CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 120Neurobiology of Language and BilingualismLanguage Development and DisordersMemory Processes and Influences

Child first language and adult second language are both tied to general-purpose learning systems

Open access
Hamrick, Phillip, Lum, Jarrad A. G., Ullman, Michael T.·2018·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1713975115PMC PMC5816159
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Significance: It has long been debated whether the mechanisms that underlie language are dedicated to this uniquely human capacity or whether in fact they serve more general-purpose functions. Our study provides strong evidence that language—indeed both first and second language—is learned, in specific ways, by general-purpose neurocognitive mechanisms that preexist Homo sapiens . The results have broad implications. They elucidate both the ontogeny (development) and phylogeny (evolution) of language. Moreover, they suggest that our substantial knowledge of the general-purpose mechanisms, from both animal and human studies, may also apply to language. The study may thus lead to a research program that can generate a wide range of predictions about this critical domain.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.1713975115

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • In L2 research, studies have provided evidence suggesting the existence of different developmental stages, but there was no proper methodological option to identify learning stages based on behavioral data.

    “In L2 research, studies have similarly provided evidence suggesting that the existence of different developmental stages (e.g., Hamrick et al., 2018;Morgan-Short et al., 2014;Pili-Moss et al., 2020), yet a limitation has been that there was no proper methodological option to identify learning stages based on behavioral data (such as RT data).”

    From Testing the three-stage model of second language skill acquisition (2025) · cites this paper as Hamrick et al., 2018

  • A meta-analysis by Hamrick, Lum and Ullman (2018) confirmed the dynamic role of declarative and procedural learning abilities in L2 learning, particularly among adult learners.

    “Additionally, a meta-analysis by Hamrick, Lum and Ullman (2018) confirmed this dynamic role of declarative and procedural learning abilities in L2 learning, particularly among adult learners (but see also Oliveira, Henderson & Hayiou-Thomas, 2023, for counterevidence).”

    From Testing the three-stage model of second language skill acquisition (2025) · cites this paper as Hamrick, Lum & Ullman, 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 65

