Discourse grammar¶

A grammatical framework that models sentence grammar and discourse-organizing expressions as interacting but distinct domains of linguistic organization.

Version: v1 · 2026-09-08 · History
Domain-specific #: 4201
Origin domain: linguistic theory
Subdomain: linguistic theory

Core Idea¶

This is the specific framework associated with a two-domain distinction, not the generic grammar of connected discourse; classifications of parentheticals and discourse markers remain theory-dependent.^[1] Utterance material is assigned either to sentence grammar, which builds propositional clause structure, or to thetical grammar, which organizes parenthetical, interactional and discourse-management units; their combination accounts for linear discourse. The abstraction is therefore identified by a declared carrier, a transformation or constraint over that carrier, and an invariant that tells an analyst whether the named structure is genuinely present.

The load-bearing residual is not the broad topic of linguistic theory. It is the domain-specific identity fixed by the spoken or written discourse, sentence-grammar and thetical-grammar domains, propositional clause structure, parenthetical or extra-clausal units, discourse markers and formulae, syntactic integration and prosodic separation, linear placement, cooptation or grammaticalization pathway, interface rules and evidence distinguishing the domains are explicit. That residual remains recognizable when examples, notation, scale, or implementation change, but it disappears if the carrier is mistyped, the condition that the spoken or written discourse, sentence-grammar and thetical-grammar domains, propositional clause structure, parenthetical or extra-clausal units, discourse markers and formulae, syntactic integration and prosodic separation, linear placement, cooptation or grammaticalization pathway, interface rules and evidence distinguishing the domains are explicit fails, a neighboring object is substituted, or notation and topical resemblance replace the constitutive test. This gives the entry an operational identity rather than merely a historical label.

A useful analysis keeps three layers separate. The constitutive layer says what must be true: the spoken or written discourse, sentence-grammar and thetical-grammar domains, propositional clause structure, parenthetical or extra-clausal units, discourse markers and formulae, syntactic integration and prosodic separation, linear placement, cooptation or grammaticalization pathway, interface rules and evidence distinguishing the domains are explicit. The evidential layer asks what observation or proof warrants the claim: type the carrier, state every parameter and convention in the definition, test that the spoken or written discourse, sentence-grammar and thetical-grammar domains, propositional clause structure, parenthetical or extra-clausal units, discourse markers and formulae, syntactic integration and prosodic separation, linear placement, cooptation or grammaticalization pathway, interface rules and evidence distinguishing the domains are explicit, compare the nearest accepted identity, and report counterexamples, uncertainty, and limiting cases. The use layer asks what reasoning becomes available once the identity is established: recognizing and comparing instances of Discourse grammar, deriving its domain-specific consequences, selecting valid models or methods, and preventing transfer beyond its assumptions. Conflating the layers is the most common source of scope inflation.

Structural Signature¶

Carrier: the typed linguistic theory carrier, including objects, relations, parameters, conventions, evidence, boundaries, and comparison targets
Inputs or antecedent state: the exact linguistic theory carrier, defining parameters and conventions, boundary conditions, source evidence, comparison cases, and any measurement or proof assumptions needed to evaluate Discourse grammar
Constitutive operation: Utterance material is assigned either to sentence grammar, which builds propositional clause structure, or to thetical grammar, which organizes parenthetical, interactional and discourse-management units; their combination accounts for linear discourse.
Invariant: the spoken or written discourse, sentence-grammar and thetical-grammar domains, propositional clause structure, parenthetical or extra-clausal units, discourse markers and formulae, syntactic integration and prosodic separation, linear placement, cooptation or grammaticalization pathway, interface rules and evidence distinguishing the domains are explicit
Recognition test: type the carrier, state every parameter and convention in the definition, test that the spoken or written discourse, sentence-grammar and thetical-grammar domains, propositional clause structure, parenthetical or extra-clausal units, discourse markers and formulae, syntactic integration and prosodic separation, linear placement, cooptation or grammaticalization pathway, interface rules and evidence distinguishing the domains are explicit, compare the nearest accepted identity, and report counterexamples, uncertainty, and limiting cases
Output or consequence: recognizing and comparing instances of Discourse grammar, deriving its domain-specific consequences, selecting valid models or methods, and preventing transfer beyond its assumptions
Failure boundary: the carrier is mistyped, the condition that the spoken or written discourse, sentence-grammar and thetical-grammar domains, propositional clause structure, parenthetical or extra-clausal units, discourse markers and formulae, syntactic integration and prosodic separation, linear placement, cooptation or grammaticalization pathway, interface rules and evidence distinguishing the domains are explicit fails, a neighboring object is substituted, or notation and topical resemblance replace the constitutive test

