The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: the declarative/procedural model

Ullman, Michael T.

doi:10.1017/s1366728901000220

Cited by 619 publications

(666 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

571

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This strengthens the view that lexical/declarative memory remains intact in SLI. Intriguingly, this SLI pattern of grammatical contexts failing to elicit left anterior negativities (which instead are displayed as N400-like effects), whereas lexical/conceptual contexts elicit intact N400s, is similar to the pattern shown by late second language learners, who also appear to suffer from a dysfunctional grammatical/procedural system (Ullman, 2001b). Finally, it is noteworthy that the N400s elicited by second language learners and by individuals with SLI differ slightly from those elicited by their respective control subjects.…”

supporting

confidence: 66%

“…Finally, it is noteworthy that the N400s elicited by second language learners and by individuals with SLI differ slightly from those elicited by their respective control subjects. Thus second language learners show a somewhat later and smaller amplitude N400 than first language speakers (Hahne, 2001;Ullman, 2001b;Weber-Fox and Neville, 1996), while the amplitudes of the N400s are larger in children with SLI and in their parents (especially their fathers) than in normal control subjects (Neville et al, 1993;Ors et al, 2001). The significance of these differences is still not clear, and invites further investigation.…”

Section: Event-related Potential Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These different neurocognitive strategies can be teased apart using a range of methods, including the following: testing for frequency effects (only memorized complex forms should show frequency effects, Drury and Ullman, 2002;Ullman and Gopnik, 1994;Ullman and Gopnik, 1999;van der Lely and Ullman, 2001); performing detailed phonetic analyses (explicit rules may yield anomalous phonological forms, Ullman and Gopnik, 1994; Ullman and Gopnik, 1999); examining the electrophysiological correlates of complex forms (in ERP studies, violations of grammar should elicit Left Anterior Negativities, whereas forms that are retrieved from memory, or are constructed by explicit rules, should yield N400s, Ullman, 2001b;Ullman et al, 2002); and examining the hemodynamic responses to linguistic forms (in PET or fMRI studies, grammatical composition should yield activation in procedural system structures, whereas stored chunks and explicit rules should elicit activation in declarative memory brain structures, Ullman, 2001b). Moreover, the role of the procedural system in lexical/declarative tasks can be experimentally minimized, allowing one to test for clean dissociations between the two systems.…”

Section: The Procedural Deficit Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Specific Language Impairment is not Specific to Language: the Procedural Deficit Hypothesis

Ullman

Pierpont

2005

Cortex

Self Cite

702

751

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Specific Language Impairment (SLI) has been explained by two broad classes of hypotheses, which posit either a deficit specific to grammar, or a non-linguistic processing impairment. Here we advance an alternative perspective. According to the Procedural Deficit Hypothesis (PDH), SLI can be largely explained by the abnormal development of brain structures that constitute the procedural memory system. This system, which is composed of a network of inter-connected structures rooted in frontal/basal-ganglia circuits, subserves the learning and execution of motor and cognitive skills.Crucially, recent evidence also implicates this system in important aspects of grammar. The PDH posits that a significant proportion of individuals with SLI suffer from abnormalities of this brain network, leading to impairments of the linguistic and non-linguistic functions that depend on it. In contrast, functions such as lexical and declarative memory, which depend on other brain structures, are expected to remain largely spared. Evidence from an in-depth retrospective examination of the literature is presented. It is argued that the data support the predictions of the PDH, and particularly implicate Broca's area within frontal cortex, and the caudate nucleus within the basal ganglia. Finally, broader implications are discussed, and predictions for future research are presented. It is argued that the PDH forms the basis of a novel and potentially productive perspective on SLI. INTRODUCTIONSpecific Language Impairment (SLI) is generally defined as a developmental disorder of language in the absence of frank neurological damage, hearing deficits, severe environmental deprivation, or mental retardation (for diagnostic definitions and prevalence of SLI, see Bishop, 1992;Leonard, 1998;Tomblin et al., 1997). Other terms have also been used to label such children, including developmental dysphasia, language impairment, language learning disability, developmental language disorder, delayed speech and deviant language (Leonard, 1998;Ahmed et al., 2001). Several factors have complicated attempts to provide a unified theory of SLI, or even of subgroups of SLI. First, despite the standard use of exclusionary criteria to diagnose SLI, the disorder is clearly not limited to language.Rather the linguistic impairments co-occur with a number of non-linguistic deficits, including impairments of motor skills and working memory, and with other disorders, such as Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (Hill, 2001;Leonard, 1998;Tirosh and Cohen, 1998). Second, even though SLI must be a consequence of some sort of neural dysfunction, the neural correlates of the disorder have been largely ignored. This potentially valuable information could provide important constraints on explanatory accounts of the disorder. Third, SLI is a classification that is quite heterogeneous (Leonard, 1998;Stromswold, 2000). Surveys document variation within and across subgroups in the particular aspects of language that are affected and in the types of co-occurring no...