  1. [1]Chomsky N. On the nature of language. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1976;280:46–57. [Google Scholar]
  2. [3]Karmiloff-Smith A. An alternative to domain-general or domain-specific frameworks for theorizing about human evolution and ontogenesis. AIMS Neurosci. 2015;2:91–104. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2015.2.91. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  3. [4]Bates E. Language development. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 1992;2:180–185. doi: 10.1016/0959-4388(92)90009-a. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  4. [6]Chomsky N. The Minimalist Program. MIT Press; Cambridge, MA: 1995. [Google Scholar]
  5. [8]Grodzinsky Y. The neurology of syntax: Language use without Broca’s area. Behav Brain Sci. 2000;23:1–21, discussion 21–71. doi: 10.1017/s0140525x00002399. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  6. [9]van der Lely HKJ. Domain-specific cognitive systems: Insight from grammatical-SLI. Trends Cogn Sci. 2005;9:53–59. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.12.002. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  7. [10]Fitch WT. The evolution of syntax: An exaptationist perspective. Front Evol Neurosci. 2011;3:9. doi: 10.3389/fnevo.2011.00009. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  8. [11]Yang CD. Universal grammar, statistics or both? Trends Cogn Sci. 2004;8:451–456. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2004.08.006. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  9. [12]Ullman MT, Lum JAG, Conti-Ramsden G. Domain specificity in language development. In: Brooks P, Kempe V, editors. Encyclopedia of Language Development. Sage; Los Angeles: 2014. pp. 163–166. [Google Scholar]
  10. [13]Ullman MT. Contributions of memory circuits to language: The declarative/procedural model. Cognition. 2004;92:231–270. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2003.10.008. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  11. [15]Langacker RW. Foundations of Cognitive Grammar. Theoretical Prerequisites. Vol 1 Stanford Univ Press; Stanford, CA: 1987. [Google Scholar]
  12. [16]Ellis NC. Cognitive perspectives on SLA: The associative-cognitive CREED. AILA Rev. 2007;19:100–121. [Google Scholar]
  13. [17]Evans V, Bergen B, Zinken J. The Cognitive Linguistics Reader. Equinox; London: 2007. The cognitive linguistics enterprise: An overview; pp. 263–266. [Google Scholar]
  14. [18]Fedorenko E, Gibson E, Rohde D. The nature of working memory capacity in sentence comprehension: Evidence against domain-specific working memory resources. J Mem Lang. 2006;54:541–553. [Google Scholar]
  15. [19]Just MA, Carpenter PA. A capacity theory of comprehension: Individual differences in working memory. Psychol Rev. 1992;99:122–149. doi: 10.1037/0033-295x.99.1.122. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  16. [20]Dehaene S. Reading in the Brain: The New Science of How We Read. Penguin; New York: 2009. [Google Scholar]
  17. [21]Christiansen MH, Chater N. The language faculty that wasn’t: A usage-based account of natural language recursion. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1182. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01182. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  18. [22]Saffran JR, Thiessen E. Domain-general learning capacities. In: Hoff E, Shatz M, editors. Blackwell Handbook of Language Development. Blackwell Publishing; Oxford: 2008. pp. 68–86. [Google Scholar]
  19. [24]Ullman MT. Theories in Second Language Acquisition: An Introduction. Routledge; New York: 2015. The declarative/procedural model: A neurobiologically motivated theory of first and second language; pp. 135–158. [Google Scholar]
  20. [27]Mishkin M, Malamut B, Bachevalier J. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory. The Guilford Press; New York: 1984. Memories and habits: Two neural systems; pp. 65–77. [Google Scholar]
  21. [28]Ashby FG, Turner BO, Horvitz JC. Cortical and basal ganglia contributions to habit learning and automaticity. Trends Cogn Sci. 2010;14:208–215. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.02.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  22. [29]McClelland JL, Patterson K. “Words or rules” cannot exploit the regularity in exceptions. Trends Cogn Sci. 2002;6:464–465. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(02)02012-0. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  23. [30]McClelland JL, Patterson K. Rules or connections in past-tense inflections: What does the evidence rule out? Trends Cogn Sci. 2002;6:465–472. doi: 10.1016/s1364-6613(02)01993-9. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  24. [31]Longworth CE, Keenan SE, Barker RA, Marslen-Wilson WD, Tyler LK. The basal ganglia and rule-governed language use: Evidence from vascular and degenerative conditions. Brain. 2005;128:584–596. doi: 10.1093/brain/awh387. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  25. [32]Henke K. A model for memory systems based on processing modes rather than consciousness. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2010;11:523–532. doi: 10.1038/nrn2850. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  26. [33]Kumaran D, Maguire EA. Novelty signals: A window into hippocampal information processing. Trends Cogn Sci. 2009;13:47–54. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2008.11.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  27. [34]Kotz SA, Schwartze M, Schmidt-Kassow M. Non-motor basal ganglia functions: A review and proposal for a model of sensory predictability in auditory language perception. Cortex. 2009;45:982–990. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2009.02.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  28. [36]Grossman M, et al. Cognitive and physiological substrates of impaired sentence processing in Parkinson’s disease. J Cogn Neurosci. 1993;5:480–498. doi: 10.1162/jocn.1993.5.4.480. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  29. [37]Fedorenko E, Duncan J, Kanwisher N. Language-selective and domain-general regions lie side by side within Broca’s area. Curr Biol. 2012;22:2059–2062. doi: 10.1016/j.cub.2012.09.011. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  30. [38]Conti-Ramsden G, Ullman MT, Lum JAG. The relation between receptive grammar and procedural, declarative, and working memory in specific language impairment. Front Psychol. 2015;6:1090. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01090. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  31. [39]De Soto JL, De Soto CB. Relationship of reading achievement to verbal processing abilities. J Educ Psychol. 1983;75:116–127. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. [40]Desmottes L, Meulemans T, Maillart C. Later learning stages in procedural memory are impaired in children with specific language impairment. Res Dev Disabil. 2016;48:53–68. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2015.10.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  33. [41]Faretta-Stutenberg M, Morgan-Short K. The interplay of individual differences and context of learning in behavioral and neurocognitive second language development. Second Lang Res. 2018;34:67–102. [Google Scholar]
  34. [42]Gabriel A, Maillart C, Guillaume M, Stefaniak N, Meulemans T. Exploration of serial structure procedural learning in children with language impairment. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2011;17:336–343. doi: 10.1017/S1355617710001724. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  35. [43]Gabriel A, Stefaniak N, Maillart C, Schmitz X, Meulemans T. Procedural visual learning in children with specific language impairment. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2012;21:329–341. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2012/11-0044). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  36. [44]Gabriel A, et al. Procedural learning in specific language impairment: Effects of sequence complexity. J Int Neuropsychol Soc. 2013;19:264–271. doi: 10.1017/S1355617712001270. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  37. [45]Gabriel A, Meulemans T, Parisse C, Maillart C. Procedural learning across modalities in French-speaking children with specific language impairment. Appl Psycholinguist. 2015;36:747–769. [Google Scholar]
  38. [47]Kidd E, Kirjavainen M. Investigating the contribution of procedural and declarative memory to the acquisition of past tense morphology: Evidence from Finnish. Lang Cogn Process. 2011;26:794–829. [Google Scholar]
  39. [48]Lum JAG, Kidd E. An examination of the associations among multiple memory systems, past tense, and vocabulary in typically developing 5-year-old children. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2012;55:989–1006. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0137). [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  40. [49]Lum JAG, Conti-Ramsden G, Page D, Ullman MT. Working, declarative and procedural memory in specific language impairment. Cortex. 2012;48:1138–1154. doi: 10.1016/j.cortex.2011.06.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  41. [50]Granena G. Individual differences in sequence learning ability and second language acquisition in early childhood and adulthood. Lang Learn. 2013;63:665–703. [Google Scholar]
  42. [51]Hamrick P. Declarative and procedural memory abilities as individual differences in incidental language learning. Learn Individ Differ. 2015;44:9–15. [Google Scholar]
  43. [52]Morgan-Short K, Faretta-Stutenberg M, Brill-Schuetz KA, Carpenter H, Wong PCM. Declarative and procedural memory as individual differences in second language acquisition. Biling Lang Cogn. 2014;17:56–72. [Google Scholar]
  44. [53]Suzuki Y, DeKeyser R. Comparing elicited imitation and word monitoring as measures of implicit knowledge. Lang Learn. 2015;65:860–895. [Google Scholar]
  45. [54]Tagarelli KM, Ruiz S, Moreno Vega JL, Rebuschat P. Variability in second language learning: The roles of individual differences, learning conditions, and linguistic complexity. Stud Second Lang Acquis. 2016;38:293–316. [Google Scholar]
  46. [55]Cohen J. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. Routledge; Abingdon-on-Thames, UK: 1988. [Google Scholar]
  47. [56]Cumming G. Inference by eye: Reading the overlap of independent confidence intervals. Stat Med. 2009;28:205–220. doi: 10.1002/sim.3471. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  48. [57]Ullman MT. Mind and Context in Adult Second Language Acquisition: Methods, Theory, and Practice. Georgetown Univ Press; Washington, DC: 2005. A cognitive neuroscience perspective on second language acquisition: The declarative/procedural model; pp. 141–178. [Google Scholar]