What It Is Not¶

It is not the whole field of linguistic theory. The field contains many questions and methods that do not instantiate Discourse grammar.
It is not its most familiar example. A canonical instance directly demonstrates that the spoken or written discourse, sentence-grammar and thetical-grammar domains, propositional clause structure, parenthetical or extra-clausal units, discourse markers and formulae, syntactic integration and prosodic separation, linear placement, cooptation or grammaticalization pathway, interface rules and evidence distinguishing the domains are explicit. exhibits the structure, but the example is evidence for the abstraction rather than its definition.
It is not the neighboring catalog concept Discourse analysis. Discourse analysis studies language beyond sentences with many methods; Discourse Grammar is a particular grammatical architecture separating sentence and thetical organization.
It is not a claim that every boundary case has one uncontested classification. a generalized or degenerate case may change existence, uniqueness, measurement, or naming conventions, so the exact definition of Discourse grammar must control the decision
It is not an unrestricted metaphor for any process that seems similar. Outside linguistic theory, the vocabulary and validity conditions do not transfer literally.

Scope of Application¶

Discourse grammar belongs to linguistic theory and is useful where the analyst can specify the typed linguistic theory carrier, including objects, relations, parameters, conventions, evidence, boundaries, and comparison targets, then evaluate the spoken or written discourse, sentence-grammar and thetical-grammar domains, propositional clause structure, parenthetical or extra-clausal units, discourse markers and formulae, syntactic integration and prosodic separation, linear placement, cooptation or grammaticalization pathway, interface rules and evidence distinguishing the domains are explicit. The scope is broad within that domain but bounded by the need for the spoken or written discourse, sentence-grammar and thetical-grammar domains, propositional clause structure, parenthetical or extra-clausal units, discourse markers and formulae, syntactic integration and prosodic separation, linear placement, cooptation or grammaticalization pathway, interface rules and evidence distinguishing the domains are explicit. The entry records a descriptive analytical identity; practical use requires the governing domain's evidence, standards, and safety obligations.^[2]

Definition and recognition. Determine whether a proposed instance satisfies the constitutive conditions rather than merely sharing terminology.
Construction or evolution. Track how the exact linguistic theory carrier, defining parameters and conventions, boundary conditions, source evidence, comparison cases, and any measurement or proof assumptions needed to evaluate Discourse grammar are converted, constrained, or organized by Utterance material is assigned either to sentence grammar, which builds propositional clause structure, or to thetical grammar, which organizes parenthetical, interactional and discourse-management units; their combination accounts for linear discourse..
Comparison. Compare instances using carrier, parameters, convention, domain, scale, boundary conditions, evidence, exact versus approximate form, and limiting behavior, without treating convenience measures as the definition.
Boundary analysis. Diagnose cases where a generalized or degenerate case may change existence, uniqueness, measurement, or naming conventions, so the exact definition of Discourse grammar must control the decision and state which convention or theorem controls the decision.
Downstream reasoning. Use the established identity to support recognizing and comparing instances of Discourse grammar, deriving its domain-specific consequences, selecting valid models or methods, and preventing transfer beyond its assumptions while preserving the assumptions under which the inference is valid.

Clarity¶

The abstraction clarifies a crowded vocabulary by making the spoken or written discourse, sentence-grammar and thetical-grammar domains, propositional clause structure, parenthetical or extra-clausal units, discourse markers and formulae, syntactic integration and prosodic separation, linear placement, cooptation or grammaticalization pathway, interface rules and evidence distinguishing the domains are explicit the center of the account. A claim should name the carrier, the governing operation or relation, the applicable assumptions, and the recognition test. A bare label is insufficient because the name Discourse grammar can be used for a formal identity, an implementation, or a neighboring result unless carrier and convention are stated. The disciplined statement is: given the exact linguistic theory carrier, defining parameters and conventions, boundary conditions, source evidence, comparison cases, and any measurement or proof assumptions needed to evaluate Discourse grammar, the structure counts as Discourse grammar exactly when the spoken or written discourse, sentence-grammar and thetical-grammar domains, propositional clause structure, parenthetical or extra-clausal units, discourse markers and formulae, syntactic integration and prosodic separation, linear placement, cooptation or grammaticalization pathway, interface rules and evidence distinguishing the domains are explicit.

