SHARE
An
Electronic Magazine by Omar Villarreal, Marina Kirac and Martin Villarreal ©
Year 9
Number 188 July
10th 2008
12,478 SHARERS are reading this issue of SHARE this week
__________________________________________________________
Thousands of candles can be lighted from a single candle, and the life of the
candle will not be shortened. Happiness never decreases by being SHARED
__________________________________________________________
Dear SHARERS,
Organizing a National Convention of the quality
of SHARE 2008 is not a minor accomplishment these days. And we are not talking
about the organizational matters that go with any mega event like this one and
that we certainly take on stride.
Getting together some of the very best
lecturers in our country to SHARE their talent and expertise with all of us for
two full Convention days keeping to the highest academic standards of
professionalism in ELT is not an easy task.
But we are proud of what we have achieved. All our presenters are real teacher trainers, teacher educators with a long and prestigious career in our
finest Universities and Colleges of Education (our dear old Institutos del Profesorado), all of them
are holders of nationally accredited professional degrees in ELT and most of them have postgraduate degrees
from National and foreign universities. This, which, in ordinary circumstances,
should be taken for granted, is unfortunately not the case with many other
“conferences” or “congresses” of one sort or another being offered (sadly
enough) these days.
A number of alleged “teachers of English”, some
of whom have barely finished their secondary school and pursued (but never
finished!) some kind of higher education are being widely publicized. What is
worse, some of these self-appointed gurus have never (for obvious reasons)
taught at any College or University and claim to be “teacher trainers”, a term
that we normally used to refer to Higher Education lecturers.
A very sad and unfortunate state of affairs, no
doubt. We are sure the professional teacher’s associations will soon take in
their hands the responsibility of righting these wrongs that can only harm our
profession. From our humble position we
will keep on fighting for professionalism and it is following this basic
principle that we have organized our 2008 Convention.
See you at our Convention!
Love
Omar and Marina
______________________________________________________________________
In SHARE 188
1.- Contributions of memory circuits to language
learning
2.- In Language Teaching,
Which is more important: Language or
Teaching?
3.- Do Boys and Girls Learn Languages Differently?
4.- Advanced
Vocabulary in Context: Sautéed Cherries with Ice Cream
5.- Especialista en Traducción en Relaciones
Económicas Internacionales
6.- Teaching Children: Integration of Diversity
through Art
7.- Course on Teaching Phonology to Young Learners
8.- Net Learning: Especializaciones en
E-Learning y Moodle
9.- Third
International Conference on Literature and Culture in English
10.- Seminario de Actualización Profesional para Traductores
11.- ILEC Preparation for Teachers and Translators
12.- Jornadas Virtuales del Instituto Superior del Profesorado
“Joaquín V. González”
13.- Course on Study Skills for FCE in Villa Dolores,
Córdoba
14.- I Jornadas de Humanidades y Artes "El lenguaje y los
lenguajes"
15.- I Congreso Metropolitano
de Formación Docente – 2008
16.- Curso de Pedagogía de
17.- Second Annual Conference of Asociación Cordobesa de
Profesores de Inglés
18.- 21st
ARTESOL Convention: Call for Participation
19.- Course on Storytelling in Belgrano
20.- Curso sobre Literatura en
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1.- CONTRIBUTIONS OF MEMORY CIRCUITS TO LANGUAGE
LEARNING
Contributions of memory
circuits to language: the declarative/procedural model
by Michael T. Ullman
Brain and Language Laboratory, Departments
of Neuroscience, Linguistics, Psychology and Neurology,
Abstract
The
structure of the brain and the nature of evolution suggest that, despite its
uniqueness, language likely depends on brain systems that also subserve other
functions. The declarative/procedural (DP) model claims that the mental lexicon
of memorized word-specific knowledge depends on the largely temporal-lobe
substrates of declarative memory, which underlies the storage and use of knowledge
of
facts and events. The mental grammar, which subserves the rule-governed
combination of lexical items into complex representations, depends on a
distinct neural system. This system, which is composed of a network of specific
frontal, basal-ganglia, parietal and cerebellar structures, underlies procedural
memory, which supports the learning and execution of motor and cognitive skills,
especially those involving sequences. The functions of the two brain systems,
together with their anatomical, physiological and biochemical substrates, lead
to specific claims and predictions
regarding
their roles in language. These predictions are compared with those of other
neurocognitive models of language. Empirical evidence is presented from
neuroimaging studies of normal language processing, and from developmental and
adult-onset disorders. It is argued that this evidence supports the DP model.
It is additionally proposed that “language” disorders, such as specific language
impairment and non-fluent and fluent aphasia, may be profitably viewed as
impairments primarily affecting one or the other brain system. Overall, the
data suggest a new neurocognitive
framework
for the study of lexicon and grammar. q 2004 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
1. Introduction
The
study of language has focused largely on language itself. That is, in order to
understand
the representation, processing, development, neural correlates and other
aspects
of language, most theories and investigations have directed their attention to
language.
This is unsurprising, and not only because of the obvious point that directly
investigating
a domain generally elucidates it. Additionally, the apparent uniqueness of
human
language has drawn attention away from evidence suggesting the existence of
biological
and computational substrates that are shared between language on the one hand, and
non-language domains in humans and animals on the other. Brain organization and
evolutionary principles both lead to an expectation of commonalities between
language and non-language domains. First, a number of brain structures seem to
be organized topographically, with sub-regions performing analogous computations
on different domains of information, as a function of each sub-region’s
particular
set of inputs and outputs. This type of brain organization has been claimed for
the cerebellum, for various sub-cortical structures, including the basal
ganglia, and for certain cortical regions, in particular in frontal cortex
(Alexander, DeLong, & Strick,
1986;
Middleton & Strick, 2000a; Shimamura, 1995). This suggests that analogous
computations
may underlie a range of cognitive domains, including language. Second,
commonalities
between language and non-language domains are not surprising from an evolutionary
perspective, given the well-established pattern that biological structures tend
to evolve from already-existing structures (Maynard Smith, 1975/1993; Mayr,
1963). So, whether or not there are aspects of the neurocognition of language
that are unique to this faculty and to our species, much and perhaps most
aspects of language are likely to not be unique. Importantly, other cognitive
domains are much better understood than language in a number of respects,
including their neuroanatomy, physiology, biochemistry, evolution, development,
and neural computation. This follows from the fact that most other domains have
benefited from the development of animal models which allow for invasive and
highly informative techniques that are not permissible to perform on humans.
A reasonable
research program would thus be to identify domains that share commonalities
with language: their underlying neural and computational systems will be promising
candidates for those subserving language. Importantly, if the systems underlying
the target domains are well understood, they should yield clear predictions about
language, based solely on non-language theories and data. This should provide
far greater predictive power about language than research restricted to
language, whose theories and predictions are generally if not always derived
from evidence solely related to language itself. Since the research tools we
have at our disposal to understand language are quite impoverished compared to
those available for the investigation of other domains, a research program
limited to language necessarily restricts language theories and their predictions.
In contrast, theories that are motivated by non-language domains as well as language
have a much wider potential predictive range for language, and thus are likely
to lead to important advances in our understanding of this faculty. This should
be particularly likely for areas of research that have been given greater
attention in non-language than language domains, such as functional
neuroanatomy, physiology, biochemistry, neuroendocrinology, and pharmacology.
Importantly, the converse holds as well. That is, our understanding of many
aspects of the representation, computation, and processing of language has
progressed far beyond that of many other cognitive domains. So, the demonstration
of neurocognitive links between language and other domains should also improve
our understanding of the latter. Note that I am not arguing that research
programs
directed
solely at language should be replaced by those examining language in the
context of other cognitive domains. Rather I am maintaining that the latter
type of research program must crucially complement the former. It is in this
general spirit that my colleagues and I have proposed and explored the declarative/procedural
(DP) model of language (Ullman, 2001a,c; Ullman et al., 1997).
The
basic premise of the DP model is that important aspects of the distinction
between the mental lexicon and the mental grammar in language are tied to the
distinction between declarative and procedural memory – two memory systems
which have been implicated in non-language functions in humans and other
animals (Eichenbaum & Cohen, 2001; Mishkin, Malamut, & Bachevalier,
1984; Schacter & Tulving, 1994; Squire & Knowlton, 2000). That is,
lexical memory depends largely on the declarative memory system, whereas
aspects of grammar depend on the procedural memory system. Importantly, multiple
characteristics of these two systems, including their computational,
neuroanatomical, physiological and biochemical substrates, have been quite well
studied, and thus should lead to important predictions about language.
2. Lexicon and grammar
Language
depends upon a memorized “mental lexicon” and a computational “mental grammar”
(Chomsky, 1965, 1995; de Saussure, 1959; Pinker, 1994).1. The mental lexicon is
a repository of all idiosyncratic word-specific information. Thus, it includes
all words whose phonological forms and meanings cannot be derived from each
other (i.e. their sound–meaning pairings are arbitrary), such as the
non-compositional (“simple”) word cat. It also contains other irregular—i.e.
not entirely derivable—word-specific information, such as the particular
arguments that must accompany a given verb (e.g.
hit
takes a direct object), and any unpredictable forms that a word takes (e.g.
teach takes the irregular past-tense taught). The mental lexicon may comprise
other distinctive information as well, smaller or larger than words: bound
morphemes (e.g. the -ed or –ness suffixes, as in walked or happiness), and
representations of complex linguistic structures whose meanings cannot be
transparently derived from their parts (e.g. idiomatic phrases, such as kick
the bucket).
A
terminological distinction must be made between the notion of a “mental
lexicon”, which is simply a storage place, and the way the term “lexicon” is
often used in linguistic theories. Most linguistic theories assume an
organization in which syntactic computations draw words from the “lexicon”
(Anderson, 1992; Chomsky,
1965,
1970; Di Sciullo & Williams, 1987; Jackendoff, 1997; Lieber, 1992).
However, the nature of this “linguistic” lexicon is controversial, as to
whether it is a simple storage place (the mental lexicon) or whether, in addition,
rule-based computations are carried out there (Anderson, 1992; Chomsky, 1970;
Di Sciullo &Williams, 1987; Lieber, 1992; Spencer, 1991). In this paper the
term “lexicon” is used solely to refer to the “mental
lexicon”—that
is, a repository of stored information. Many regularities can also be found in
language. These regularities can be captured by rules of grammar. The rules
constrain how lexical forms and abstract symbols or features (e.g. walk, -ed,
Verb, Past-Tense) can combine to make complex representations. The rules
crucially allow us to interpret the meanings of complex forms even if we have
not heard or seen them before. Thus, in the sentence “Clementina glicked the
plag”, we know that Clementina did something in the past to some entity. The
rules specify not only the sequential order (precedence) of lexical items, but
also their hierarchical relations, e.g. that
a verb
phrase (glicked the plag) can contain a noun phrase (the plag). Such
rule-governed behavior is found at various levels in language, including in the
structure of phrases and sentences (syntax), and of complex words such as
walked or glicked (morphology). Importantly, the rules and constraints are a
type of mental knowledge in that they underlie our individual mental capacity
to produce and comprehend complex forms. It is often argued that aspects of the
ability to learn, represent and compute the rules and constraints that underlie
grammar depend on innately-specified mental constructs (Chomsky, 1995). The
learning of grammatical knowledge, and the knowledge itself, are generally not available
to conscious access (Fodor, 1983); that is, they are implicit. It has been
argued that grammatical processing is not influenced by other cognitive
domains; that is, the underlying system is “straight-through”, or
“informationally encapsulated” (Fodor, 1983; Frazier & Fodor, 1978).
Moreover, at least certain aspects of grammatical processing are fast as well
as automatic, in that they are not under conscious control but are rather triggered
by the linguistic stimulus (Fodor, 1983; Friederici, 2002). The two language
capacities interact in a number of ways. First, the grammar combines lexical
items into complex structures. Second, even though certain representations of complex
linguistic structures that have idiosyncratic meanings (e.g. idioms) may be
stored in the lexicon, their structures still generally follow the rules of
grammar. Third, although “regular” (i.e. transparent; derivable) complex
representations (e.g. walked; the cat) could be computed anew each time they
are used (e.g. walk þ -ed), and must be if they are new (e.g. glicked), they
could in principle also be stored in the mental lexicon after being encountered.
Finally, a general pattern observed in languages is that idiosyncratic, exceptional
forms and meanings are selected preferentially over general, derivable ones (the
“Elsewhere” principle; Halle & Marantz, 1993; Kiparsky, 1982; Pinker,
1984), suggesting that stored lexical items take precedence over those composed
by the mental grammar.
3. Declarative and procedural memory
The
declarative and procedural memory systems have been intensively studied in humans
and in several animal models, including monkeys and rodents. The demonstration of
numerous double dissociations has shown that the two systems are largely independent
from each other, though they interact in a number of ways (Eichenbaum &
Cohen, 2001; Mishkin et al., 1984; Poldrack & Packard, 2003; Schacter &
Tulving, 1994; Squire & Knowlton, 2000). As will be seen, the two memory
systems share a number of characteristics with the two language capacities.
Importantly, research has begun to elucidate the specific computational,
developmental, anatomical, cellular, molecular and other aspects of these two
systems across species. These findings lead to highly specific predictions
about language.
3.1. Declarative memory
The
“declarative” memory system (Eichenbaum & Cohen, 2001; Mishkin et al.,
1984;
Schacter
& Tulving, 1994; Squire & Knowlton, 2000) has been implicated in the
learning, representation, and use of knowledge about facts (“semantic
knowledge”) and events (“episodic knowledge”). It is important for the very
rapid learning (e.g. based on a single stimulus presentation) of
arbitrarily-related information – that is, for the associative binding of
information (Cohen, Poldrack, & Eichenbaum, 1997; Eichenbaum & Cohen, 2001;
Squire & Knowlton, 2000). It has been argued that the information learned
by this system is not informationally encapsulated, being accessible to
multiple mental systems (Squire & Zola, 1996). Moreover, at least part of
this knowledge can be consciously (“explicitly”) recollected. Declarative
memory depends, first of all, on medial temporal lobe structures: the hippocampal
region (the dentate gyrus, the subicular complex, and the hippocampus itself), entorhinal
cortex, perirhinal cortex, and parahippocampal cortex (Squire & Knowlton, 2000;
Suzuki & Eichenbaum, 2000). The hippocampus projects to midline
diencephalic nuclei, in particular the mammillary bodies and portions of the
thalamus. These structures
also
play an important role in declarative memory, though they are less well studied
than the medial-temporal lobe. The medial temporal structures are
hierarchically organized: evidence from non-human primates indicates that the
hippocampal region is heavily connected with entorhinal cortex, which is strongly
connected with both the perirhinal and parahippocampal cortices, which are in
turn connected extensively with temporal and parietal
neocortical regions (Suzuki & Amaral, 1994). The medial-temporal complex appears to subserve several related memory
functions, including the encoding, consolidation and retrieval of new memories
(Buckner &
Wheeler,
2001; Eichenbaum & Cohen, 2001; Squire & Knowlton, 2000). Memories
eventually
(in humans, over months to years) become largely independent of the medial temporal
lobe structures, and dependent upon neocortical regions, particularly in the temporal
lobes (Hodges & Patterson, 1997; Squire, Clark, & Knowlton, 2001).
