The DOI matches its Crossref record.
The Declarative/Procedural Model
Abstract
The fundamental claim of the declarative/procedural model is that the declarative and procedural memory systems should play roles in language that are largely analogous to the roles they play in non-linguistic domains. Declarative memory has been intensively studied in both humans and non-human animals. Declarative and procedural memory interact with each other, with important consequences for second language acquisition. Since declarative memory is important, and perhaps necessary, for learning arbitrary pieces of information and associating them, this learning and memory system should be crucial for all learned idiosyncratic knowledge in language. Declarative memory could support grammatical knowledge in a variety of ways, including learning grammatical rules explicitly or implicitly, and storing rule-governed complex forms as chunks. Retrieval of knowledge learned in declarative memory should also depend on medial temporal lobe structures, at least soon after learning, with explicit recollection relying particularly on the hippocampus, and familiarity-based recognition involving perirhinal cortex.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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, 2020
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Ashby, F. G. , Turner, B. O. , & Horvitz, J. C. (2010). Cortical and basal ganglia contributions to habit learning and automaticity. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 14, 208–215. · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Buffington, J., Demos, A. P., & Morgan-Short, K. (2021) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s0272263121000127 · Cited by 40
Testing the three-stage model of second language skill acquisition
Maie, R., & Godfroid, A. (2025) · Studies in Second Language Acquisition · doi:10.1017/s027226312500021x · Cited by 11
Metadata
- Authors
- Ullman, M. T.
- Corresponding author
- Ullman, Michael T.
- ORCID
- Ullman, Michael T.
- Venue
- Theories in Second Language Acquisition
- Publisher
- Routledge
- Published
- 2020-02-24
- Pages
- 128-161
- OpenAlex
- W4206242933
- Cited by
- 71
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 16.01
- Type
- book chapter
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Routledge eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory Processes and Influences
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Keywords
- declarative memory, procedural memory, second language acquisition, grammatical knowledge, chunking, explicit and implicit learning, medial temporal lobe, hippocampus, perirhinal cortex, recollection, familiarity
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