This format also separates identity from measurement. Empirical, computational, or documentary proxies support recognition only under declared validity and uncertainty assumptions; formal cases require proof rather than measurement. Measurements can be noisy, implementations can approximate, and proofs can use equivalent characterizations; none of those facts licenses changing the object being measured. When reports disagree, first check scope and convention, then data or proof, and only then interpret the disagreement as substantive.

Manages Complexity¶

Without the abstraction, an analyst must reason directly over many local details: the carrier roles, admissibility assumptions, competing conventions, derived invariants, boundary cases, and proof or validation obligations specific to Discourse grammar. Discourse grammar compresses them into the roles in the structural signature. That compression permits comparison across instances without erasing the variables that determine validity. It also exposes which details may be varied safely and which are constitutive.

The compression has a price. A single label can hide canonical, generalized, restricted, approximate, computational, empirical, and historically variant formulations of Discourse grammar. Good use therefore carries a small declaration of assumptions alongside the name. The abstraction manages complexity when it reduces the state space of the question while keeping the failure boundary visible; it mismanages complexity when the label substitutes for that boundary analysis.

Abstract Reasoning¶

Identify the carrier. State what the elements, states, objects, or observations are: the typed linguistic theory carrier, including objects, relations, parameters, conventions, evidence, boundaries, and comparison targets. Reject examples whose alleged carrier belongs to a different problem.
Lock the constitutive rule. Express the spoken or written discourse, sentence-grammar and thetical-grammar domains, propositional clause structure, parenthetical or extra-clausal units, discourse markers and formulae, syntactic integration and prosodic separation, linear placement, cooptation or grammaticalization pathway, interface rules and evidence distinguishing the domains are explicit independently of one notation or implementation. This step prevents the canonical example from becoming the definition.
Derive consequences. From the spoken or written discourse, sentence-grammar and thetical-grammar domains, propositional clause structure, parenthetical or extra-clausal units, discourse markers and formulae, syntactic integration and prosodic separation, linear placement, cooptation or grammaticalization pathway, interface rules and evidence distinguishing the domains are explicit, infer recognizing and comparing instances of Discourse grammar, deriving its domain-specific consequences, selecting valid models or methods, and preventing transfer beyond its assumptions. Record each assumption used so that a later change of setting does not silently preserve an invalid conclusion.
Test adversarial cases. Examine a generalized or degenerate case may change existence, uniqueness, measurement, or naming conventions, so the exact definition of Discourse grammar must control the decision and an object that resembles Discourse grammar in purpose or vocabulary but does not satisfy its invariant is outside the class. A robust identity explains why the first is convention-sensitive and why the second is outside the class.
Compare and refine. Use carrier, parameters, convention, domain, scale, boundary conditions, evidence, exact versus approximate form, and limiting behavior to compare legitimate instances, and refine the model when discrepancies reflect hidden variation rather than failure of the abstraction itself.

Knowledge Transfer¶

Knowledge transfers strongly among subfields of linguistic theory because they reuse the typed linguistic theory carrier, including objects, relations, parameters, conventions, evidence, boundaries, and comparison targets, Utterance material is assigned either to sentence grammar, which builds propositional clause structure, or to thetical grammar, which organizes parenthetical, interactional and discourse-management units; their combination accounts for linear discourse., and type the carrier, state every parameter and convention in the definition, test that the spoken or written discourse, sentence-grammar and thetical-grammar domains, propositional clause structure, parenthetical or extra-clausal units, discourse markers and formulae, syntactic integration and prosodic separation, linear placement, cooptation or grammaticalization pathway, interface rules and evidence distinguishing the domains are explicit, compare the nearest accepted identity, and report counterexamples, uncertainty, and limiting cases. A theorem, diagnostic, or modeling warning can travel when those roles remain literal. For example, the distinction between constitutive identity and a convenient observable transfers from A canonical instance directly demonstrates that the spoken or written discourse, sentence-grammar and thetical-grammar domains, propositional clause structure, parenthetical or extra-clausal units, discourse markers and formulae, syntactic integration and prosodic separation, linear placement, cooptation or grammaticalization pathway, interface rules and evidence distinguishing the domains are explicit. to An applied instance preserves the invariant under changed notation, scale, dataset, jurisdiction, or implementation..^[3]

Transfer outside the home domain is weaker. The skeletal pattern—type the carrier, apply the defining mechanism of Discourse grammar, preserve its invariant, and derive only consequences licensed by the stated boundary—may suggest an analogy, but the domain-specific mechanisms, admissible evidence, and consequences do not come along automatically. The safe transfer procedure maps each role explicitly, checks the invariant again, and refuses the name when only a superficial resemblance remains.

