Cited by 508Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismLanguage Development and DisordersReading and Literacy Development

The Declarative/Procedural Model of Lexicon and Grammar

Ullman, Michael T.·2001·Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

Abstract

Our use of language depends upon two capacities: a mental lexicon of memorized words and a mental grammar of rules that underlie the sequential and hierarchical composition of lexical forms into predictably structured larger words, phrases, and sentences. The declarative/procedural model posits that the lexicon/grammar distinction in language is tied to the distinction between two well-studied brain memory systems. On this view, the memorization and use of at least simple words (those with noncompositional, that is, arbitrary form-meaning pairings) depends upon an associative memory of distributed representations that is subserved by temporal-lobe circuits previously implicated in the learning and use of fact and event knowledge. This "declarative memory" system appears to be specialized for learning arbitrarily related information (i.e., for associative binding). In contrast, the acquisition and use of grammatical rules that underlie symbol manipulation is subserved by frontal/basal-ganglia circuits previously implicated in the implicit (nonconscious) learning and expression of motor and cognitive "skills" and "habits" (e.g., from simple motor acts to skilled game playing). This "procedural" system may be specialized for computing sequences. This novel view of lexicon and grammar offers an alternative to the two main competing theoretical frameworks. It shares the perspective of traditional dual-mechanism theories in positing that the mental lexicon and a symbol-manipulating…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1023/a:1005204207369

Cites

120 of 120 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 122 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ullman, M. T.
Affiliations
Georgetown University (US)
Corresponding author
Ullman, Michael T.
Venue
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
Published
2001-01
Volume
30
Issue
1
Pages
37-69
ISSN
  • 0090-6905 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-6555
OpenAlex
W1498096105
Cited by
508
References
122
Citations by year
2026: 16 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 37 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 22 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 25 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 25 · 2013: 40 · 2012: 30
FWCI
0.60
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Psycholinguistic Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
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
procedural memory, mental lexicon, mental grammar, associative memory, temporal lobe, frontal cortex, basal ganglia, morphological complexity, morphological productivity, double dissociation, implicit learning, symbolic computation, language acquisition, computational models of language, grammar learning
MeSH terms
Aphasia, Brain, Brain Diseases, Electroencephalography, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Linguistics, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Memory, Psycholinguistics, Semantics, Tomography, Emission-Computed, Vocabulary, Magnetoencephalography

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