CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,893Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismLanguage Development and DisordersReading and Literacy Development

Contributions of memory circuits to language: the declarative/procedural model

Ullman, Michael T·2004·Cognition
DOI 10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The structure of the brain and the nature of evolution suggest that, despite its uniqueness, language likely depends on brain systems that also subserve other functions. The declarative/procedural (DP) model claims that the mental lexicon of memorized word-specific knowledge depends on the largely temporal-lobe substrates of declarative memory, which underlies the storage and use of knowledge of facts and events. The mental grammar, which subserves the rule-governed combination of lexical items into complex representations, depends on a distinct neural system. This system, which is composed of a network of specific frontal, basal-ganglia, parietal and cerebellar structures, underlies procedural memory, which supports the learning and execution of motor and cognitive skills, especially those involving sequences. The functions of the two brain systems, together with their anatomical, physiological and biochemical substrates, lead to specific claims and predictions regarding their roles in language. These predictions are compared with those of other neurocognitive models of language. Empirical evidence is presented from neuroimaging studies of normal language processing, and from developmental and adult-onset disorders. It is argued that this evidence supports the DP model. It is additionally proposed that "language" disorders, such as specific language impairment and non-fluent and fluent aphasia, may be profitably viewed as impairments primarily affecting one or the other brai…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The D/P model predicts that L2 learners initially rely on declarative memory for idiosyncratic knowledge, but some aspects of grammar can simultaneously be learned by procedural memory, and as proficiency increases procedural memory gradually takes priority.

    “For L2 learning, the D/P model specifically predicts that learners initially rely on declarative memory to acquire idiosyncratic knowledge, such as vocabulary items, morphosyntactic rules, and pragmatic functions, but some aspects of grammar (and some other features requiring probabilistic learning) can simultaneously be learned by procedural memory.”

    From Testing the three-stage model of second language skill acquisition (2025) · cites this paper as Ullman, 2004

  • Intensive exposure to the target language and real-life situations leads to automatisation of grammatical rules.

    “access the automatisation of grammatical rules through intensive exposure to the target language and real-life situations (Ullman, 2004).”

    From Transformative impacts of explicit morphological instruction on irregular inflectional acquisition in Saudi EFL learners (2024) · cites this paper as Ullman, 2004

  • L2 learners can access the automatisation of grammatical rules through intensive exposure to the target language and real-life situations.

    “The current study's findings support the argument that L2 learners can access the automatisation of grammatical rules through intensive exposure to the target language and real-life situations (Ullman, 2004).”

    From Transformative impacts of explicit morphological instruction on irregular inflectional acquisition in Saudi EFL learners (2024) · cites this paper as Ullman, 2004

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ullman, M. T.
Affiliations
Georgetown University (US)
Corresponding author
Ullman, Michael T
ORCID
Ullman, Michael T
Venue
Cognition
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-05
Volume
92
Issue
1-2
Pages
231-270
ISSN
0010-0277 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008
OpenAlex
W2128863839
Cited by
1,893
References
13
Citations by year
2026: 53 · 2025: 66 · 2024: 88 · 2023: 103 · 2022: 72 · 2021: 87 · 2020: 121 · 2019: 155 · 2018: 96 · 2017: 157 · 2016: 108 · 2015: 142 · 2014: 87 · 2013: 95 · 2012: 102
FWCI
3.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Cognition (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (9905273)
  • National Institutes of Health (MH58189)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH-58189, R01MH058189)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
language, declarative memory, procedural memory, mental lexicon, mental grammar, temporal lobe, basal ganglia, cerebellum, frontal cortex, aphasia, specific language impairment
MeSH terms
Humans, Language, Memory, Nerve Net, Vocabulary

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review