Examples¶

Canonical¶

A canonical instance directly demonstrates that the spoken or written discourse, sentence-grammar and thetical-grammar domains, propositional clause structure, parenthetical or extra-clausal units, discourse markers and formulae, syntactic integration and prosodic separation, linear placement, cooptation or grammaticalization pathway, interface rules and evidence distinguishing the domains are explicit. The example exposes the carrier and directly tests that the spoken or written discourse, sentence-grammar and thetical-grammar domains, propositional clause structure, parenthetical or extra-clausal units, discourse markers and formulae, syntactic integration and prosodic separation, linear placement, cooptation or grammaticalization pathway, interface rules and evidence distinguishing the domains are explicit; changing incidental notation preserves the identity, while removing that condition destroys it. This example is canonical because every role can be inspected: the carrier is the typed linguistic theory carrier, including objects, relations, parameters, conventions, evidence, boundaries, and comparison targets; the operative rule is Utterance material is assigned either to sentence grammar, which builds propositional clause structure, or to thetical grammar, which organizes parenthetical, interactional and discourse-management units; their combination accounts for linear discourse.; the invariant is the spoken or written discourse, sentence-grammar and thetical-grammar domains, propositional clause structure, parenthetical or extra-clausal units, discourse markers and formulae, syntactic integration and prosodic separation, linear placement, cooptation or grammaticalization pathway, interface rules and evidence distinguishing the domains are explicit; and the result supports recognizing and comparing instances of Discourse grammar, deriving its domain-specific consequences, selecting valid models or methods, and preventing transfer beyond its assumptions.^[1] Changing incidental notation or scale leaves the structure intact, while removing the spoken or written discourse, sentence-grammar and thetical-grammar domains, propositional clause structure, parenthetical or extra-clausal units, discourse markers and formulae, syntactic integration and prosodic separation, linear placement, cooptation or grammaticalization pathway, interface rules and evidence distinguishing the domains are explicit destroys the classification.

Mapped back: the typed linguistic theory carrier, including objects, relations, parameters, conventions, evidence, boundaries, and comparison targets → Utterance material is assigned either to sentence grammar, which builds propositional clause structure, or to thetical grammar, which organizes parenthetical, interactional and discourse-management units; their combination accounts for linear discourse. → the spoken or written discourse, sentence-grammar and thetical-grammar domains, propositional clause structure, parenthetical or extra-clausal units, discourse markers and formulae, syntactic integration and prosodic separation, linear placement, cooptation or grammaticalization pathway, interface rules and evidence distinguishing the domains are explicit → recognizing and comparing instances of Discourse grammar, deriving its domain-specific consequences, selecting valid models or methods, and preventing transfer beyond its assumptions

Applied / In Practice¶

An applied instance preserves the invariant under changed notation, scale, dataset, jurisdiction, or implementation. The applied case qualifies only because the same invariant and boundary test remain literal under changed parameters or implementation. The applied case is not licensed merely by vocabulary. It qualifies because the same recognition test—type the carrier, state every parameter and convention in the definition, test that the spoken or written discourse, sentence-grammar and thetical-grammar domains, propositional clause structure, parenthetical or extra-clausal units, discourse markers and formulae, syntactic integration and prosodic separation, linear placement, cooptation or grammaticalization pathway, interface rules and evidence distinguishing the domains are explicit, compare the nearest accepted identity, and report counterexamples, uncertainty, and limiting cases—can be run and because the same failure boundary—the carrier is mistyped, the condition that the spoken or written discourse, sentence-grammar and thetical-grammar domains, propositional clause structure, parenthetical or extra-clausal units, discourse markers and formulae, syntactic integration and prosodic separation, linear placement, cooptation or grammaticalization pathway, interface rules and evidence distinguishing the domains are explicit fails, a neighboring object is substituted, or notation and topical resemblance replace the constitutive test—remains meaningful.^[2] The case also shows why practical outputs should report assumptions, resolution, and uncertainty instead of a naked label.