Different regions of the temporal lobes may be specialized for different types
of knowledge (Damasio, Grabowski, Tranel, Hichwa, & Damasio, 1996; Martin,
Ungerleider, & Haxby, 2000). It has been posited that medial temporal lobe
structures associate or “bind” inputs from cortical regions, which together
store an entire memory (Alvarez & Squire, 1994; McClelland, McNaughton,
& O’Reilly, 1995).
The
term “declarative memory system” is used here to refer to the entire system
involved in the learning, representation and use of the relevant information
(Eichenbaum, 2000), not just to those brain structures underlying the learning
of new memories. Indeed, other brain structures also play a role in this
system, although the precise regions and functions are still not entirely
clear. First of all, prefrontal regions have been implicated in numerous
studies (Buckner & Wheeler, 2001; Tulving, Kapur, Craik, Moscovitch, &
Houle, 1994). Ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (VL-PFC), which corresponds to
the inferior frontal gyrus and Brodmann’s areas (BA) 44, 45 and 47 (Damasio,
1995), plays a role in the encoding of new memories and the selection or
retrieval of declarative knowledge (Buckner & Wheeler, 2001;
Thompson-Schill, D’Esposito, Aguirre, & Farah, 1997; Wagner et al., 1998).
Two functionally and anatomically distinct sub-regions have been implicated: posterior/dorsal
inferior frontal cortex (BA 6/44) is strongly implicated in aspects of
phonology, whereas anterior/ventral inferior frontal cortex (BA 45/47) is more
important for semantics (Fiez, 1997; Poldrack, Wagner et al., 1999). Their
precise roles may be closely related to working memory (Buckner & Wheeler,
2001; Moscovitch, 1992). Indeed, neuroimaging studies show that VL-PFC is
consistently activated in working memory tasks (Smith & Jonides, 1999),
and, within the same subjects, in both retrieval
and
working memory tasks (Braver et al., 2001). Additionally, anterior
frontal-polar
cortex
(BA 10) is implicated in the retrieval of memories, or in the monitoring of
that
retrieval
(Buckner & Wheeler, 2001). This area is also associated with working memory
(Braver
et al., 2001; McLeod, Plunkett, & Rolls, 1998). Finally, evidence suggests
that
portions
of the cerebellum are involved in searching, retrieving or otherwise processing
declarative
memories (Desmond & Fiez, 1998; Ivry & Fiez, 2000). The declarative
memory system is closely related to the “ventral” stream system (Goodale &
Milner, 1992; Ungerleider & Mishkin, 1982). This system is rooted in
inferior and lateral temporal-lobe structures. It underlies the formation of
perceptual representations
of
objects and their relations. These representations underlie the recognition and
identification
of objects and the long-term storage of knowledge about objects (Goodale, 2000).
The ventral system is thus a memory-based system, feeding representations into long-term
(declarative) memory, and comparing those representations with new ones. It has
also been argued that humans are conscious of aspects of ventral stream
functioning (
The
declarative memory system has been intensively studied not only at functional
and
neuroanatomical
levels, but also at cellular and molecular levels (Curran, 2000; Lynch,
2002).
Acetylcholine in particular plays an important role in declarative memory and
hippocampal
function (Freo, Pizzolato, Dam, Ori, & Battistin, 2002; Packard, 1998).
Thus,
levels of choline acetyl transferase, the synthesizing enzyme for
acetylcholine,
correlate
with declarative memory abilities (Baskin et al., 1999). Pharmacological
manipulations
of the cholinergic system in normal, healthy adults have also implicated
acetylcholine
in declarative memory (Nissen, Knopman, & Schacter, 1987; Rammsayer,
Rodewald,
& Groh, 2000). For example, acetylcholine esterase inhibitors, which
prolong the activity of acetylcholine at the synapse, improve declarative
memory (Ballard, 2002; Hammond, Meador, Aung-Din, & Wilder, 1987). Evidence
also suggests that the declarative memory system is affected by estrogen (Phillips
& Sherwin, 1992; Sherwin, 1988), perhaps via the modulation of
acetylcholine (Packard, 1998; Shughrue, Scrimo, & Merchenthaler, 2000).
Declarative memory abilities and medial temporal-lobe function are linked to
estrogen, via organizational effects in
utero,
and/or activational effects later on. Estrogen improves declarative memory in
women
(Maki & Resnick, 2000; Sherwin, 1998) and men (Kampen & Sherwin, 1996;
Miles,
Green, Sanders, & Hines, 1998), and strengthens the cellular and molecular
correlates
of long-term hippocampal learning (McEwen, Alves, Bulloch, & Weiland,
1998;
Woolley & Schwartzkroin, 1998). Testosterone, which is the main source of
estrogen
in men, also improves their memory (Cherrier et al., 2001). Women with Turner’s
syndrome, who do not produce estrogen, have worse declarative memory (which
improves with estrogen therapy; Ross, Roeltgen, Feuillan, Kushner, &
Cutler, 2000) and smaller hippocampi than control subjects (Murphy et al.,
1993). During declarative memory tasks, increased estrogen (i.e. hormone
replacement therapy) in healthy post-menopausal women leads to greater blood
flowactivation changes in medial temporal lobe regions, including the hippocampus
(Maki&Resnick, 2000; Resnick, Maki, Golski, Kraut,&Zonderman, 1998).
3.2. Procedural memory
The
“procedural memory” system (Eichenbaum & Cohen, 2001; Mishkin et al., 1984;
Schacter
& Tulving, 1994; Squire & Knowlton, 2000) subserves the learning of
new, and the control of established, sensori-motor and cognitive “habits”,
“skills”, and other
procedures,
such as riding a bicycle and skilled game playing. The system is commonly
referred
to as an “implicit memory system” because both the learning of the knowledge, and
the knowledge itself, are generally not available to conscious access. Note
that I use the term “procedural memory” to refer only to one type of implicit,
non-declarative, memory system (Squire & Knowlton, 2000), not all
non-declarative or implicit memory systems. Moreover, and analogously to how I
use the term “declarative memory”, the term “procedural memory” is used here to
refer to the entire system involved in the learning, representation and use of
the relevant knowledge, not just to those parts of the system underlying the
learning of new memories. Although procedural memory is less well understood
than declarative memory, its functional characteristics and neural bases are
beginning to be revealed. Functionally, the system may be characterized as
subserving aspects of the learning and processing of context-dependent
stimulus-response rule-like relations (Knowlton, Mangels, & Squire, 1996;
Packard & Knowlton, 2002; Poldrack, Prabhakaran, Seger, & Gabrieli,
1999; White, 1997; Wise, Murray, & Gerfen, 1996). The system seems to be
especially important for learning and processing these relations in the context
of real-time sequences, whether the sequences are serial or abstract, or
sensori-motor or cognitive (Aldridge &
Berridge,
1998; Boecker et al., 2002; Doyon et al., 1997; Graybiel, 1995; Howard &
Howard,
1997; Saint-Cyr,
system
is gradual, in that it occurs on an ongoing basis during multiple presentations
of stimuli and responses – unlike the fast learning subserved by the
declarative memory system. The relations are rule-like in that they are rigid,
inflexible, and not influenced by other mental systems (Mishkin et al., 1984;
Squire & Zola, 1996). Thus, this system, unlike declarative memory, appears
to be informationally encapsulated (Squire & Zola, 1996). The rules apply
quickly and automatically, in that the response is triggered by the stimulus
rather than being under conscious control. The procedural system plays a role
not only in learning and processing new sequences but also in the coordination
of innate ones, such as “grooming sequences” in rodents, which follow a
stereotyped sequence of “syntactic chains” that combine up to dozens of actions
into a predictable order (Aldridge & Berridge, 1998). Intriguingly,
although fixed linear sequences and possibly probabilistic sequences can be
learned by monkeys, apes and humans, hierarchical structure is apparently
commonly used and easily learned only by humans, though it has been observed in
apes (Conway & Christiansen, 2001).
The
procedural memory system is composed of a network of brain structures. The
system
is rooted in frontal/basal-ganglia circuits, with a likely role for portions of
parietal cortex, superior temporal cortex and the cerebellum (De Renzi, 1989;
Heilman, Watson, & Rothi, 1997; Hikosaka et al., 2000; Mishkin et al.,
1984; Rizzolatti, Fogassi, & Gallese, 2000; Schacter & Tulving, 1994;
Squire & Zola, 1996). The basal ganglia are a set of sub-cortical
structures, including the neostriatum, globus pallidus, sub-thalamic nucleus,
and substantia nigra (Wise et al., 1996). In primates the neostriatum is composed
of two structures: the putamen and the caudate nucleus. The putamen is
particularly important for motor functions, whereas the caudate appears to underlie
aspects of cognition (Alexander et al., 1986; Middleton & Strick, 2000a).
Dorsal aspects of these structures (the dorsal striatum) play an important role
in procedural memory, whereas ventral aspects (the ventral striatum) may be
more important in affective (emotional) memory (Packard & Knowlton, 2002).
The basal ganglia have been implicated in a number of functions, including
implicit procedural learning in general
(Eichenbaum
& Cohen, 2001; Mishkin et al., 1984; Schacter & Tulving, 1994; Squire
&
Knowlton,
2000); stimulus-response learning (Packard & Knowlton, 2002; White, 1997), in
particular of egocentric (body-centered) sensori-motor relations (White, 1997);
probabilistic rule learning (Knowlton et al., 1996; Poldrack, Prabhakaran et
al., 1999); sequence learning (Aldridge & Berridge, 1998; Boecker et al.,
1998; Doyon et al., 1997; Graybiel, 1995; Peigneux et al., 2000; Willingham,
1998); reinforcement learning (in the dorsal striatum; cf. reward-based, in the
ventral striatum) (Doya, 2000; Packard & Knowlton, 2002; White, 1997);
real-time motor planning and control (Wise et al., 1996), particularly that
which involves precise timing (Penhune, Zattore, & Evans, 1998) and the selection
or switching among multiple motor programs (Haaland, Harrington, O’Brien, &
Hermanowicz, 1997); mental rotation (Podzebenko, Egan, & Watson, 2002);
interval timing and rhythm (Meck & Benson, 2002; Schubotz & von Cramon,
2001); and the context-dependent rule-based selection (Peigneux et al., 2000;
Wise et al., 1996) and maintenance in working memory (Menon, Anagnoson, Glover,
& Pfefferbaum, 2000) of and the real-time shifting (of attention, or focus)
between sets, functions or programs. Importantly, these apparently disparate
functions appear to be quite intimately related (Meck & Benson, 2002; Wise
et al., 1996), although the precise nature of their relations and interactions
are not yet understood.
The
basal ganglia, in particular the neostriatum, receive input projections from
multiple
cortical
areas, especially in frontal cortex, but also from other structures, including
the
medial
temporal lobe (Alexander & Crutcher, 1990; Middleton & Strick, 2000b;
Wise
et al.,
1996). The basal ganglia send outputs via the thalamus to neocortex, largely in
frontal
regions (Middleton & Strick, 2000b). The basal ganglia structures
themselves are highly interconnected. Perhaps most importantly, the neostriatum
projects to both the “direct” and the “indirect” pathways within the basal
ganglia. The two pathways have opposing effects on the basal ganglia’s outputs
to frontal cortex via the thalamus. The direct pathway inhibits, whereas the
indirect pathway disinhibits, the inhibitory
projections
from the basal ganglia to the thalamus. Thus, the direct pathway ultimately
results
in the disinhibition, and the indirect pathway in the inhibition, of the
excitatory
projections
from thalamus to frontal cortex. So, frontal cortical activity is disinhibited
by the
direct pathway, and inhibited by the indirect pathway. The posited selection
and set shifting functions of the basal ganglia may be attributed to the
interaction between the direct and indirect pathways: a given cortical “set” or
“program” can be disinhibited, while the rest are inhibited (Young &
Penney, 1993). Imbalances between the two pathways can lead to the excessive
inhibition or disinhibition of the functions that depend on the frontal cortical
regions to which the basal ganglia project. This is thought to explain the
inhibited/ suppressed and disinhibited/unsuppressed motor and other behaviors
found in Parkinson’s,
Importantly,
the various connections within the basal ganglia contain parallel and
largely
functionally segregated “circuits” (i.e. channels) (Alexander & Crutcher,
1990;
Alexander
et al., 1986; Middleton & Strick, 2000a,b). Each circuit receives
projections at the neostriatum – some circuits primarily at the caudate, others
at the putamen – from a particular set of cortical and sub-cortical structures.
Each circuit then follows the split between the direct and indirect pathways,
and projects via the thalamus to a particular cortical region, largely in
frontal cortex. This cortical output area in turn projects back to the portion
of the neostriatum that receives inputs for that circuit. Thus, there is at
least in part a closed loop with feedback. For example, a basal ganglia “motor
circuit” projects to frontal motor areas, a “prefrontal” circuit projects to
prefrontal regions, and other circuits project to other frontal areas. The
different basal ganglia circuits have similar synaptic organizations,
suggesting that similar neuronal operations might be performed at comparable
stages of each circuit (Alexander, Crutcher, & DeLong, 1990; Middleton
& Strick, 2000b). Thus, the various parallel circuits of the basal ganglia
seem to perform analogous computations; these are applied to different sets of
information from different domains, depending on the particular set of input
regions and frontal cortical output destinations of a given circuit (Middleton
& Strick, 2000b). So, if the basal ganglia play a role in grammar, that role
should be computationally analogous to that which the structures play in other
domains, with the grammar-subserving circuits possibly projecting to somewhat
different frontal cortical regions (e.g. in Broca’s area) than other circuits.
Certain
frontal cortical regions are also critical for procedural memory, in a manner
which
seems to be closely related to the functions of the basal ganglia. In the
macaque, the basal ganglia project via the thalamus to pre-motor regions,
including the supplementary motor area (SMA) and the general region of area F5
(Middleton &
Strick,
2000a,b). F5 is a well-studied ventral pre-motor region that is a likely
homologue of human BA
First
of all, pre-motor regions (Harrington et al., 2000; Jenkins, Brooks, Nixon, Frackowiak,
& Passingham, 1994), including SMA (Jenkins et al., 1994) and pre-SMA
(rostral
SMA) (Boecker et al., 1998; Hikosaka et al., 1996), are implicated in motor
sequence
learning in humans. Motor sequence learning in macaques also depends on SMA and
pre-SMA (Hikosaka et al., 2000). Lateral pre-motor cortex and SMA are also
involved in mental rotation (Jordan, Heinze, Lutz, Kanowski, & Jancke,
2001; Kosslyn,
Di,
Thompson, & Alpert, 1998; Podzebenko et al., 2002), and lateral pre-motor
and
pre-SMA
regions are implicated in aspects of timing or rhythm (Schubotz & von
Cramon, 2001).
Broca’s
area is another critical component of the procedural memory system. Evidence
suggests
that motor sequence learning depends on left inferior frontal cortex (Peigneux et
al., 1999), including Broca’s area (Conway & Christiansen, 2001; Dominey,
Hoen, Blanc, & Lelekov-Boissard, in press), and its right homologue (Doyon,
Owen, Petrides, Sziklas, & Evans, 1996). Broca’s area in humans seems
particularly important for learning sequences which contain abstract and
potentially hierarchical structure, as opposed to fixed linear sequences
(Conway & Christiansen, 2001; Dominey et al., 2003; Goschke, Friederici,
Kotz, & van Kampen, 2001). Broca’s area has also been implicated in mental rotation
tasks (Jordan et al., 2001; Podzebenko et al., 2002), the processing of
non-motor sequences, including musical sequences (Maess, Koelsch, Gunter, &
Friederici, 2001), and sequences of phonological material in working memory
(Smith & Jonides, 1999). A recent study suggests that the manipulation of
sequential information engages posterior Broca’s area, independent of the type
of information that is manipulated (Gelfand & Bookheimer, 2003). More
generally, evidence suggests a close link between working memory and sequence
learning and processing. These two functions share much of their circuitry:
like sequence learning and processing, working memory involves Broca’s
area,SMA, and other pre-motor regions (Ivry & Fiez, 2000; Smith &
Jonides, 1999), as well as regions in other structures (see below). It has been
suggested that Broca’s area, and perhaps VL-PFC more generally, may subserve
particular functions that are important for working memory, including the
selection and comparison of maintained information (Petrides, 1996; Petrides,
Alivisatos, & Evans, 1995), or the maintenance of information over a delay
(D’Esposito et al., 1998; Smith & Jonides, 1997). Similarly, it has been argued
that the role of this region in working memory is to recall or select and
maintain information that is actually stored in temporal and temporo-parietal
regions (Cowan, 1999; Ruchkin, Grafman, Cameron, & Berndt, in press). These
functions appear to be closely related to the role of this region in the
selection of declarative knowledge (see above). The functions also appear to be
related to the view that frontal cortex underlies the inhibition of, excitation
of, and switching between (and possibly learning of) sets, programs and rules (Knight
& Grabowecky, 2000; Shimamura, 1995; Wise et al., 1996), and the inhibitory
and excitatory control of posterior brain regions (Knight & Grabowecky,
2000; also see Passingham, 1993). It has additionally been suggested that these
attentional set shifting and sequence coordination roles may depend upon the
timing functions of frontal cortex
(Knight
& Grabowecky, 2000; Meck & Benson, 2002; Wise et al., 1996). Indeed,
Broca’s area also appears to play an important role in timing and rhythm (Fiez
et al., 1995; Schubotz & von Cramon, 2001; Szelag, von Steinbuchel, &
Poppel, 1997).
Within
Broca’s area, BA 44 plays an especially important role in a number of the
functions
described above. This region is also implicated in the observation of motor
skills,
and in the mental imagery of motion (Binkofski et al., 2000; Rizzolatti &
Arbib,
Portions
of parietal cortex also play an important role in the procedural system.
Anatomical
studies of macaques show that parietal cortex projects heavily to, and
reciprocally
receives projections from, frontal cortex, with specific parietal regions
connecting
to specific frontal regions (Petrides & Pandya, 1984; Wise, Boussaoud,
Johnson,
& Caminiti, 1997). Macaque area F5, which corresponds to the BA 44 area in
humans
(see above), receives strong input from a number of parietal regions (Matelli,
Camarda,
Glickstein, & Rizzolatti, 1986; Petrides & Pandya, 1984), especially
macaque
area
AIP (Gallese, Fogassi, Fadiga, & Rizzolatti, 2001; Matelli, Luppino,
Murata, &
Sakata,
1994) – which is a probable homologue of human anterior intraparietal sulcus
(Culham
& Kanwisher, 2001) – and macaque area PF (also referred to as area 7b)
(Matelli et al., 1986; Petrides & Pandya, 1984; Rizzolatti, Luppino, &
Matelli, 1998) – which is likely homologous to the human anterior inferior
parietal lobule supramarginal gyrus; BA 40) (Nishitani, Uutela, Shibasaki,
& Hari, 1999), or possibly to part of the superior parietal lobule (BA 7)
(Culham & Kanwisher, 2001; Milner, 1996).
In
monkeys, AIP neurons discharge during hand movements, with the majority of
neurons
preferring specific types of hand grips (Sakata, Taira, Mine, & Murata,
1992). AIP neurons also contains neurons that are tuned to the specific shapes
to be grasped (Sakata & Taira, 1994). Similarly, AIP’s human homologue, the
anterior intraparietal sulcus, is activated during visually-guided grasping
(Binkofski et al., 1998; Faillenot, Toni, Decety, Gregoire, & Jeannerod,
1997) and reaching (Culham & Kanwisher, 2001), by the physical manipulation
of objects (Binkofski et al., 1999), by mental rotation (Harris et al., 2000; Podzebenko
et al., 2002), by the observation of hand movements made by others (Iacoboni et
al., 1999), and by passively looking at manipulable objects, namely tools (Chao
& Martin, 2000).
Monkey
area PF is connected not only with frontal area F5, but also with parietal area
AIP
(Nishitani et al., 1999). Area PF is related to hand manipulation and eye
movements, and may code the orientation of body parts (Nishitani et al., 1999).
Like frontal area F5, area PF contains mirror neurons (Gallese et al., 2001;
Rizzolatti et al., 2001). Human superior parietal lobule (BA 7), one possible
homologue of PF, is strongly related to attention (Perry & Zeki, 2000).
Human inferior parietal lobule, and the supramarginal gyrus (BA 40) in
particular, another likely homologue of PF, has been implicated in a number of
functions, including attention (Perry & Zeki, 2000), mental rotation
(Harris et al., 2000; Podzebenko et al., 2002), and the execution and recognition
of motor skills (Heilman et al., 1997). According to one view, inferior
parietal regions may serve as a repository of stored knowledge of motor skills,
including information of stored sequences (Heilman et al., 1997). This region
has also been strongly implicated in phonological processing, including in
working memory tasks (Ivry & Fiez, 2000).
Intriguingly,
circumscribed portions of the temporal lobes also appear to play a role in
the
procedural memory system. In macaques neurons that respond to the observation
of movement, though not to movement itself (that is, they are not mirror
neurons), are
found
in the anterior superior temporal sulcus – a region which is connected to both
frontal
area F5 and parietal area PF (Rizzolatti et al., 2001). In humans, superior
temporal regions in more posterior areas, including the superior temporal
sulcus, have been implicated in the storage of information about motion, in
contrast to more ventral temporal regions, which appear to underlie the storage
of information about visual form (Martin et al., 2000).
The
cerebellum has traditionally been implicated in the coordination of skilled
movement
and in the control of balance, as well as in motor learning (Ivry & Fiez,
2000).
More
recent evidence suggests that portions of the cerebellum subserve procedural
memory,
in particular in motor sequencing (Desmond&Fiez, 1998;
Eichenbaum&Cohen,
2001;
Hikosaka et al., 2000; Ivry & Fiez, 2000; Mostofsky, Goldberg, Landa, &
Denckla, 2000; Squire & Knowlton, 2000). Some evidence suggests that the
cerebellum may be involved in the modification of performance of learned
sequences, rather than in the learning of those sequences (Seidler et al.,
2002). Within the cerebellum, the dentate nucleus (Hikosaka et al., 2000) as
well as portions of the cerebellar hemispheres and the vermis (Desmond &
Fiez, 1998) play important roles in learning procedures, especially of motor sequences.
The cerebellar hemispheres and vermis, especially regions at least partly overlapping
those that also underlie sequence learning, have also been implicated in verbal
working memory and in the retrieval or search of information from declarative
memory (Desmond & Fiez, 1998). The cerebellum has additionally been
implicated in imaged hand movements and in mental rotation (Ivry & Fiez,
2000; Podzebenko et al., 2002). The cerebellum has important timing functions,
and seems to be involved in mental coordination and the control of attention,
and in error detection and error-based learning (Doya, 2000; Ivry & Fiez,
2000). Studies of macaques have shown that, analogously to the basal ganglia,
the
cerebellum projects via the thalamus to frontal cortex, with each cerebellar
region
projecting
(via the thalamus) to particular frontal regions. Intriguingly, in macaques the
dentate
nucleus projects via the thalamus to ventral pre-motor cortex (Middleton &
Strick, 2000a), suggesting that in humans it might project to BA
The
procedural system, and parietal cortex in particular, is closely related to the
“dorsal”
stream system (Goodale & Milner, 1992; Ungerleider & Mishkin, 1982).
This
system
is rooted in posterior parietal structures, and the frontal pre-motor regions
to which they are heavily connected. The system underlies the transformation of
visual information into an egocentric framework that enables the execution of
motor programs, such as grasping and otherwise manipulating an object. It has
been argued that the main function of this system is the analysis of visual
input for visually-guided motor behavior.
3.3. Interaction of the two memory systems
The
declarative and procedural memory systems interact in a number of ways. In sum,
together
the systems form a dynamically interacting network which yields both
cooperative
and competitive learning and processing, such that memory function may
be
optimized (Poldrack & Packard, 2003).
First,
brain structures which underlie procedural memory also perform context dependent
selection and maintenance (in working memory) of knowledge stored in
declarative
memory. Note that it is only a terminological issue as to whether we consider these
structures to be part of the procedural system which plays a role in
declarative memory, or vice versa, or simply (and most reasonably) brain
structures that play particular roles in both systems.
Second,
although there appear to be striking separations of function among the
different brain areas involved in the two brain systems, it does not appear to
be the case that all parts of each lobe subserve only one or the other system.
In particular, we have seen that superior aspects of the temporal lobe may play
some function in the procedural system, perhaps as a storage repository of
procedural knowledge, and that the same or nearby areas of VL-PFC play related
roles in declarative and procedural memory.
Third,
the two systems can complement each other in acquiring the same or analogous
knowledge,
including knowledge of sequences. As was initially shown in patient H.M., the declarative
memory system need not be intact for the procedural memory system to learn (Corkin,
1984; Eichenbaum & Cohen, 2001; Squire & Knowlton, 2000). However, when
both systems are undamaged they can complement each other. Thus, in motor
sequence learning in humans, both systems can be used cooperatively to learn
the task, optimizing learning in some cases (Willingham, 1998). When the
declarative memory system is able to acquire knowledge, it may do so initially,
thanks to its rapid learning abilities, while the procedural system gradually
learns the same or analogous knowledge (Packard & McGaugh, 1996; Poldrack
& Packard, 2003). Note that if a given sequence that is normally learned
and processed by the procedural system is memorized in declarative memory, its
structure will likely be constrained by the rules governing the sequence in procedural
memory. Interestingly, the time-course of this shift from declarative to procedural
memory can be modulated pharmacologically (Packard, 1999).
Fourth,
animal and human studies suggest that the two systems can also interact
competitively
(for reviews, see Packard & Knowlton, 2002; Poldrack & Packard, 2003).
This
leads to what one might call a “see-saw effect”, such that a dysfunction of one
system leads to enhanced learning in the other, or that learning in one system
depresses functionality of the other. Animal studies show that damage to
medial-temporal lobe structures, including the hippocampus, can enhance
basal-ganglia-based procedural learning (McDonald & White, 1993; Packard,
Hirsh, & White, 1989; Schroeder, Wingard, & Packard, 2002). Conversely,
damage to the neostriatum in the basal ganglia can facilitate learning in
declarative memory (Mitchell & Hall, 1988). A similar pattern has been
found in human lesion (Halbig et al., 2002) and neuroimaging studies (Dagher, Owen,
Boecker, & Brooks, 2001; Jenkins et al., 1994; Poldrack & Packard,
2003; Poldrack et al., 2001; Poldrack, Prabhakaran et al., 1999).
The
see-saw effect may be explained by a number of factors. In rodents there are
direct anatomical projections from the medial temporal lobe (entorhinal cortex)
to the dorsal striatum (Sorensen & Witter, 1983). Stimulation of both
entorhinal and hippocampal neurons leads to mainly inhibitory responses in both
the dorsal and ventral striatum (Finch, 1996; Finch, Gigg, Tan, & Kosoyan,
1995). Conversely, stimulation of the caudate (in cats) reduces the occurrence
of hippocampal spikes (
the neostriatum
(Calabresi, Centonze, Gubellini, Pisani, & Bernardi, 2000). Because
acetylcholine
function can be enhanced by estrogen, particularly in the hippocampus (see above),
it is plausible that estrogen may also contribute to the see-saw effect.
A
recent and quite elegant series of neuroimaging experiments of healthy adults
nicely
demonstrates
interactions between the two brain memory systems (Poldrack et al., 2001; Poldrack,
Prabhakaran et al., 1999). Procedural learning – probabilistic rule learning –
was shown to yield not only activation in the caudate nucleus, but also
deactivation in the medial temporal lobe. Moreover, across subjects, the degree
of activity in the caudate nucleus correlated negatively with the degree of
activity in the medial temporal lobe. That is, subjects with higher caudate
activity had lower medial-temporal activity, and vice versa.
This
suggests that individuals vary with respect to their relative dependence on the
two
systems.
Moreover, this relationship changed over the course of learning. During early
training
the medial temporal lobe structures were activated while the caudate was not,
whereas
as learning progressed, the medial temporal structures became deactivated,
while caudate activation increased. These experiments suggest some sort of competitive interaction between the two
systems. Moreover, they strengthen the view that early in learning declarative
memory can play a particularly important role compared to procedural learning,
and that over time this balance shifts to the opposite direction. Thus, with
increased dependence on procedural memory for a given function, there may be a
decreased dependence on declarative memory, even if that system played a role
initially in the same function. As we will see below, evidence suggests a
similar pattern in language learning.
4. The declarative/procedural model
We have
seen above that there are a number of striking commonalities between the
functional
characteristics of grammar/lexicon on the one hand, and of declarative/ procedural
(DP) memory and their underlying brain structures on the other. These
commonalities lead to the basic claimof the DP model: the brain systemswhich
subserve declarative and procedural memory play analogous roles in language as
in their non-language functions. So, the DP model predicts common or related
computational, processing, anatomic, physiological and biochemical substrates
for the language and non-language functions.
4.1. The lexical/declarative memory system
According
to the DP model, the brain system underlying declarative memory also
underlies
the mental lexicon. This system subserves the acquisition, representation and
use not only of knowledge about facts and events, but also about words. It
stores all arbitrary, idiosyncratic word-specific knowledge, including word
meanings, word sounds, and abstract representations such as word category. It
includes, among other things, representations of simple (non-derivable) words
such as cat, bound morphemes such as the past-tense suffixed -ed, “irregular”
morphological forms, verb complements, and idioms. It can also contain stored
complex forms and abstract structures that are “regular” in that they can also
be composed or derived by the grammatical/procedural system. As with
idiosyncratic knowledge, the likelihood of these “regular” representations
being memorized should increase with item-related factors such as their
frequency, and subjectrelated factors such as the individual’s
lexical/declarative memory abilities. The system supports a superpositional
associative memory, which allows for generalizations across representations.
For example, the memorization of phonologically similar stem-irregular past
tense pairs (e.g. spring–sprang, sing–sang) may allow for memory-based generalization
to new irregularizations, either from real words (bring–brang) or from novel
ones (spling–splang). This ability to generalize could underlie some degree of productivity
within the memory system.
The
brain structures that subserve declarative memory play analogous roles in
lexical
memory.
Thus, medial temporal lobe structures underlie the encoding, consolidation and access
or retrieval of new memories, which eventually rely instead on neocortical
regions, especially in temporal and temporo-parietal areas. Inferior and ventral
temporal regions are particularly important for representing non-linguistic
conceptual knowledge and word meanings. They may also contain abstract lexical
representations (Damasio et al., 1996).
Superior
temporal cortex may be particularly important for storing phonological
representations,
and perhaps other grammatical (syntactic, morphological) representations.
Thus,
this region may be related to both the procedural and declarative memory
systems.
Other brain structures, particularly those related to the procedural memory
system,
also play roles in declarative memory. These are described below. Acetylcholine
and estrogen have important functions in lexical/declarative memory, likely in
the learning and/or retrieval of new lexical knowledge.
4.2. The grammatical/procedural memory system
The
brain system underlying procedural memory subserves the mental grammar. This
system
underlies the learning of new, and the computation of already-learned,
rule-based procedures that govern the regularities of language-particularly
those procedures related to combining items into complex structures that have
precedence (sequential) and hierarchical relations. Thus, the system is
hypothesized to have an important role in rule-governed structure building;
that is, in the sequential and hierarchical combination – “merging” (Chomsky,
1995), or concatenation – of stored forms and abstract representations into complex
structures. Procedural memory is assumed to play a role in all sub-domains of grammar
which depend on these functions, including syntax; inflectional and
derivational morphology – at least for default “regulars” (Pinker, 1999;
Ullman, 2001a,c), but also for irregulars that appear to be affixed (Ullman,
Hartshorne, Estabrooke, Brovetto,&Walenski, submitted); aspects of
phonology (the combination of sounds); and possibly non-lexical
(compositional)
semantics (the interpretive, i.e. semantic, aspects of the composition of words
into complex structures). Moreover, the computational nature of the system is
likely to be similar across grammatical sub-domains – although this does not
preclude the possibility that these sub-domains maintain a certain degree of
independence (see
discussion
below).
The
system is a network composed of several brain structures. These are functionally
related,
highly inter-connected, and dynamically interactive: the basal ganglia,
especially the caudate nucleus; frontal cortex, in particular Broca’s area and
pre-motor regions (including SMA and pre-SMA); parietal cortex, particularly
the supramarginal gyrus (BA 40) and possibly the superior parietal lobule (BA
7); superior temporal cortex, probably in close relation with the declarative
memory system; and the cerebellum, including the cerebellar hemispheres, the
vermis, and the dentate nucleus.
The
language-related functions of each of these structures is expected to be highly
related
to its non-language functions. Thus, the basal ganglia are posited to play a
role in one or more aspects of the real-time selection and maintenance in
working memory of, and switching between, sequentially and hierarchically
structured elements in complex linguistic representations, and in the learning
of rules over those representations. Grammar is learned and processed by one or
more channels that run throughout the basal ganglia to the thalamus and thence
to frontal cortex. These channels are parallel to and largely functionally
segregated from other channels that undergo analogous computations but subserve
other domains. The channel(s) subserving grammar might also subserve other domains,
such as non-linguistic sequence learning; that is, they may be at least
somewhat domain-independent. Alternatively, there may be one or more channels
dedicated to grammar, and perhaps distinct (sub)channels for distinct grammatical
sub-domains (e.g. syntax, morphology). Such channels and their frontal outputs
may be considered domain-specific “modules” dedicated to grammar or its
sub-domains. Though these hypothesized grammatical (sub)channels are
domain-specific in that they underlie only grammatical processing, they are
part of a domain-general procedural system, in which the same or analogous
computations are performed on parallel and largely functionally segregated
channels subserving other domains. This is a somewhat different view of modularity
than is traditionally discussed in the study of language (Fodor, 1983).
The
frontal cortical areas to which the basal ganglia project – in particular
Broca’s
area,
SMA and pre-SMA – also underlie aspects of grammar. Broca’s area or portions
thereof
– especially BA 44 – may play an especially important role. Based on the
functions
of Broca’s area in non-linguistic domains, this region is expected to subserve
aspects
of the selection and maintenance in working memory of elements in complex
linguistic
structures, and the learning and processing of rule-governed sequential and
hierarchical
patterns over those structures. These functions are, not surprisingly, quite
related
to the hypothesized functions of the basal ganglia in language, though Broca’s
area and the basal ganglia likely differ at least somewhat in their specific
functions (Ullman, 2003; Ullman and Pierpont, in press).
Although
the other structures that constitute the procedural system network are also
expected
to subserve language, their functional roles are perhaps less clear than those
of the structures discussed above. Following evidence from their non-linguistic
functions, the supramarginal gyrus and/or the superior parietal lobule may each
play a role in attentional selection, which could be related to the selection
functions described above. Parietal cortex may also play a role not only in
sensori-motor transformations, but also in transforming structured
representations stored in superior temporal regions to the dynamic representations
created by Broca’s area. The cerebellum is expected to be involved in the search
of lexical items, and possibly in the error-based learning of the rules that
underlie the regularities of complex structures.
4.3. Interactions between the systems
The
lexical/declarative memory system and the grammatical/procedural system are
hypothesized
to interact in several ways. First, the procedural system is hypothesized to build
complex structures, and learn rule-governed patterns over those structures, by
selecting
lexical items from declarative memory, and maintaining and structuring those
items
together in working memory. Second, superior aspects of the temporal lobe may
play a
role in the storage of knowledge about procedural memory related relations of
structured
representations. Third, the same or similar types of knowledge can in at least some
cases be acquired by both systems. The rapid lexical/declarative storage of
sequences
of lexical forms should provide a database from which grammatical rules can gradually
and implicitly be abstracted by the procedural memory system. Moreover, in some
cases explicit knowledge of the rules themselves may help guide processing,
perhaps enhancing the procedural rule acquisition. Fourth, the two systems
interact competitively in a number of ways. Access to a stored representation
which has similar mappings to one which could be composed compositionally by
the procedural system (e.g. an irregular vs. a regular past-tense form of the
same verb) would block completion of the latter computation. Damage to the
declarative system is expected to lead to enhanced learning and processing by
the procedural system, and vice versa. Moreover, learning in one system may
depress functionality of the other. It is possible that, at least under certain
circumstances, enhancing acetylcholine or estrogen function in medial temporal
lobe structures may result not only in improved lexical/declarative memory
function, but also in suppressed grammatical/procedural function.
4.4. Further clarifications
The DP
model is motivated by a set of commonalities between language functions on the one
hand, and the functions of the memory brain systems on the other. However, the commonalities
do not suggest, and indeed it is not the claim, that there are isomorphic
(oneto-one) relations between lexicon and declarative memory, or between
grammar and procedural memory. That is, it is not expected that all parts of
the brain system underlying procedural memory subserve all aspects of the
mental grammar, and similarly for declarative memory and the mental lexicon.
First, there may be parts of each system that subserve non-language functions
but which play no role in language, or a minimal role, or perhaps a role only
in special circumstances (e.g. after breakdown). Indeed, this seems likely. For
example, the declarative memorization of visual images clearly depends in part on
cortical regions which may be specialized for and perhaps dedicated to visual
processing, and thus are unlikely to be involved in the memorization of
phonological word forms.
Second
and conversely, the DP model does not claim that all aspects of language depend
upon the two brain memory systems. Other neural structures and other cognitive
or computational components, perhaps even dedicated to language, may play an
important role in the two language capacities. Third, as we have seen above,
structures with topographically segregated sub-regions (i.e. the basal ganglia,
cerebellum, and possibly frontal cortex) may contain distinct sub-regions or
circuits that subserve language and non-language functions (see above).On this
view, the proceduralmemory systemmay be domain-independent in that it subserves
many functions, but is also domain-specific in that each function is subserved
by
parallel
and functionally segregated sub-components ormodules. Fourth, as discussed
above, even in the context of such topographic organization, theremay be
anatomical and functional specialization of sub-regions, such as in Broca’s
area.
4.5. Predictions
The
predictions follow from the model described above. Most fundamentally, language
and
non-language functions that are posited to depend on the same brain systems
should pattern together, showing similar computational, anatomic,
physiological, biochemical and other characteristics. Moreover, this should
apply not only to normal functioning, but also to the breakdown of these brain
systems, and to recovery from this breakdown.
5. Comparison with other models
The DP
model is proposed in the same spirit as, and is similar in a number of respects
to,
several other models and proposals (Dominey, 1997; Dominey et al., in press;
Friederici,
1990;
These
focus on the relation between grammar on the one hand, and implicit procedural memory,
motor sequencing and hierarchical structure on the other. Some of these proposals
are quite well-specified in certain respects. For example, Dominey and his colleagues
have developed a computational model of the type of sequencing that may underlie
both grammar and non-linguistic sequencing (Dominey et al., 2003). These models
complement the DP model, specifying some aspects to a greater depth than the DP
model, which in turn provides further specification in other dimensions, in
particular the anatomical, physiological and biochemical substrates, and the
functional roles in language played by those substrates.
The DP
model is also largely, though not completely, compatible with many “dualsystem”
(“dual-mechanism”) or multiple-system linguistic and psycholinguistic models of
language (Bever, Sanz, & Townsend, 1998; Chomsky, 1995; Fodor, 1983; Fodor,
Bever, & Garrett, 1974; Frazier & Fodor, 1978; Pinker, 1994, 1999). On
these views, language is subserved by separable components. At the very least,
the mental lexicon is assumed to be distinct from a “computational” mental
grammar, which moreover is often claimed to be composed of several components
(Chomsky, 1995). These theories also claim or assume that at least the grammatical
component or components are domain-specific. As can be seen from the discussion
above, all of these claims are compatible with the DP model.
Thus,
the DP model can be thought of as a neurocognitive model of aspects of these
linguistic
and psycholinguistic proposals. The neurocognitive model provides further
specification
in certain respects, particularly of the underlying brain structures and their
functions,
whereas the linguistic and psycholinguistic models provide much greater
specification
at the level of representation, computation and processing.
In
contrast, the DP model is at least partially inconsistent with certain claims
about the
domain
specificity of the neural basis of grammar. Thus, the DP model is not
consistent
with
the particular claim (Grodzinsky, 2000) that Broca’s area is dedicated to
language
and
performs a different set of linguistic computations than are claimed by the DP
model.
The DP
model is also not consistent with the claims made by certain connectionist
models, in particular connectionist models that deny grammatical composition
(Bates &
MacWhinney,
1989; Joanisse & Seidenberg, 1999; MacDonald, Pearlmutter, &
Seidenberg,
1994; Rumelhart & McClelland, 1986). These models also do not predict
empirical
associations among grammatical domains and procedural memory, or
dissociations
between these and lexical and declarative memory.
6. Empirical evidence
Here I
examine neurocognitive evidence pertaining to the claims and predictions of the
DP
model in native (first) language. I focus on the relation between brain and
cognition.
For a
discussion of purely behavioral (psycholinguistic) evidence from cognitively
unimpaired
individuals, see Pinker (1999), Ullman (2001a), or Pinker and Ullman (2002), among
others. Three broad types of evidence are examined here. First, I provide brief
overviews of hemodynamic (PET, fMRI) and electrophysiological (ERP) evidence
from normal processing (i.e. in cognitively unimpaired individuals). For more
in-depth reviews of this evidence, see, among others, Kaan and Swaab (2002),
Kaan and Stowe (2002), and Friederici (2002). Second, I present evidence from
developmental and adult-onset disorders that have traditionally been viewed as
“language” disorders. I argue that the evidence suggests that these may be
viewed as disorders affecting the brain structures of one or the other of the
two brain memory systems. Third, evidence is presented that suggests that
developmental and adult-onset disorders that have traditionally not been associated
with language impairments in fact do affect language, and can also be
profitably considered to be disorders of one or the other brain memory system.
6.1. Neuroimaging evidence from normal processing
6.1.1. Hemodynamics: PET and fMRI
Activation
in temporal/temporo-parietal regions, including the hippocampus and other
medial
temporal lobe structures, is strongly linked to the representation and
processing of both non-linguistic conceptual-semantic knowledge and lexical
knowledge (Damasio et al.,1996; Martin et al., 2000; Newman, Pancheva, Ozawa,
Neville, & Ullman, 2001).
Activation
in VL-PFC, and Broca’s area in particular, has been elicited not only in a
range of tasks related to procedural memory (see above), but also numerous
tasks designed to probe syntactic processing, in both receptive and expressive
language (Caplan, Alpert, & Waters, 1998; Embick, Marantz, Miyashita,
O’Neil, & Sakai, 2000; Friederici, 2002; Indefrey,Hagoort, Herzog, Seitz,
& Brown, 2001; Moro et al., 2001; Ni et al., 2000; Stromswold, Caplan,
Alpert,&Rauch, 1996). Intriguingly, many of these studies have implicated
BA 44 (pars opercularis) and the adjacent frontal operculum, suggesting that
these regions play a particularly important role in grammatical processing,
possibly related to aspects of working memory (Friederici, 2002). Syntactic
processing has been shown to elicit activation in SMA/pre-SMA (Caplan et al.,
1998; Newman et al., 2001), the basal ganglia, specifically the caudate nucleus
(Moro et al., 2001), and anterior superior temporal gyrus (Dapretto &
Bookheimer, 1999; Meyer, Friederici, & von Cramon, 2000; Ni et al., 2000).
Interestingly,
processing of lexically stored syntactic knowledge (i.e. word-specific
knowledge
regarding which arguments a verb takes) has yielded inferior temporal lobe
activation
(Kuperberg et al., 2000).
6.1.2. Electrophysiology: event-related potentials (ERPs)
Event-related
potentials (ERPs) reflect the real-time electrophysiological brain activity
of
cognitive processes that are time-locked to the presentation of target stimuli.
Difficulties in lexical processing as well as non-linguistic
conceptual-semantic processing elicit central/posterior bilateral negativities
that peak about 400 ms post-stimulus (“N400s”) (Kutas & Hillyard, 1980;
Olivares, Bobes, Aubert, & Valdes-Sosa, 1994). Evidence from several
empirical approaches suggests that N400s depend especially on temporal lobe structures,
including in the medial temporal lobe (Kiehl, Laurens, & Liddle, 2002;
Nobre, Allison, & McCarthy, 1994; Simos, Basile, & Papanicolaou, 1997),
and possibly VL-PFC as well (Halgren et al., 2002; Kiehl et al., 2002). The
N400 is posited to reflect declarative memory processes (Ullman, 2001b,c).
Anomalies
in rule-governed syntax, morpho-syntax, or morpho-phonology can yield
relatively
early (150–500 ms) left anterior negativities (“LANs”) (Friederici, Pfeifer,
&
Hahne,
1993; Neville, Nicol, Barss, Forster, & Garrett, 1991; Penke et al., 1997;
Weyerts, Penke, Dohrn, Clahsen, & Mu¨nte, 1997). These LANs have been
linked to rule-based automatic computations (Friederici, 2002; Friederici,
Hahne, & Mecklinger, 1996) and left frontal structures (Friederici, Hahne,
& von Cramon, 1998). LANs have also been elicited by difficulties in
non-linguistic sequencing (Hoen & Dominey, 2000), and by the observation of
incorrect tool use (e.g. incorrect positioning of a screwdriver with respect to
the screw) (Bach, Gunter, Knoblich, Prinz, & Friederici, 2002). LANs are
posited to reflect procedural memory processes (Ullman, 2001b,c). Syntactic
processing difficulties also tend to elicit late (600 ms) centro-parietal
positivities (“P600s”) (Hagoort, Brown, & Groothusen, 1993; Osterhout &
Holcomb, 1992). These are associated with controlled processing (Friederici et
al., 1996), and are posited to not reflect automatic aspects of procedural
memory. Intriguingly, difficulties in processing word-specific syntactic knowledge
(about verb arguments) can elicit an N400 rather than an LAN (Friederici & Frisch,
2000).
6.2. “Language” disorders
6.2.1. Developmental “language” disorders
6.2.1.1. Specific Language Impairment.
The
term Specific Language Impairment (SLI) is often assigned to developmental
language disorders that do not have any apparent social, psychological or
neurological cause (Leonard, 1998). SLI has generally been explained as an
impairment specific to grammar (Clahsen, 1989; Rice & Oetting, 1993; van
der Lely & Stollwerck, 1996) or as a processing deficit (Leonard, McGregor,
& Allen, 1992), specifically of working memory (Gathercole & Baddeley,
1993) or of brief stimuli and rapid sequences (Merzenich, Schreiner, Jenkins,
& Wang, 1993; Tallal & Piercy, 1978).
However,
SLI may best be viewed as an impairment of procedural memory, resulting from the
dysfunction of the brain structures underlying this system (Ullman &
Gopnik, 1999; Ullman & Pierpont, in press).
SLI is
strongly associated with grammatical impairments, including of syntax (Clahsen,
Bartke,
& Go¨llner, 1997; van der Lely, 1996), morphology (both morpho-syntax and
morpho-phonology)
(Leonard, Bortolini, Caselli, McGregor, & Sabbadini, 1992; Rice &
Oetting,
1993; van der Lely & Ullman, 2001) and phonology (Gathercole &
Baddeley,
1993).
Lexical knowledge is relatively spared in SLI, as evidenced by spared
recognition and comprehension in word learning tasks (Leonard, 1982; Weismer
& Hesketh, 1996). In contrast, retrieval of lexical knowledge (word
finding) is often difficult for people with SLI (Rapin & Wilson, 1978;
Weckerly, Wulfeck, & Reilly, 2001), as might be expected if structures
underlying procedural memory are involved in this function.
Contrary
to traditional perspectives, SLI is also strongly associated with impairments
of
procedural
memory (see Ullman & Pierpont, in press). First, motor deficits are widely
observed
in children and adults with SLI (Bishop, 2002; Hill, 2001; Owen & McKinlay,
1997).
These include impairments of oral or facial praxis, limb praxis/coordination,
and
fine
motor skills. People with SLI have particular difficulty on motor tasks
involving
complex
sequences of movements, such as moving pegs, sequential finger opposition,
rapid
finger tapping and stringing beads. SLI is also associated with deficits of a
number of other functions which depend upon the brain structures underlying
procedural memory, including working memory (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1993),
processing rapidly-presented sequences (Merzenich et al., 1993; Tallal, Stark,
& Mellits, 1985), and mental rotation (Johnston & Weismer, 1983) and
other “dynamic” mental imagery tasks involving the mental manipulation of images
(Leonard, 1998). In contrast, “static” mental imagery appears to be spared in
the disorder (Leonard, 1998). SLI is linked to abnormalities of the brain
structures underling procedural memory, especially Broca’s area, the basal
ganglia (particularly the caudate nucleus), SMA and the cerebellum (Gauger,
Lombardino, & Leonard, 1997; Jernigan, Hesselink, Sowell, & Tallal,
1991; Oki, Takahashi, Miyamoto, & Tachibana, 1999; Tallal, Jernigan, &
Trauner, 1994; Vargha-Khadem et al., 1998). In contrast, declarative memory
abilities often remain intact in SLI (Dewey & Wall, 1997; Merritt &
Liles, 1987; also see Ullman & Pierpont, in press).
Evidence
suggests that people with SLI may shift their reliance from the impaired
procedural
memory system to the relatively spared declarative memory (for further
discussion
see Ullman & Pierpont, in press). For example, whereas in normally
developing children and adults, frequency effects (indicating storage) for
regular inflected forms are absent, inconsistent or weak, they have been
consistently demonstrated in children and adults with SLI, in both past-tense
and plural production (Oetting & Horohov, 1997; Ullman & Gopnik, 1999;
van der Lely & Ullman, 2001). Moreover, children with SLI produce compounds
with regular as well as irregular plurals in them (e.g. mice-eater and rats-eater),
whereas normal children only produce compounds with irregular plurals (e.g. mice-eater
vs. rat-eater) (van der Lely & Christian, 2000). These data suggest that
while normal children retrieve only irregular past-tense forms from memory,
children with SLI retrieve both past-tense types.
6.2.2. Adult-onset “language” disorders
6.2.2.1. Aphasia.
The
term “aphasia” generally refers to language impairments resulting from one or
more focal lesions in the brain. Clusters of symptoms tend to co-occur in types
(syndromes)
of aphasia. Although there are a number of different adult-onset aphasia
syndromes,
several of these can be grouped into either of two larger categories, which are
often referred to as non-fluent and fluent aphasia (Alexander, 1997; Damasio,
1992; Goodglass, 1993). It is argued here that non-fluent aphasia reflects, at
least in part, damage to the brain structures underlying procedural memory. In
contrast, it is posited that fluent aphasia entails damage to brain structures
underlying long-term representations in declarative memory, although the damage
also often extends to posterior areas involved in procedural memory, resulting
in the accompaniment of particular types of impairments of the
grammatical/procedural system.
Non-fluent
aphasia is associated with lesions of left inferior (ventro-lateral) frontal
regions,
in particular Broca’s area and nearby cortex, as well as the basal ganglia,
portions
of inferior parietal cortex, and anterior superior temporal cortex (Alexander,
1997;
Damasio, 1992; Dronkers, Redfern, & Knight, 2000). Characteristic of
anterior
aphasia
is “agrammatism”: syntactic and morphological impairments in production and
comprehension,
and especially in the use of free and bound grammatical morphemes
(e.g.
auxiliaries, determiners, and affixes such as -ed) (Goodglass, 1993).
Agrammatics
have
been shown to have more trouble with regular than irregular morphology, holding
constant
word frequency, length, and other factors, in both expressive and receptive
language
tasks (Pinker & Ullman, 2002; Ullman et al.,
also
strongly associated with phonological impairments (Goodglass, 1993). Agrammatic
speech
can follow focal lesions that are relatively circumscribed to the left basal
ganglia
(Fabbro, Clarici, & Bava, 1996) or right cerebellum (Silveri, Leggio, &
Molinari,
1994; Zettin et al., 1997). Non-fluent aphasics are relatively spared in their
recognition
and comprehension of non-compositional (simple) content words (e.g.
nouns,
adjectives) (Goodglass, 1993). As would be expected with damage to Broca’s
area
and the basal ganglia if these structures play a role in lexical retrieval,
agrammatics
generally have difficulty retrieving content words, despite the spared
recognition
of these words (Alexander, 1997; Damasio, 1992; Dronkers et al., 2000;
Goodglass,
1993).
Non-fluent
aphasia is strongly associated with impairments of non-linguistic functions
that
depend on procedural memory and its underlying brain structures. Non-fluent
aphasics typically have a range of motor impairments, from articulation to the
execution of complex learned motor skills, particularly those involving
sequences (ideomotor apraxia) (Alexander, 1997; De Renzi, 1989; Dronkers et
al., 2000; Goodglass, 1993; Heilman et al., 1997). Non-fluent aphasics have
also been shown to have impairments learning new motor sequences, especially
sequences containing abstract structure (Conway & Christiansen, 2001;
Dominey et al., 2003; Goschke et al., 2001). Non-fluent aphasia is also linked
to deficits of working memory and impairments of timing in speech production and
perception, (Goodglass, 1993; Szelag et al., 1997).
Fluent
aphasia is linked to damage of left temporal and temporo-parietal regions,
often
extending
to inferior parietal structures. Fluent aphasia is associated with impairments
in the production, reading, and recognition of the sounds and meanings of
content words, as well as of conceptual knowledge (Alexander, 1997; Damasio,
1992; Dronkers et al., 2000; Farah & Grossman, 1997). In contrast, fluent
aphasics tend to produce syntactically well structured sentences, and to not
omit morphological affixes (e.g. the past tense -ed suffix).
Intriguingly,
damage in and around inferior parietal cortex in fluent aphasia can lead to
certain
types of grammatical impairments (Goodglass, 1993), supporting a role for this
region
in the mental grammar. Nevertheless, in direct comparisons of regular and
irregular morphology, fluent aphasics show the opposite pattern to that of
non-fluent aphasics, with worse performance at irregulars (Ullman et al.,
6.3. “Non-language” disorders
6.3.1. Developmental “non-language” disorders
A
number of developmental disorders are associated with impairments of procedural
memory
related functions, and with abnormalities of the brain structures underlying
this system. These include dyslexia, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
(ADHD) and autism spectrum disorder. According to the DP model, in these
disorders one should observe both grammatical difficulties and lexical
retrieval impairments, though the particular characteristics of these language
deficits may differ depending on the specific procedural memory dysfunction in
each disorder.
Dyslexia
and ADHD are both linked to impairments of motor function (Denckla, Rudel,
Chapman,
& Krieger, 1985; Diamond, 2000; Wolff, Cohen, & Drake, 1984) and
working
memory
(Denckla, 1996; Gathercole & Baddeley, 1993). Both disorders yield deficits
in
the
ability to accurately reproduce time intervals (Barkley, Koplowitz, Anderson,
&
McMurray,
1997; Goswami et al., 2002) and to maintain motor timing control (Diamond,2000;
Wolff et al., 1984). The cerebellum has been implicated in dyslexia
(Nicolson,Daum, Schugens, Fawcett, & Schulz, 2002) and ADHD (Berquin et
al., 1998; Castellanos,2001). The basal ganglia, especially the caudate
nucleus, is abnormal in ADHD (Castellanos, 2001; Diamond, 2000), and possibly
in dyslexia (Georgiewa et al., 2002). Dyslexia and ADHD show high co-morbidity
with SLI and with each other (Cohen et al.,2000; Denckla, 1996; Snowling,
2000). According to one study, approximately 55% of children with a specific
reading disorder were found to have impaired oral language, and 51% of children
with SLI had a reading disability (McArthur, Hogben, Edwards, Heath, & Mengler,
2000). Some studies document as high as a 45% rate of language impairment among
children with ADHD Tirosh&Cohen, 1998). Indeed, the most frequent
psychiatric diagnosis among children with language impairments is ADHD (Cohen
et al., 2000).
Autism
spectrum disorder is associated with cerebellar abnormalities (Courchesne,
Yeung-Courchesne,
Press, Hesselink, & Jernigan, 1988; Rumsey, 1996) and with deficits of
motor function (Bauman, 1992; Ohta, 1987), working – but not declarative –
memory (Bennetto, Pennington, & Rogers, 1996), and procedural learning,
especially of sequences (Mostofsky et al., 2000; Sigman & Ungerer, 1984).
One of the defining characteristics of autism is a deficit in language (Rutter,
1978). In many cases expressive language ability never develops at all (Bailey,
Phillips, & Rutter, 1996). Deficits have been reported in syntax (Ramondo
& Milech, 1984; Van Meter, Fein, Morris, Waterhouse, & Allen, 1997) and
morphology (Bartolucci, Pierce, & Streiner, 1980; Howlin, 1984; Pierce
& Bartolucci, M.T. Ullman / Cognition 92 (2004) 231–270 253 1977). In
contrast, knowledge of words and concepts are apparently not impaired
(Tager-Flusberg,
1985; Whitehouse & Harris, 1984), though there may be impairments in the
recall of this knowledge (Tager-Flusberg, 1985).
6.3.2. Adult-onset “non-language” disorders
6.3.2.1. Alzheimer’s disease.
Alzheimer’s
disease (AD) affects medial and neocortical temporal-lobe structures, leaving
frontal cortex – particularly Broca’s area and motor cortex – and basal-ganglia
structures relatively intact (Arnold, Hyman, Flory, Damasio, & Hoesen,
1991). The temporal lobe dysfunction may explain AD patients’ impairments in learning
new and using established lexical and conceptual knowledge (Grossman et al., 1998;
Nebes, 1997; Sagar, Cohen, Sullivan, Corkin, & Growdon, 1988). AD patients
are
relatively
spared at acquiring and expressing motor and cognitive skills (Beatty et al.,
1994;
Gabrieli, Corkin, Mickel, & Growdon, 1993; Nebes, 1997; Saint-Cyr et al.,
1988),
and at
aspects of syntactic processing (Bayles, 1982; Schwartz, Marin, & Saffran,
1979).
AD
patients with severe deficits at object naming or fact retrieval make more
errors at
producing
past-tense forms of irregulars than of regulars or -ed-suffixed novel verbs.
Across
AD patients, error rates at object naming and at fact retrieval correlate with
error rates at producing irregular but not regular or -ed-suffixed novel past
tenses (Ullman, in press; Ullman et al., 1997). Similarly, Italian AD patients
have greater difficulty producing Italian irregular than regular present tense
and past participle forms (Cappa & Ullman, 1998; Walenski, Sosta, Cappa
& Ullman, submitted).
6.3.2.2. Semantic dementia.
Semantic
dementia is associated with the progressive and severe degeneration of inferior
and lateral temporal lobe regions. The disorder results in the loss of
non-linguistic conceptual and lexical knowledge (Bozeat, Lambon
Ralph,Patterson, Garrard, & Hodges, 2000), with spared motor, syntactic and
phonological abilities (Graham, Patterson, & Hodges, 1999). Patients with
semantic dementia yield a pattern like that of AD patients: they have more
trouble producing and recognizing irregular than regular and -ed-suffixed novel
past tenses, and the degree of their impairment on irregulars correlates with
their performance on an independent lexical memory task (Patterson, Lambon
Ralph, Hodges, & McClelland, 2001).
6.3.2.3. Parkinson’s disease.
Parkinson’s
disease (PD) is associated with the degeneration of dopaminergic neurons,
especially in the basal ganglia (i.e. the substantia nigra). This causes high
levels of inhibition in the motor and other frontal cortical areas to which the
basal ganglia project. It is thought to explain why PD patients show
suppression of motor
activity
(hypokinesia) and have difficulty expressing motor sequences (Dubois, Boller,
Pillon,
& Agid, 1991; Willingham, 1998; Young & Penney, 1993). It may also
account for their impairments at acquiring motor and cognitive skills
(Harrington, Haaland, Yeo, & Marder, 1990; Saint-Cyr et al., 1988), and at
grammatical processing (Grossman, Carvell, & Peltzer, 1993; Illes, Metter,
Hanson, & Iritani, 1988; Lieberman et al., 1992). PD patients also have trouble
retrieving words (Dubois et al., 1991). In contrast, temporal-lobe regions
remain relatively undamaged and the recognition of words and facts remains relatively
intact in low- or non-demented PD patients (Dubois et al., 1991; Sagar et al., 1988;
Saint-Cyr et al., 1988). Severely hypokinetic PD patients show a pattern
opposite to that found among AD patients, making more errors when producing
regular and –edsuffixed novel past-tenses than irregular past-tenses. Across PD
patients, the level of rightside hypokinesia, which reflects left basal ganglia
degeneration, correlates with error rates at the production of regular and
-ed-suffixed novel forms but not irregular forms.
Intriguingly,
left-side hypokinesia, which reflects right basal ganglia degeneration, does
not
show the analogous correlations with error rates in the production of any past
tense type, underscoring the role of left frontal/basal-ganglia structures in
grammatical rule use (Ullman, in press; Ullman et al., 1997). Across PD
patients, error rates at regular and –edsuffixed novel past-tenses correlate
with error rates at naming manipulated objects (e.g. tools), but not
non-manipulated objects, suggesting a common neural basis for manipulated
objects and -ed-affixation, as expected by the DP model (Ullman, 1999).
6.3.2.4. Huntington’s disease.
Although
Huntington’s disease (HD) is like PD in causing degeneration of the basal
ganglia, it strikes different portions of these structures. Unlike in PD, this
damage affects the indirect pathway, resulting in the disinhibition of frontal
areas
receiving
basal ganglia projections (Young & Penney, 1993). This is thought to
explain the unsuppressible movements (chorea, a type of hyperkinesia) found in
patients with HD.
Patients
with HD show the opposite pattern to those with PD not only in the type of
movement
impairment (the suppressed movements of hypokinesia vs. the unsuppressed movements
of hyperkinesia), but also in the type of errors on -ed-suffixed forms (Ullman,
in press; Ullman et al., 1997). HD patients produce forms like walkeded,
plaggeded, and dugged, but not analogous errors on irregulars like dugug or
keptet, suggesting that these errors are not attributable to articulatory or
motor deficits. Rather the data suggest unsuppressed -ed-suffixation. This
conclusion is strengthened by the finding that the production rate of these
over-suffixed forms correlates with the degree of chorea, across patients.
These contrasting findings in PD and HD, linking movement and -ed-suffixation in
two distinct types of impairments related to two types of basal ganglia damage,
strongly implicate frontal/basal-ganglia circuits in -ed-suffixation. They
support the hypothesis that these structures underlie the expression of
grammatical rules as well as movement, and suggest that they play similar roles
in the two domains.
6.3.2.5. Amnesia.
Bilateral
damage to medial temporal lobe structures leads to an inability to learn new
information about facts, events, and words (Schacter & Tulving, 1994).
Importantly,
neither phonological nor semantic lexical knowledge is acquired (Gabrieli,
Cohen,
& Corkin, 1988; Postle & Corkin, 1998), supporting the DP hypothesis
that these structures underlie the learning of word forms as well as word
meanings. This “anterograde amnesia” is typically accompanied by the loss of
this type of information for a period preceding the damage. However, knowledge
acquired substantially before lesion onset tends to be spared (Schacter &
Tulving, 1994). Thus, even though medial temporal lobe structures are posited
to underlie the learning of new lexical information, knowledge of words learned
during childhood should be largely intact in adult-onset amnesia. As expected,
the examination of the well-studied amnesic H.M. (Kensinger, Ullman, & Corkin,
2001) revealed that he did not differ from normal age- and education-matched control
subjects at syntactic processing tasks, or at his production of regular or
irregular forms in past-tense, plural and derivational morphology.
7. Conclusion
According
to the DP model, the brain systems underlying two well-studied memory
capacities,
declarative and procedural memory, also subserve aspects of the mental
lexicon
and the mental grammar. Both brain systems play similar functional roles across
language and non-language domains, which depend on common anatomical,
physiological, and biochemical substrates. Evidence from neuroimaging (fMRI,
PET, ERPs) and from developmental and adult-onset disorders supports this
claim. Moreover, I have argued that certain developmental and adult-onset
“language” disorders may be best viewed as disorders that affect brain
structures underlying the memory systems.
The DP
model has a number of implications in addition to those discussed above. First,
our
understanding of the two memory systems should lead to further predictions
about
language.
For example, sex differences in language acquisition and processing can be
predicted
by independent knowledge of declarative memory. Women show an advantage over
men at remembering verbal information in declarative memory (Golomb et al.,
1996; Kimura, 1999). This effect is modulated by estrogen (see above). These
data lead to the prediction that girls and women tend to memorize complex forms
(walked) in lexical/declarative memory that boys and men tend to compose (walk
þ -ed) in the grammatical/procedural system (Ullman et al., 2002). Preliminary
evidence supports this contention, and implicates estrogen in the effect
(Estabrooke, Mordecai, Maki, & Ullman, 2002; Ullman et al., 2002,
submitted).
Second,
aspects of our existing understanding of language can be reinterpreted in the
context
of the DP model. For example, evidence suggests that in late second language
learning
– particularly after puberty – grammar is more difficulty to learn than lexical
knowledge
(Birdsong, 1999; Johnson & Newport, 1989). Under the DP model, this
suggests
that at later ages, especially after puberty, the grammatical/procedural system
is less available than lexical/declarative memory (Ullman, 2001b). This may
result from the attenuation of procedural memory, possibly due to increasing
estrogen levels at puberty (directly or via testosterone; see above), which
would be expected to enhance declarative memory, and possibly suppress the
procedural system through the “see-saw” competition mechanism. The availability
of the lexical/declarative system should allow it to compensate for the
dysfunctional grammatical/procedural system, as has been found in SLI (see
above). However, since practice should increase performance in procedural memory,
late-language learners should tend to become native like with experience, showing
an increased dependence on the grammatical/procedural system. Previous studies are
consistent with this view of second language acquisition and processing
(Ullman,2001b). Morever, a recent fMRI study examining the acquisition of an
artificial language in adulthood (Opitz & Friederici, in press) found that
early during acquisition (i.e. at low proficiency) syntactic processing
involves the hippocampus and cortical areas in the temporal lobe. Activation in
these brain structures decreased across the experiment (as proficiency
increased), while activation increased in Broca’s area. This finding suggests a
shift from the declarative to the procedural system during late second language
learning, similar to the non-linguistic procedural learning experiments
discussed above (Poldrack et al., 2001; Poldrack, Prabhakaran et al., 1999).
Third,
because language is a relatively well-understood cognitive domain, it is likely
that linguistic
theory and related language disciplines will shed light on aspects of the
declarative
and procedural memory systems. For example, the Elsewhere Principle (see
above)
suggests that even in non-language domains, declarative memory may hold
precedence
in certain contexts over procedural memory.
Fourth,
the DP model suggests the feasibility of the development of animal models for
the
study of language: the model predicts that significant advances in our
understanding of language can be made by investigating non-language functions,
in particular by using a range of highly informative methods available only in
animal models. Therefore, a reasonable and desirable research program would be
to develop animal models of non-linguistic functions whose computational and
neural substrates are expected to be shared with those of linguistic functions.
Fifth,
the model has direct educational and clinical implications. For example, the
neuropharmacology
of declarative memory and its underlying neural substrates (Curran,2000) should
pertain to language as well. Moreover, as discussed above, people with disorders
of the grammatical/procedural system may recover through the memorization of complex
forms (e.g. walked) in lexical/declarative memory. Such recovery could presumably
be encouraged with neuropharmacological and other therapeutic approaches motivated
by existing knowledge of the memory systems (Ullman & Pierpont, in press).
Finally,
the existence of brain systems that subserve language and are homologous to
systems
in other animals has implications for the evolution of language.
Acknowledgements
Support
was provided to MTU by a McDonnell-Pew grant in Cognitive Neuroscience, a
research
grant from the National
MH58189,
and Army DAMD-17-93-V-3018/3019/3020 and DAMD-17-99-2-9007. I
would
like to thank all the members of the Brain and Language Laboratory, especially
Claudia
Bonin, John Drury, Ivy Estabrooke, Joshua Hartshorne, Matthew Moffa, Rene
Pierpont,
Karsten Steinhauer, and Matthew Walenski, for lively discussions and for
helpful
comments.
References
Aldridge,
J. W., & Berridge, K. C. (1998). Coding of serial order by neostriatal
neurons: a “natural action” approach to movement sequence. Journal of
Neuroscience, 18(7), 2777–2787.
Alexander,
G. E., & Crutcher, M. D. (1990). Functional architecture of basal ganglia
circuits: neural substrates of parallel processing. Trends in Neuroscience,
13(7), 266–271.
Alexander,
G. E., Crutcher, M. D., & DeLong, M. R. (1990). Basal
ganglia-thalamocortical circuits: parallel substrates for motor oculomotor
‘prefrontal’ and ‘limbic’ functions. In H. B. M. Uylings, C. G. Van Eden, J. P.
C. DeBruin, M. A. Corner, & M. G. P. Feenstra (Eds.), (85) (pp. 119–146).
Progress in brain research, New
Alexander,
G. E., DeLong, M. R., & Strick, P. L. (1986). Parallel organization of
functionally segregated circuits linking basal ganglia and cortex. Annual
Review of Neuroscience, 9, 357–381.
Alexander,
M. P. (1997). Aphasia: clinical and anatomic aspects. In T. E. Feinberg, &
M. J. Farah (Eds.),
Behavioral
neurology and neuropsychology (pp. 133–150).
Alvarez,
P., & Squire, L. R. (1994). Memory consolidation and the medial temporal
lobe: a simple network model. Proceedings of the National
Amunts,
K., Schleicher, A., Burgel, U., Mohlberg, H., Uylings, H., & Zilles, K.
(1999). Broca’s region revisited: cytoarchitecture and intersubject
variability. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 412(2), 319–341.
Anderson,
S. R. (1992) (62). A-morphous morphology,
Arnold,
S. E., Hyman, B. T., Flory, J., Damasio, A. R., & Hoesen, G. W. V. (1991).
The topographical and neuroanatomical distribution of neurofibrillary tangles
and neuritic plaques in the cerebral cortex of patients with Alzheimer’s
disease. Cerebral Cortex, 1, 103–116.
Bach,
P., Gunter, T. C., Knoblich, G., Prinz, W., & Friederici, A. D. (2002).
Conceptual and structural relations in action comprehension. In A. D.
Friederici, & D. Y. von Cramon (Eds.), Annual report of the Max Planck Institute
of Cognitive Neuroscience (pp. 34–35).
Bailey,
A., Phillips, W., & Rutter, M. (1996). Autism: towards an integration of
clinical, genetic,neuropsychological and neurobiological perspectives. Journal
of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 89–126.
Ballard,
C. (2002). Advances in the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease: benefits of dual
cholinesterase inhibition. European Journal of Neurology, 47(1), 64–70.
Barkley,
R. A., Koplowitz, S., Anderson, T., & McMurray, M. B. (1997). Sense of time
in children with ADHD:effects of duration, distraction, and stimulant
medication. Journal of the International Neuropsychological Society, 3(4),
359–369.
Bartolucci, G., Pierce, S. J., & Streiner, D. (1980). Cross-sectional studies of
grammatical morphemes in autistic and mentally retarded children. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 10(1), 39–50.
Baskin,
D. S., Browning, J. L., Pirozzolo, F. J., Korporaal, S., Baskin, J. A., &
Appel, S. H. (1999). Brain choline acetyltransferase and mental function in
Alzheimer disease. Archives of Neurology, 56(9), 1121–1123.
Bates,
E., & MacWhinney, B. (1989). Functionalism and the competition model. In B.
MacWhinney, & E. Bates (Eds.), The crosslinguistic study of sentence
processing (pp. 3–73).
Bauman,
M. L. (1992). Motor dysfunction in autism. In A. Joseph, & R. Young (Eds.),
(1) (pp. 658–661).Movement disorders in neurology and psychiatry,
Bayles,
K. A. (1982). Language function in senile dementia. Brain and Language, 16,
265–280.
Beatty,
W. W., Winn, P., Adams, R. L., Allen, E. W., Wilson, D. A., Prince, J. R.,
Olson, K. A., Dean, K., & Littleford, D. (1994). Preserved cognitive skills
in dementia of the Alzheimer type. Archives of Neurology, 51,1040–1046.
Bennetto,
L., Pennington, B. F., & Rogers, S. J. (1996). Intact and impaired memory
functions in autism. Child Development, 67, 1816–1835.
Berquin,
P. C., Giedd, J. N., Jacobsen, L. K., Hamburger, S. D., Krain, A. L., Rapoport,
J. L., & Castellanos, F. X.(1998). Cerebellum in attention-deficit
hyperactivity disorder: a morphometric MRI study. Neurology, 50(4),
1087–1093.
Bever,
T. G., Sanz, M., & Townsend, D. J. (1998). The emperor’s psycholinguistics.
Journal of Psycholinguistic Research, 27(2), 261–284.
Binkofski,
F., Amunts, K., Stephan, K., Posse, S., Schormann, T., Freund, H., Zilles, K.,
& Seitz, R. (2000). Broca’s region subserves imagery of motion: a combined
cytoarchitectonic and fMRI study. Human Brain Mapping, 11(4), 273–285.
Binkofski,
F., Buccino, G., Stephan, K., Rizzolatti, G., Seitz, R., & Freund, H.
(1999). A parieto-premotor network for object manipulation: evidence from
neuroimaging. Experimental Brain Research, 128(1–2),210–213.
Binkofski,
F., Dohle, C., Posse, S., Stephan, K., Hefter, H., Seitz, R., & Freund, H.
(1998). Human anterior intraparietal area subserves prehension: a combined
lesion and functional MRI activation study. Neurology,50(5), 1253–1259.
Birdsong,
D. (Ed.), (1999). Second language acquisition and the critical period
hypothesis.
Bishop,
D. V. (2002). Motor immaturity and specific speech and language impairment:
evidence for a common genetic basis. American Journal of Medical Genetics,
114(1), 56–63.
Boecker,
H., Ceballos-Baumann, A. O., Bartenstein, P., Dagher, A., Forster, K.,
Haslinger, B., Brooks, D. J.,Schwaiger, M., & Conrad, B. (2002). A H215O
positron emission tomography study on mental imagery of movement sequences –
the effect of modulating sequence length and direction. Neuroimage, 17,
999–1009.
Boecker,
H., Dagher, A., Ceballos-Baumann, A. O., Passingham, R. E., Samuel, M.,
Friston, K. J., Poline, J.,
Dettmers,
C., Conrad, B., & Brooks, D. J. (1998). Role of the human rostral
supplementary motor area and the
basal
ganglia in motor sequence control: investigations with H2 15O PET. Journal of
Neurophysiology, 79(2),1070–1080.
Bozeat,
S., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Patterson, K., Garrard, P., & Hodges, J. R.
(2000). Non-verbal impairment in semantic dementia. Neuropsychologia, 38,
1207–1214.
Braver,
T. S., Barch, D. M., Kelley, W. M., Buckner, R. L., Cohen, N. J., Miezin, F.
M., Snyder, A. Z., Ollinger,J. M., Akbudak, E., Conturo, T. E., & Petersen,
S. E. (2001). Direct comparison of prefrontal cortex regions engaged by working
and long-term memory tasks. Neuroimage, 14(
Buckner,
R. L., & Wheeler, M. E. (2001). The cognitive neuroscience of remembering. Nature Review Neuroscience,
2(9), 624–634.
Calabresi, P., Centonze, D., Gubellini, P., Pisani, A., & Bernardi, G.
(2000). Acetylcholine-mediated
modulation of striatal function. Trends in Neurosciences, 23(3), 120–126.
Caplan,
D., Alpert, N., & Waters, G. (1998). Effects of syntactic structure and
propositional number on patterns of regional cerebral blood flow. Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(4), 541–552.
Cappa,
S., & Ullman, M. T. (1998). A neural dissociation in Italian verbal
morphology. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, Supplement, 63.
Castellanos,
F. X. (2001). Neural substrates of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Advances in Neurology,85, 197–206.
Chao,
L., & Martin, A. (2000). Representation of manipulable man-made objects in
the dorsal stream. Neuroimage, 12(4), 478–484.
Cherrier,
M. M., Asthana, S., Plymate, S., Baker, L., Matsumoto, A. M., Peskind, E.,
Raskind, M. A., Brodkin, K.,Bremner, W., Petrova, A.,
Chomsky,
N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax.
Chomsky,
N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In R. Jacobs, & P. Rosenbaum (Eds.),
Chomsky,
N. (1995). The minimalist program.
Clahsen,
H. (1989). The grammatical characterization of developmental dysphasia. Linguistics,
27, 897–920.
Clahsen,
H., Bartke, S., & Go¨llner, S. (1997). Formal features in impaired
grammars: a comparison of English and German SLI children.
Cohen,
N. J., Poldrack, R. A., & Eichenbaum, H. (1997). Memory for items and
memory for relations in the procedural/declarative memory framework. Memory,
5(1–2), 131–178.
Cohen,
N. J., Vallance,
Corkin,
S. (1984). Lasting consequences of bilateral medial temporal lobectomy:
clinical course and experimental findings in H.M. Seminars in Neurology, 4(2),
249–259.
Courchesne,
E., Yeung-Courchesne, R., Press, G. A., Hesselink, J. R., & Jernigan, T. L.
(1988). Hypoplasia of cerebellar vermal lobules VI and VII in autism.
Cowan,
N. (1999). An embedded-process model of working memory. In A. Miyake, & P.
Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory (pp. 62–101).
Culham,
J. C., & Kanwisher, N. G. (2001). Neuroimaging of cognitive functions in
human parietal cortex. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 11(2), 157–163.
Curran,
H. V. (2000). Psychopharmacological approaches to human memory. In M. S.
Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (pp. 797–804).
Dagher,
A., Owen, A., Boecker, H., & Brooks, D. (2001). The role of the striatum
and hippocampus in planning: a PET activation study in Parkinson’s disease.
Brain, 124(Pt 5), 1020–1032.
Damasio,
A. R. (1992). Aphasia.
Damasio,
H. (1995). Human brain anatomy in computerized images.
Damasio,
H., Grabowski, T., Tranel, D., Hichwa, R., & Damasio, A. (1996). A neural
basis for lexical retrieval. Nature, 380(6574), 499–505.
Dapretto,
M., & Bookheimer, S. Y. (1999). Form and content: dissociating syntax and
semantics in sentence comprehension. Neuron, 24(2), 427–432.
Denckla,
M. B. (1996). Biological correlates of learning and attention: what is relevant
to learning disability and attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.
Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, 17(2), 114–119.
Denckla,
M. B., Rudel, R. G., Chapman, C., & Krieger, J. (1985). Motor proficiency
in dyslexic children with and without attentional disorders. Archives of
Neurology, 42(3), 228–231.
De
Renzi, E. (1989). Apraxia. In F. Boller, & J. Grafman (Eds.), (2) (pp.
245–263). Handbook of neuropsychology,
de
Saussure, F. (1959). A course in general linguistics.
Desmond,
J. E., & Fiz, J. A. (1998). Neuroimaging studies of the cerebellum:
language, learning, and memory.Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2(9), 355–362.
D’Esposito,
M., Aguirre, G. K., Zarahn, E., Ballard, D., Shin, R. K., & Lease, J.
(1998). Functional MRI studies of spatial and nonspatial working memory. Brain
Research: Cognitive Brain Research, 7(1), 1–13.
Dewey,
D., & Wall, K. (1997). Praxis and memory deficits in language-impaired
children. Developmental Neuropsychology, 13(4), 507–512.
Diamond,
A. (2000). Close interrelation of motor development and cognitive development
and of the cerebellum and prefrontal cortex. Child Development, 71(1), 44–56.
Di
Sciullo, A. M., & Williams, E. (1987) (14). On the definition of word,
Dominey,
P. F. (1997). An anatomically structured sensory-motor sequence learning system
displays some general linguistic capacities. Brain and Language, 59, 50–75.
Dominey,
P. F., Hoen, M., Blanc, J.-M., & Lelekov-Boissard, T. (2003). Neurological
basis of language and sequential cognition: evidence from simulation, aphasia,
and ERP studies. Brain and Language, 83, 207–225.
Doya,
K. (2000). Complementary roles of basal ganglia and cerebellum in learning and
motor control. Current Opinion in Neurology, 10, 732–739.
Doyon,
J., Gaudreau, D., Laforce, R., Castonguay, M., Bedard, P. J., Bedard, F., &
Bouchard, J. P. (1997). Role of the striatum, cerebellum, and frontal lobes in
the learning of a visuomotor sequence. Brain and Cognition,34(2), 218–245.
Doyon,
J., Owen, A. M., Petrides, M., Sziklas, V., & Evans, A. C. (1996).
Functional anatomy of visuomotor skill learning in human subjects examined with
positron emission tomography. European Journal of Neuroscience,8(4), 637–648.
Dronkers,
N. F., Redfern, B. B., & Knight, R. T. (2000). The neural architecture of
language disorders. In M. S.Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences
(pp. 949–958).
Dubois,
B., Boller, F., Pillon, B., & Agid, Y. (1991). Cognitive deficits in
Parkinson’s disease. In F. Boller, & J.Grafman (Eds.), (5) (pp. 195–240).
Handbook of neuropsychology,
Eichenbaum,
H. (2000). A cortical-hippocampal system for declarative memory. Nature Review
Neuroscience,1(1), 41–50.
Eichenbaum,
H., & Cohen, N. J. (2001). From conditioning to conscious recollection:
memory systems of the brain.
Embick,
D., Marantz, A., Miyashita, Y., O’Neil, W., &
Estabrooke,
Fabbro, F., Clarici, A., & Bava, A. (1996). Effects of left basal ganglia lesions on
language production. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82(
Faillenot,
I., Toni,
Farah,
M. J., & Grossman, M. (1997). Semantic memory impairments. In T. E.
Feinberg, & M. J. Farah (Eds.),Behavioral neurology and neuropsychology
(pp. 473–477).
Fiez,
J. A. (1997). Phonology, semantics, and the role of the left inferior
prefrontal cortex. Human Brain Mapping, 5, 79–83.
Fiez,
J. A., Tallal, P., Raichle, M. E., Miezin, F. M., Katz, W. F., Dobmeyer, S.,
& Peterson, S. E. (1995). PET studies of auditory and phonological
processing: effects of stimulus characteristics and task demands. Journal of
Cognitive Neuroscience, 7(3), 357–375.
Finch,
D., Gigg, J., Tan, A., & Kosoyan, O. (1995). Neurophysiology and
neuropharmacology of projections from entorhinal cortex to striatum in the rat.
Brain Research, 670(2), 233–247.
Finch,
D. M. (1996). Neurophysiology of converging synaptic inputs from the rat
prefrontal cortex, amygdala,midline thalamus, and hippocampal formation onto
single neurons of the caudate/putamen and nucleus accumbens. Hippocampus, 6(5),
495–512.
Fodor,
J. A. (1983). The modularity of mind: an essay on faculty psychology.
Fodor,
J. A., Bever, T. G., & Garrett, M. F. (1974). The psychological reality of
grammatical structures. In R. P. Rainer, & S. Gamer (Eds.), The psychology
of language: an introduction to psycholinguistics and generative grammar (pp.
221–274).
Frazier, L., & Fodor, J. D. (1978). The sausage machine: a new two-stage
parsing model. Cognition, 6, 291–325.
Freo,
U., Pizzolato, G., Dam, M., Ori, C., & Battistin, L. (2002). A short review
of cognitive and functional neuroimaging studies of cholinergic drugs:
implications for therapeutic potentials. Journal of Neural Transmission,
109(5–6), 857–870.
Friederici,
A. (2002). Towards a neural basis of auditory sentence processing. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 6(2),78–84.
Friederici,
A. D. (1990). On the properties of cognitive modules. Psychological Research,
52(2–3), 175–180.
Friederici,
A. D., & Frisch, S. (2000). Verb-argument structure processing: the role of
verb-specific and argument-specific information. Journal of Memory and
Language, 43, 476–507.
Friederici,
A. D., Hahne, A., & Mecklinger, A. (1996). The temporal structure of
syntactic parsing: early and late effects elicited by syntactic anomalies.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 22(5),
1219–1248.
Friederici,
A. D., Hahne, A., & von Cramon, D. Y. (1998). First-pass versus second-pass
parsing processes in a Wernicke’s and a Broca’s aphasic: electrophysiological
evidence for a double dissociation. Brain and Language, 62(3), 311–341.
Friederici,
A. D., Pfeifer, E., & Hahne, A. (1993). Event-related brain potentials
during natural speech processing: effects of semantic, morphological and
syntactic violations. Cognitive Brain Research, 1(3), 183–192.
Gabrieli,
J. D. E., Cohen, N. J., & Corkin, S. (1988). The impaired learning of
semantic knowledge following bilateral medial temporal-lobe resection. Brain
and Cognition, 7, 157–177.
Gabrieli,
J. D. E., Corkin, S., Mickel, S. F., & Growdon, J. H. (1993). Intact
acquisition and long-term retention of mirror-tracing skill in Alzheimer’s
disease and in global amnesia. Behavioral Neuroscience, 107(6),899–910.
Gallese,
V., Fogassi, L., Fadiga, L., & Rizzolatti, G. (2001). Action representation
and the inferior parietal lobule. In W. Prinz, & B. Hommel (Eds.), Common
mechanisms in perception and action (XIX). Attention and performance,
Gathercole,
S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1993). Working memory and language.
Gauger, L. M., Lombardino, L. J., & Leonard, C. M. (1997). Brain morphology in children
with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing
Research, 40(6), 1272–1284.
Gelfand,
J. R., & Bookheimer, S. Y. (2003). Dissociating neural mechanisms of
temporal sequencing and processing phonemes. Neuron, 38, 831–842.
Georgiewa,
P., Rzanny, R., Gaser, C., Gerhard, U. J., Vieweg, U., Freesmeyer, D., Mentzel,
H. J., Kaiser, W. A., & Blanz, B. (2002). Phonological processing in
dyslexic children: a study combining functional imaging and event related
potentials. Neuroscience Letters, 318(1), 5–8.
Golomb,
J., Kluger, A., de Leon, M. J., Ferris, S. H., Mittelman, M., Cohen, J., &
George, A. E. (1996). Hippocampal formation size predicts declining memory
performance in normal aging. Neurology, 47(3),810–813.
Goodale,
M. A. (2000). Perception and action in the human visual system. In M. S.
Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (pp. 365–378).
Goodale,
M. A., & Milner, A. D. (1992). Separate visual pathways for perception and
action. Trends in Neuroscience, 15(1), 20–25.
Goodglass,
H. (1993). Understanding aphasia.
Goschke,
T., Friederici, A., Kotz, S. A., & van Kampen, A. (2001). Procedural
learning in Broca’s aphasia: dissociation between the implicit acquisition of
spatio-motor and phoneme sequences. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 13(3),
370–388.
Goswami,
U., Thompson, J., Richardson, U., Stainthorp, R., Hughes, D., Rosen, S., &
Scott, S. K. (2002).Amplitude envelope onsets and developmental dyslexia: a new
hypothesis. Proceedings of the National
Graham,
K. S., Patterson, K., & Hodges, J. R. (1999). Episodic memory: new insights
from the study of semantic dementia. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 9,
245–250.
Graybiel,
A. M. (1995). Building action repertoires: memory and learning functions of the
basal ganglia. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 5, 733–741.
Grodzinsky,
Y. (2000). The neurology of syntax: language use without Broca’s area.
Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 23(1), 1–71.
Grossman,
M., Carvell, S., & Peltzer, L. (1993). The sum and substance of it: the
appreciation of mass and count qualifiers in Parkinson’s disease. Brain and
Language, 44, 351–384.
Grossman,
M., Payer, F., Onishi, K., D’Esposito, M., Morrison, D., Sadek, A., &
Alavi, A. (1998). Language comprehension and regional cerebral defects in
frontotemporal degeneration and Alzheimer’s disease.Neurology, 50, 157–163.
Haaland,
K., Harrington, D., O’Brien, S., & Hermanowicz, N. (1997). Cognitive-motor
learning in Parkinson’s disease. Neuropsychology, 11(2), 180–186.
Hagoort,
P., Brown, C., & Groothusen, J. (1993). The syntactic positive shift (SPS)
as an ERP measure of syntactic processing. Language and Cognitive Processes,
8(4), 439–483.
Halbig,
T. D., Gruber, D., Scherer, P., Kopp, U. A., Trottenberg, T., & Kupsch, A
(2002). Subthalamic high frequency stimulation differentially modulates
declarative and nondeclarative memory. Paper presented at the Society for
Neuroscience annual meeting,
Halgren,
E., Dhond, R. P., Christensen, N., Van Petten, C., Marinkovic, K., Lewine, J.
D., & Dale, A. M. (2002).N400-like magnetoencephalography responses
modulated by semantic context, word frequency, and lexical class in sentences.
Neuroimage, 17, 1101–1116.
Harrington,
D., Rao, S., Haaland, K., Bobholz, J., Mayer, A., Binderx, J., & Cox, R.
(2000). Specialized neural systems underlying representations of sequential
movements. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(1),56–77.
Harrington,
D. L., Haaland, K. Y., Yeo, R. A., & Marder, E. (1990). Procedural memory
in Parkinson’s disease:impaired motor but not visuoperceptual learning. Journal
of Clinical and Experimental Neuropsychology,12(2), 323–339.
Harris,
Heilman,
K. M., Watson, R. T., & Rothi, L. G. (1997). Disorders of skilled movements:
limb apraxia. In T. E. Feinberg, & M. J. Farah (Eds.), Behavioral neurology
and neuropsychology (pp. 227–235).
Hikosaka,
O.,
Hikosaka,
O.,
Hill,
E. L. (2001). Non-specific nature of specific language impairment: a review of
the literature with regard to concomitant motor impairments. International
Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 36(2),149–171.
Hodges,
J. R., & Patterson, K. (1997). Semantic memory disorders. Trends in
Cognitive Sciences, 1(2), 68–72.
Hoen,
M., & Dominey, P. F. (2000). ERP analysis of cognitive sequencing: a left
anterior negativity related to structural transformation processing.
NeuroReport, 11(14), 3187–3191.
Howard,
J. H., & Howard, D. V. (1997). Age differences in implicit learning of
higher-order dependencies in serial patterns. Psychology and Aging, 12(4),
634–656.
Howlin,
P. (1984). The acquisition of grammatical morphemes in autistic children: a
critique and replication of the findings of Bartolucci, Pierce, and Streiner,
1980. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 14(2), 127–136.
Iacoboni,
M., Woods, R. P., Brass, M., Bekkering, H., Mazziotta, J. C., & Rizzolatti,
G. (1999). Cortical mechanisms of human imitation. Science, 286, 2526–2528.
Illes,
J., Metter, E. J., Hanson, W. R., & Iritani, S. (1988). Language production
in Parkinson’s disease: acoustic and linguistic considerations. Brain and
Language, 33, 146–160.
Indefrey,
P., Hagoort, P., Herzog, H., Seitz, R., & Brown, C. (2001). Syntactic
processing in left prefrontal cortex is independent of lexical meaning.
Neuroimage, 14(3), 546–555.
Ivry,
R. B., & Fiez, J. A. (2000). Cerebellar contributions to cognition and
imagery. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (pp.
999–1011).
Jackendoff,
R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty.
Jaskiw,
G. E., Karoum, F. K., & Weinberger, D. R. (1990). Persistent elevations of
dopamine and its metabolites in the nucleus accumbens after mild subchronic
stress in rats with ibotenic acid lesions of the medial prefrontal cortex.
Brain Research, 534, 321–323.
Jenkins,
I. H., Brooks, D. J., Nixon, P. D., Frackowiak, R. S., & Passingham, R. E.
(1994). Motor sequence learning: a study with positron emission tomography.
Journal of Neuroscience, 14(6), 3775–3790.
Jernigan,
T. L., Hesselink, J. R., Sowell, E., & Tallal, P. A. (1991). Cerebral
structure on magnetic resonance imaging in language- and learning-impaired
children. Archives of Neurology, 48, 539–545.
Joanisse,
M. F., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1999). Impairments in verb morphology after
brain injury: a connectionist model. Proceedings of the National
Johnson,
J. S., &
Johnston,
J. R., & Weismer, S. E. (1983). Mental rotation abilities in
language-disordered children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 26(3),
397–403.
Kaan,
E., & Stowe, L. (2002). Storage and computation in sentence processing: a
neuroimaging perspective. In S.Nooteboom, F. Weerman, & F. Wijnen (Eds.),
Storage and computation in the language faculty (pp.257–295).
Kaan,
E., & Swaab, T. (2002). The brain circuitry of syntactic comprehension.
Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6(8), 350–356.
Kampen,
D. L., & Sherwin, B. B. (1996). Estradiol is related to visual memory in
healthy young men. Behavioral Neuroscience, 110(3), 613–617.
Kensinger,
E. A., Ullman, M. T., & Corkin, S. (2001). Bilateral medial temporal lobe
damage does not affect lexical or grammatical processing: evidence from the
amnesic patient H.M. Hippocampus, 11(4), 347–360.
Kiehl,
K. A., Laurens, K. R., & Liddle, P. F. (2002). Reading anomalous sentences:
an event-related fMRI study of semantic processing. Neuroimage, 17, 842–850.
Kimura,
D. (1999). Sex and cognition.
Kiparsky,
P. (1982). From cyclic phonology to lexical phonology. In H. v. d. Hulst, &
N. Smith (Eds.), (1) (pp.131–175). The structure of phonological
representations,
Knight,
R. T., & Grabowecky, M. (2000). Prefrontal cortex, time, and consciousness.
In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (pp. 1319–1340).
Knowlton,
B. J., Mangels, J. A., & Squire, L. R. (1996). A neostriatal habit learning
system in humans. Science, 273, 1399–1402.
Kohler,
E., Keysers, C., Umilta, M. A., Fogassi, L., Gallese, V., & Rizzolatti, G.
(2002). Hearing sounds, understanding actions: action representation in mirror
neurons. Science, 297(5582), 846–848.
Kosslyn,
S., Di, G. G., Thompson, W., & Alpert, N. (1998). Mental rotation of
objects versus hands: neural mechanisms revealed by positron emission
tomography. Psychophysiology, 35(2), 151–161.
Kuperberg,
G. R., McGuire, P. K., Bullmore, E. T., Brammer, M. J., Rabe-Hesketh, S.,
Wright,
Kutas,
M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980).
Leonard,
L., Bortolini, U., Caselli, M., McGregor, K., & Sabbadini, L. (1992).
Morphological deficits in children with specific language impairment: the
status of features in the underlying grammar. Language Acquisition, 2(2),
151–179.
Leonard,
L., McGregor, K., & Allen, G. (1992). Grammatical morphology and speech
perception in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, 35, 1076–1085.
Leonard,
L. B. (1982). Early lexical acquisition in children with specific language
impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 25, 554–564.
Leonard,
L. B. (1998). Children with specific language impairment.
Lieber,
R. (1992). Deconstructing morphology: word formation in syntactic theory.
Lieberman,
P., Kako, E., Friedman, J., Tajchman, G., Feldman, L. S., & Jiminez, E. B.
(1992). Speech production, syntax comprehension, and cognitive deficits in
Parkinson’s disease. Brain and Language, 43, 169–189.
Lipska,
B. K., Jaskiw, G. E., Chrapusta, S., Karoum, F., & Weinberger, D. (1992).
Ibotenic acid lesion of the ventral hippocampus differentially affects dopamine
and its metabolites in the nucleus accumbens and prefrontal cortex in the rat.
Brain Research, 585, 1–6.
Lynch,
G. (2002). Memory enhancement: the search for mechanism-based drugs. Nature
Neuroscience,5(Supplement), 1035–1038.
MacDonald,
M. C., Pearlmutter, N. J., & Seidenberg, M. S. (1994). Lexical nature of
syntactic ambiguity resolution. Psychological Review, 101(4), 676–703.
Maess,
B., Koelsch, S., Gunter, T. C., & Friederici, A. D. (2001). Musical syntax
is processed in Broca’s area: an MEG study. Nature Neuroscience, 4(5), 540–545.
Maki,
P. M., & Resnick, S. M. (2000). Longitudinal effects of estrogen
replacement therapy on PET cerebral blood flow and cognition. Neurobiology of
Aging, 21(2), 373–383.
Martin,
A., Ungerleider, L. G., & Haxby, J. V. (2000). Category specificity and the
brain: the sensory/motor model of semantic representations of objects. In M. S.
Gazzaniga (Ed.), The cognitive neurosciences (pp. 1023–1036).
Matelli,
M., Camarda, R., Glickstein, M., & Rizzolatti, G. (1986). Afferent and
efferent projections of the inferior area
Matelli,
M., Luppino, G., Murata, M., & Sakata, H. (1994). Independent anatomical
circuits for reaching and grasping linking the inferior parietal sulcus and
inferior area
Maynard
Smith, J. (1975/1993). The theory of evolution.
Mayr,
E. (1963). Animal species and evolution.
McArthur,
G. M., Hogben, J. H., Edwards, V. T., Heath, S. M., & Mengler, E. D.
(2000). On the “specifics” of specific reading disability and specific language
impairment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry,41(7), 869–874.
McClelland,
J. L., McNaughton, B. L., & O’Reilly, R. C. (1995). Why there are
complementary learning systems in the hippocampus and neocortex: insights from
the successes and failures of connectionist models of learning and memory.
Psychological Review, 102(3), 419–457.
McDonald,
R., & White, N. (1993). A triple dissociation of memory systems:
hippocampus, amygdala, and dorsal striatum. Behavioral Neuroscience, 107(1),
3–22.
McEwen,
B. S., Alves, S. E., Bulloch, K., & Weiland, N. G. (1998). Clinically
relevant basic science studies of gender differences and sex hormone effects.
Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 34(3), 251–259.
McLeod,
P., Plunkett, K., & Rolls, E. T. (1998). Introduction to connectionist
modeling of cognitive processes.New
Meck,
W. H., & Benson, A. M. (2002). Dissecting the brain’s internal clock: how
frontal-striatal circuitry keeps time and shifts attention. Brain and
Cognition, 48(1), 195–211.
Menon,
V., Anagnoson, R. T., Glover, G. H., & Pfefferbaum, A. (2000). Basal
ganglia involvement in memoryguided movement sequencing. NeuroReport, 11(16),
3641–3645.
Merritt,
Merzenich,
M. M., Schreiner, C., Jenkins, W. M., & Wang, X. Q. (1993). Neural
mechanisms underlying temporal integration, segmentation, and input sequence
representation: some implications for the origin of learning disabilities.
Annals of the
Meyer,
M., Friederici, A. D., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2000). Neurocognition of
auditory sentence comprehension: event related fMRI reveals sensitivity to
syntactic violations and task demands. Cognitive Brain Research, 9,19–33.
Middleton,
F. A., & Strick, P. L. (2000a). Basal ganglia and cerebellar loops: motor
and cognitive circuits. Brain Research Reviews, 31(2–3), 236–250.
Middleton,
F. A., & Strick, P. L. (2000b). Basal ganglia output and cognition:
evidence from anatomical,behavioral, and clinical studies. Brain and Cognition,
42(2), 183–200.
Miles,
C., