↓ Skip to main content

The Declarative/Procedural Model of Lexicon and Grammar

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, January 2001
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (81st percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
324 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
389 Mendeley
citeulike
8 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
Title
The Declarative/Procedural Model of Lexicon and Grammar
Published in
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, January 2001
DOI 10.1023/a:1005204207369
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michael T. Ullman

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 mental grammar are subserved by distinct computational components that may be linked to distinct brain structures. However, it diverges from these theories where they assume components dedicated to each of the two language capacities (that is, domain-specific) and in their common assumption that lexical memory is a rote list of items. Conversely, while it shares with single-mechanism theories the perspective that the two capacities are subserved by domain-independent computational mechanisms, it diverges from them where they link both capacities to a single associative memory system with broad anatomic distribution. The declarative/procedural model, but neither traditional dual- nor single-mechanism models, predicts double dissociations between lexicon and grammar, with associations among associative memory properties, memorized words and facts, and temporal-lobe structures, and among symbol-manipulation properties, grammatical rule products, motor skills, and frontal/basal-ganglia structures. In order to contrast lexicon and grammar while holding other factors constant, we have focused our investigations of the declarative/procedural model on morphologically complex word forms. Morphological transformations that are (largely) unproductive (e.g., in go-went, solemn-solemnity) are hypothesized to depend upon declarative memory. These have been contrasted with morphological transformations that are fully productive (e.g., in walk-walked, happy-happiness), whose computation is posited to be solely dependent upon grammatical rules subserved by the procedural system. Here evidence is presented from studies that use a range of psycholinguistic and neurolinguistic approaches with children and adults. It is argued that converging evidence from these studies supports the declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 389 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Canada 5 1%
United States 4 1%
Netherlands 3 <1%
Germany 3 <1%
Spain 3 <1%
Norway 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
United Kingdom 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
Other 6 2%
Unknown 358 92%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 94 24%
Student > Master 53 14%
Researcher 51 13%
Student > Bachelor 28 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 7%
Other 76 20%
Unknown 61 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Linguistics 108 28%
Psychology 89 23%
Neuroscience 28 7%
Social Sciences 16 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 16 4%
Other 59 15%
Unknown 73 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 02 February 2022.
All research outputs
#7,148,499
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
#59
of 375 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#20,921
of 114,352 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Psycholinguistic Research
#1
of 1 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 71st percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 375 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.6. This one has done well, scoring higher than 84% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 114,352 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 81% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 1 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than all of them