Mapped back: declared instance → recognition test → boundary check → qualified use

Structural Tensions¶

T1: Axiomatic identity vs. operational recognition. The defining conditions may be exact while empirical or computational recognition is approximate. Neither pole can be removed without changing the analytical task. Diagnostic: Can the reviewer state both the exact condition and the evidence used to infer it?
T2: Local roles vs. global consequence. The mechanism is enacted through local relations, but the abstraction is usually valued for a global classification or prediction. Neither pole can be removed without changing the analytical task. Diagnostic: Does the claimed global result actually follow from the declared local conditions?
T3: Ideal form vs. finite representation. Theory states a clean invariant while data structures, measurements, or proofs expose only finite representations. Neither pole can be removed without changing the analytical task. Diagnostic: Would increasing resolution converge toward the same classification?
T4: Canonical convention vs. legitimate variants. A standard formulation supports communication, while variants may preserve the same core under changed assumptions. Neither pole can be removed without changing the analytical task. Diagnostic: Which role is invariant across variants, and which convention-specific conclusion changes?
T5: Compression vs. hidden assumptions. The name compresses a complex argument but can conceal prerequisites. Neither pole can be removed without changing the analytical task. Diagnostic: Can each downstream inference be traced to an explicit assumption?
T6: Autonomous residual vs. reduction to catalog neighbors. The candidate uses broader structures but adds an identity-bearing residual. Neither pole can be removed without changing the analytical task. Diagnostic: After subtracting the proposed parent and named neighbors, does the constitutive residual still support independent diagnostics?

Structural–Framed Character¶

The entry is structurally mixed but domain-framed. Its portable skeleton is type the carrier, apply the defining mechanism of Discourse grammar, preserve its invariant, and derive only consequences licensed by the stated boundary. Its identity-bearing terms—Discourse grammar, carrier, parameter, invariant, boundary, evidence, model, transformation, and application—derive their meaning from linguistic theory and cannot be replaced by generic systems language without losing the tests that distinguish valid from invalid instances.

This mixed character explains why the abstraction is reusable inside the domain yet does not meet the Prime bar. The structure organizes reasoning, but its claims still depend on domain-specific objects, evidence, and intervention semantics.

Structural Core vs. Domain Accent¶

The structural core consists of a carrier, Utterance material is assigned either to sentence grammar, which builds propositional clause structure, or to thetical grammar, which organizes parenthetical, interactional and discourse-management units; their combination accounts for linear discourse., a recognition invariant, and a consequence. That skeleton may resemble patterns elsewhere, especially type the carrier, apply the defining mechanism of Discourse grammar, preserve its invariant, and derive only consequences licensed by the stated boundary. The domain accent is not decorative: Discourse grammar, carrier, parameter, invariant, boundary, evidence, model, transformation, and application determine what counts as an admissible carrier, a valid transition, and successful evidence.

The abstraction therefore remains domain-specific. A cross-domain reuse that preserves only words such as 'balance,' 'cut,' 'sequence,' 'loss,' or 'simulation' is metaphor. Literal transfer requires the original role structure and diagnostics, which in this case remain anchored in linguistic theory.

The proposed strict upward parent is prime:decomposition. prime:decomposition is the nearest broader Prime while the source-domain carrier and invariant supply the autonomous residual. This is a proposal-only workspace relationship: the accepted Prime supplies a genuinely instantiated structural prerequisite or superclass, while Discourse grammar adds domain-specific constraints.

The entry does not collapse into that parent because the domain-specific identity fixed by the spoken or written discourse, sentence-grammar and thetical-grammar domains, propositional clause structure, parenthetical or extra-clausal units, discourse markers and formulae, syntactic integration and prosodic separation, linear placement, cooptation or grammaticalization pathway, interface rules and evidence distinguishing the domains are explicit It also declines a nearby thematic catalog node: the neighbor does not literally subsume the constitutive identity of Discourse grammar. This explicit assert-and-decline pattern keeps the proposed DAG narrow and prevents a merely thematic edge.

The prospective workspace queue contains one strict upward edge to prime:decomposition. No live DAG mutation is authorized.

Relationships to Other Abstractions¶

Current abstraction Discourse grammar Domain-specific

Parents (1) — more general patterns this builds on

Discourse grammar is a kind of Decomposition Prime

The proposed strict upward parent is prime:decomposition.

Hierarchy path (1) — routes to 1 parentless root

Discourse grammar → Decomposition

Neighborhood in Abstraction Space¶

Discourse grammar sits in a crowded region of the domain-specific corpus (11^th percentile for distinctiveness): several abstractions share nearly its structure, so a description that fits it tends to fit its neighbors too.

