A neurocognitive perspective on language: The declarative/procedural model

By Michael T. Ullman. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2001

857 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Materials Chemistry, Mechanical Engineering

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/3ee0cf7afa70f7e42f94d2891cfd0666b7328b52

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Materials Chemistry

In Mechanical Engineering

Citations in the corpus

Bilingual brain training: A neurobiological framework of how bilingual experience improves executive function (2012, background): “…is that language is underpinned by two processes with distinct neural instantiations: a semantic representation system (which involves the cortex) and a grammatical (or rule composition) system (which involves subcortical structures: e.g., Paradis, 2004; Ullman 2001a, 2001b; Ullman et al., 1997).”
Age of acquisition: its neural and computational mechanisms. (2007, background): “Ullman and colleagues (Ullman, 2001a, 2005) have proposed that L2 acquisition and use is constrained by the declarative and procedural (DP) memory systems.”
The brain basis of language processing: from structure to function. (2011, background): “An involvement of the basal ganglia in syntactic processes has also been proposed in the model by Ullman (247), although not specifically for the late processing phase reflected by the P600.”
The minority report: some common assumptions to reconsider in the modelling of the brain and behaviour (2016, background): “…sits well with the less corticocentric among the current theories of how the brain/mind works – e.g. theories of language that consider the entire cortical–BG circuit (Lieberman, 2002; Ullman, 2001) and theories of birdsong that tie it to theories of language (Bolhuis, Okanoya, & Scharff, 2010).”
Articles, adjectives and age of onset: the acquisition of Dutch grammatical gender (2008, background): “Hawkins and Franceschina (2004), for instance, observe that advanced late learners only learn the rules of ‘grammatical gender’ to the extent that these rules can be predicted by phonological analogies, indicating that learning based on associative memory is fully available for adult learners, where”
The extended argument dependency model: a neurocognitive approach to sentence comprehension across languages. (2006, background): “Here, Ullman (2001, 2004) assumes that the procedural system comprises a network of frontal (including the pars opercularis and triangularis of the IFG and premotor regions), parietal, cerebellar, and basalganglia structures, whereas the declarative system is thought to draw primarily upon regions…”
The Declarative/Procedural Model (2020, background): “It has been argued that the N400 reflects, at least in part, the processing of knowledge learned in declarative memory (Ullman, 2001a).”
Fluency Training in the ESL Classroom: An Experimental Study of Fluency Development and Proceduralization (2011, positive): “…well-known in cognitive psychology and neuroscience (e.g., Anderson, 1983; Anderson et al., 2004; Anderson & Lebiere, 1998; Squire, 1987, 1992), and has been applied to second language acquisition (e.g., De Jong, 2005; DeKeyser, 1997; Towell, 2002; Towell et al., 1996; Ullman, 2001a, 2001b, 2004).”
Specific language impairment is not specific to language: the procedural deficit hypothesis. (2005, positive): “…factors such as frequency, in both expressive (Gopnik and Crago, 1991; Leonard et al., 1992b; Oetting and Horohov, 1997; Rice et al., 1995; Ullman and Gopnik, 1999; van der Lely and Ullman, 2001) and receptive (Gopnik, 1994; Ullman and Gopnik, 1999; van der Lely and Ullman, 1996) language tasks.”
Sex Differences in the Neurocognition of Language (2007, background): “memorization is demonstrated by similar shifts in other populations with putative dysfunctional frontal/grammatical system, as demonstrated by frequency effects and other methods (Ullman, 2001).”
On Broca, brain, and binding: a new framework. (2005, methodology): “Some of these models are more restricted than the MUC framework and focus mainly on one aspect of language processing, such as single word processing [30,40], or grammar and morphology [ 39 ].”
FUNDAMENTAL ISSUES IN THE EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY OF MUSIC: Assessing Innateness and Domain Specificity (2005, background): “However, neither this cortex nor its encapsulated structure is necessarily domain-specific for language; the syntax– semantics distinction might be better explained as the result of distinct neural systems for procedural and declarative knowledge (Ullman, 2001).”
Becoming syntactic. (2006, background): “…of meaning and sequencing receives some motivation from the aphasia literature and, more generally, from theoretical treatments of brain function that separate procedural (e.g., sequential) from declarative (e.g., semantic) properties of language (e.g., Cohen & Eichenbaum, 1993; Ullman, 2001).”
The past and future of the past tense. (2002, positive): “According to the Declarative/Procedural (DP) hypothesis [ 5 ,26], lexical memory is a subdivision of declarative memory, which stores facts, events and arbitrary relations [27,28].”
Model of autism: increased ratio of excitation/inhibition in key neural systems (2003, background): “The declarative system would store vocabulary whereas the procedural system would store grammatical information (Ullman 2001).”
An ERP study of the processing of subject and object relative clauses in Japanese (2008, background): “Models linking ERP components to sentence processing Recently, several neurocognitive models have been proposed linking language comprehension subprocesses with particular ERP components (Bornkessel & Schlesewsky, 2006; Friederici, 2002; Gouvea et al., 2007; Hagoort, 2003, 2005; Ullman, 2001).”
Contributions of memory circuits to language: the declarative/procedural model. (2004, methodology): “The N400 is posited to reflect declarative memory processes (Ullman, 2001b,c).”