  49. [58]Poldrack RA, Packard MG. Competition among multiple memory systems: Converging evidence from animal and human brain studies. Neuropsychologia. 2003;41:245–251. doi: 10.1016/s0028-3932(02)00157-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  50. [59]Pinker S, Jackendoff R. The faculty of language: What’s special about it? Cognition. 2005;95:201–236. doi: 10.1016/j.cognition.2004.08.004. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  51. [60]Hickok G, Poeppel D. The cortical organization of speech processing. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2007;8:393–402. doi: 10.1038/nrn2113. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  52. [61]Bornkessel-Schlesewsky I, Schlesewsky M. Reconciling time, space and function: A new dorsal-ventral stream model of sentence comprehension. Brain Lang. 2013;125:60–76. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2013.01.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  53. [62]Ullman MT, Pullman MY. A compensatory role for declarative memory in neurodevelopmental disorders. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2015;51:205–222. doi: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.01.008. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  54. [63]Schreiweis C, et al. Humanized Foxp2 accelerates learning by enhancing transitions from declarative to procedural performance. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2014;111:14253–14258. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1414542111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  55. [64]Kandel ER, Schwartz JH, Jessell TM, Siegelbaum SA, Hudspeth AJ. Principles of Neural Science. 5th Ed McGraw-Hill Education/Medical; New York: 2012. [Google Scholar]
  56. [65]Ullman MT, Lovelett JT. Implications of the declarative/procedural model for improving second language learning: The role of memory enhancement techniques. Second Lang Res. 2016;34:39–68. [Google Scholar]
  57. [66]Ullman MT, Pierpont EI. Specific language impairment is not specific to language: The procedural deficit hypothesis. Cortex. 2005;41:399–433. doi: 10.1016/s0010-9452(08)70276-4. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  58. [67]Wong PCM, Ettlinger M, Zheng J. Linguistic grammar learning and DRD2-TAQ-IA polymorphism. PLoS One. 2013;8:e64983. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0064983. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  59. [68]Ettlinger M, Bradlow AR, Wong PCM. Variability in the learning of complex morphophonology. Appl Psycholinguist. 2014;35:807–831. [Google Scholar]
  60. [69]Linck JA, et al. Hi-LAB: A new measure of aptitude for high-level language proficiency: High-level aptitude. Lang Learn. 2013;63:530–566. [Google Scholar]
  61. [70]Magnusson K, Thorup E. 2018. Long-term memory in infancy. Electrophysiological and behavioral measures of declarative memory in 14-month-olds. Master’s thesis (Lund University, Lund, Sweden)
  62. [71]Sundqvist A, Nordqvist E, Koch F-S, Heimann M. Early declarative memory predicts productive language: A longitudinal study of deferred imitation and communication at 9 and 16 months. J Exp Child Psychol. 2016;151:109–119. doi: 10.1016/j.jecp.2016.01.015. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  63. [72]Hedenius M, Ullman MT, Alm P, Jennische M, Persson J. Enhanced recognition memory after incidental encoding in children with developmental dyslexia. PLoS One. 2013;8:e63998. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0063998. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI
  64. [73]Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. PRISMA Group Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI · Paper page
  65. [74]Lee JC, Tomblin JB. Procedural learning and individual differences in language. Lang Learn Dev. 2015;11:215–236. doi: 10.1080/15475441.2014.904168. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hamrick, P., Lum, J. A. G., & Ullman, M. T.
Affiliations
  • Kent State University (US)
  • Deakin University (AU)
  • Georgetown University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Publisher
National Academy of Sciences
Published
2018-01-29
Volume
115
Issue
7
Pages
1487-1492
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
DOI
10.1073/pnas.1713975115
PMC
PMC5816159
OpenAlex
W2793685305
Cited by
120
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 9
FWCI
1.77
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.pnas.org/site/aboutpnas/licenses.xhtml (vor, 181 d)
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Deakin Research Online (Deakin University) (submittedVersion)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R21HD087088)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
Keywords
language evolution, declarative memory, procedural memory, second language acquisition, first language acquisition, grammar learning, vocabulary acquisition, language experience, cross-lingual generalization
MeSH terms
Adult, Child, Child, Preschool, Humans, Language, Learning, Memory, 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