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 66%

Section: Event-related Potential Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Procedural Deficit Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Specific Language Impairment is not Specific to Language: the Procedural Deficit Hypothesis

Ullman

Pierpont

2005

Cortex

Self Cite

702

751

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a consequence, possible implications of the present results for second language acquisition should be considered. According to a recent model of the functional architecture of first and second language (Ullman, 2001) language processing depends on temporal lobe structures as well as left inferior frontal and basal-ganglia structures. Crucially, this model posits for second language prevailing involvement of the temporal lobes in grammar processing.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interactions of the hippocampal system and the prefrontal cortex in learning language-like rules

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

One of the most influential views on the hippocampal function suggests that this brain region is critically involved in relational memory processing, that is, binding converging inputs to mediate the representation of relationships among the constituents of episodes. It has been proposed that this binding is automatic and obligatory during learning and remembering In addition, neuroimaging studies have highlighted the importance of the prefrontal cortex, in learning, memory, and language processing. However, the posited importance of hippocampalprefrontal interaction remains to be empirically tested. In the present study we used functional magnetic resonance imaging to examine in detail this interaction by assessing learning-related changes in hemodynamic activity during artificial language acquisition. It has been shown previously that artificial grammar systems might be learned by evaluating pattern-based relations in word sequences and generalizing beyond specific word order, that is, rule abstraction. During scanning, participants learned an artificial language whose miniature grammar meets the universal principles of a natural language. Increased proficiency level of the artificial language is associated with decreased left hippocampal activity. In contrast, we observed an increased recruitment of the left inferior frontal gyrus (Broca's area), a region that contributes to syntax processing in natural language. The present results, therefore, indicate a learning-related change in brain circuitry underlying relational processes of language learning, with a transition from a similarity-based learning system in the medial temporal lobes to a language-related processing system in the left prefrontal cortex.

show abstract

“…In most other studies, the rationale for leaving participants naïve with respect to underlying rules until after the training phase was based on the implicit nature of AGL. As proposed by the declarative/procedural model of (second) language learning (Ullman, 2001) a basal ganglia -IFG network plays a crucial role in acquiring knowledge about underlying rules in typical implicit AGL paradigms (cf., Lieberman et al, 2004). This implicit system is complemented by a declarative, lexical system, largely incorporated by the medial temporal lobe, which is responsible for associative knowledge about associations between sounds or visual features and meaning of words.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rule and similarity in grammar: Their interplay and individual differences in the brain

2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: the declarative/procedural model

Abstract: Link to this article: http://journals.cambridge.org/abstract_S1366728901000220How to cite this article: Michael T. Ullman (2001). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second language: the declarative/procedural model.

Cited by 619 publications

References 79 publications

Specific Language Impairment is not Specific to Language: the Procedural Deficit Hypothesis

Specific Language Impairment is not Specific to Language: the Procedural Deficit Hypothesis

Interactions of the hippocampal system and the prefrontal cortex in learning language-like rules

Rule and similarity in grammar: Their interplay and individual differences in the brain

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About