Family — Grammar, Reference & Linguistic Structure (30 abstractions)

Nearest neighbors

Computed from structural-signature embeddings · 2026-09-08

Not to Be Confused With¶

Discourse analysis. Discourse analysis studies language beyond sentences with many methods; Discourse Grammar is a particular grammatical architecture separating sentence and thetical organization.
One canonical example. An instance demonstrates the structure but does not define the whole abstraction.
Measurement or implementation of Discourse grammar. A proxy or realization is evidence for the abstraction, not the abstraction itself.
Generalized Discourse grammar. An extension qualifies only when its changed axioms and retained invariant are stated.

References¶

[1] On the other hand, it has benefitted greatly from research on the nature of parenthetical categories and the concept of supplements. Principles DG is composed of all the linguistic resources that are available for designing texts, irrespective of whether these are spoken or written (or signed) texts. It is viewed both as an activity, a real-time interactional tool, and a knowledge store consisting of a set of conventional linguistic units plus their combinatorial potential. An elementary distinction between two main domains of speech processing is made, referred to as Sentence Grammar and Thetical Grammar. Sentence Grammar is organized in terms of propositional concepts and clauses and their combination. It has been the only, or the main subject of mainstream theories of linguistics. The concern of Thetical Grammar is with theticals, that is, with linguistic discourse units beyond the sentence, being syntactically, semantically, and typically also prosodically detached from expressions of Sentence Grammar. These units include what is traditionally referred to as parenthetical constructions but are not restricted to them. The main categories of Thetical Grammar are conceptual theticals (including comment clauses, discourse markers, etc.) as well as various other extra-clausal categories such as vocatives, formulae of social exchange, and interjections. While being separate in principle, the two domains interact in multiple ways in shaping linguistic discourse. The main way of interaction is via cooptation, an operation whereby chunks of Sentence Grammar such as clauses, phrases, words, or any other units are deployed for use in Thetical Grammar. Application Being a relatively young framework, DG has so far found only limited applications. Work has focused mainly on comment clauses, discourse markers, final particles, and insubordination. Furthermore, DG as a descriptive tool has for the most part been restricted to the study of English. Analysis within this framework is now being extended to non-European languages. More detailed research has been carried out already on Akie, a traditional hunter-gatherer language of the Nilotic family spoken in north-central Tanzania. A grammar of this language based on DG has been published, the use of theticals in the organization of texts has been studied, and institutional frames surfacing from the analysis of Akie texts have been identified using Thetical Grammar as a basis. In another line of research, DG has been extended to the study of language contact. As the work on the discourse in bilingual situations has shown, theticals play an important role both in code-switching and borrowing. Furthermore, there is reason to assume that the distinction between Sentence Grammar and Thetical Grammar may shed new light on the question of how human language or languages evolved. Finally, a considerable part of the research is devoted to the question of whether the distinction between the two domains is reflected in neural activity. As this research suggests, there appears to be a corresponding distinction in brain lateralization, in that Sentence Grammar correlates primarily with left-hemisphere activity whereas Thetical grammar appears to be more strongly associated with right-hemisphere activation. Related work That discourse organization operates simultaneously in two different dimensions has also been pointed out in a number of other research traditions. Thus, a distinction akin to that between Sentence Grammar and Thetical Grammar is also made in some psycholinguistic studies on comprehension where a contrast between propositional representation and discourse model is made, and in neurolinguistic discourse analysis there is a related distinction between referential and modalizing speech. In other frameworks, specific manifestations of the distinction are highlighted, such as that between microgrammar and macrogrammar, or between an analytic and a holistic mode of processing, or between conceptual and procedural meaning in the theory of Relevance Grammar. References {{reflist|40em|refs= Kaltenböck, Gunther, Bernd Heine, and Tania Kuteva. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35, 4: 848-893. registry ↩a ↩b

[2] Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck, Tania Kuteva, and Haiping Long. 2013. An outline of discourse grammar. In Shannon Bischoff and Carmen Jany (eds.), Functional Approaches to Language. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. 175-233. registry ↩a ↩b

[3] Kaltenböck, Gunther and Bernd Heine. 2014. Sentence grammar vs. thetical grammar: two competing domains. In Brian MacWhinney, Andrej Malchukov, and Edith Moravcsik (eds.), Competing motivations in grammar and usage. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 348-363. registry ↩