discourse markers? Journal of Pragmatics 31(7): 931–952. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. The combining of discourse markers – A beginning. Journal of Pragmatics 86: 48–53. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friederici, Angela. 2004. The neural basis of syntactic processes. In The Cognitive Neurosciences, Michael S. Gazzaniga (ed.), 789–801. Cambridge MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Friederici, Angela & Alter, Kai. 2004. Lateralization of auditory language functions: A dynamic dual pathway model. Brain and Language 89(2): 267–276. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gernsbacher, Morton. 1990. Language Comprehension as Structure Building. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
González, Momtserrat. 2005. Pragmatic markers and discourse coherence relations in English and Catalan oral narrative. Discourse Studies 77(1): 53–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Graesser, Arthur C., Singer, Murray & Trabasso, Tom. 1994. Constructing inferences during narrative text comprehension. Psychological Review 101, 371–395. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Greene, Steven B., McKoon, Gail & Ratcliff, Roger. 1992. Pronoun resolution and discourse models. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition 18, 266–283.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. 1985. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Arnold.Google Scholar
Halliday, Michael A. K. & Matthiessen, Christian M. I. M. 2004. An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Hodder Arnold.Google Scholar
Hannay, Mike & Kroon, Caroline. 2005. Acts and the relationship between discourse and grammar. Functions of Language 12: 87–124. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Haselow, Alexander. 2017. Spontaneous Spoken English. An Integrated Approach to the Emergent Grammar of Speech. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2019. Discourse marker sequences: Insights into the serial order of communicative tasks in real-time turn production. Journal of Pragmatics 146: 1–18. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haselow, Alexander & Kaltenböck, Gunther (eds). 2020. Grammar and Cognition: Dualistic Models of Language Structure and Language Processing [Human Cognitive Processing 70]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2019. Some observations on the dualistic nature of discourse processing. Folia Linguistica 53(2): 411–442. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kuteva, Tania & Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2014. Discourse grammar, the dual process model, and brain lateralization: Some correlations. Language & Cognition 6: 146–180. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kuteva, Tania, Kaltenböck, Gunther & Long, Haiping. 2015. On some correlation between grammar and brain lateralization. Oxford Handbooks Online. Oxford: OUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Kuteva, Tania & Long, Haiping. 2020. Dual process frameworks on reasoning and linguistic discourse. In Haselow & Kaltenböck (eds), 59–89.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huddleston, Rodney & Pullum, Geoffrey. 2002. Language Description: The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther. 2020. Formulaic language and Discourse Grammar: Evidence from speech disorder. In Grammar and Cognition: Dualistic Models of Language Structure and Language Processing [Human Cognitive Processing 70], Alexander Haselow & Gunther Kaltenböck (eds), 233–266. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Heine, Bernd & Kuteva, Tania. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35: 852–897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keizer, Evelien. 2015. A Functional Discourse Grammar for English. Oxford: OUP.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Kintsch, Walter. 1988. The role of knowledge in discourse comprehension: A construction-integration model. Psychological Review 95, 163–182. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lehman-Blake, Margaret. 2006. Clinical relevance of discourse characteristics after right hemisphere brain damage. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 15(3): 255–267. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Long, Debra, Baynes, Kathleen, & Prat, Chantel. 2005. The propositional structure of discourse in the two cerebral hemispheres. Brain and Language 95(3), 383–394. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maschler, Yael. 2009. Metalanguage in Interaction: Hebrew Discourse Markers [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series 181]. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marini, Andrea. 2012. Characteristics of narrative discourse processing after damage to the right hemisphere. Seminars in Speech and Language 33(1): 68–78. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
MacWhinney, Brian, Fromm, Davida, Forbes, Margret & Holland, Audrey. 2011. AphasiaBank: Methods for studying discourse. Aphasiology 25: 1286–1307. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McEldruff, Kathleen & Drummond, Sakina. 1991. Communication functions of automatic speech in non fluent aphasia. Aphasiology 5: 265–278. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
McKoon, Gail & Ratcliff, Roger. 1992. Inference during reading. Psychological Review 99, 440–466. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mitchell, Rachel L. C. & Crow, Tim J. 2005. Right hemisphere language functions and schizophrenia: The forgotten hemisphere? Brain 128(5): 963–978. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
1999. Right Hemisphere Damage: Disorders of Communication and Cognition. San Diego CA: Singular.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Oelschlaeger, Mary & Damico, Jack S. 1998. Spontaneous verbal repetition: A social strategy in aphasic conversation. Aphasiology 12: 971–988. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Overstreet, Maryann. 2014. The role of pragmatic function in the grammaticalization of English general extenders. Pragmatics 24(1), 105–129. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pallier, Christophe, Devauchelle, Anne-Dominique & Dehaene, Stanislas. 2011. Cortical representation of the constituents structure of sentences. PNAS 108(6): 2522–2527. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pawley, Andrew. 2009. Grammarians’ languages versus humanists’ languages and the place of speech act formulas in models of linguistic competence. In Formulaic Language, Vol. 1: Distribution and Historical Change [Typological Studies in Language 82], Roberta Corrigan, Edith A. Moravcsik, Hamid Ouali & Kathleen M. Wheatley (eds), 3–26. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Pons Bordería, Salvador. 2018. The combination of discourse markers in spontaneous conversations: Keys to undo a gordian knot. Revue Romane 53(1): 121–158. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Purdy, Mary H. 2002. Script knowledge following stroke. Journal of Medical Speech Language Pathology 10(3): 173–181.Google Scholar
Redeker, Gisela. 2006. Discourse markers as attentional cues at discourse transitions. In Approaches to Discourse Particles, Kerstin Fischer (ed.), 339–358. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse Markers. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schnitzer, Marc L. 1989. The Pragmatic Basis of Aphasia. Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Schourup, Lawrence. 1985. Common Discourse Particles in English Conversation. New York NY: Garland.Google Scholar
. 1999. Discourse markers. Lingua 107: 227–265. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sherrat, Sue & Penn, Claire. 1990. Discourse in a right-hemisphere brain-damaged subject. Aphasiology 4(6): 539–560. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Squire, Larry R. 2004. Memory systems of the brain: A brief history and current perspective. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory 82: 171–177. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stalnaker, Robert. 2002. Common ground. Linguistic Philosophy 25(5–6): 701–721. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
Stemberger, Joseph P. & MacWhinney, Brian. 1986. Frequency and the lexical storage of regularly inflected forms. Memory and Cognition 14: 17–26. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tompkins, Connie A. 1995. Right Hemisphere Communication Disorders: Theory and Management. San Diego CA: Singular.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ullman, Michael T. 2004. Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition 92(1–2): 231–270. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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.Google Scholar
van Dijk, Teun. 1980. Macrostructures. An Interdisciplinary Study of Global Structures in Discourse, Interaction and Cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Formulaic language and language disorders. Annual Review of Applied Linguistics 32: 62–80. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Van Lancker Sidtis, Diana & Sidtis, John. 2018. The affective nature of formulaic language: A right-hemisphere subcortical process. Frontiers in Neurology 9: 573. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Wray, Alison. 2002. Formulaic Language and the Lexicon. Cambridge: CUP. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Heine, Bernd
2023. The Grammar of Interactives, DOI logo

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.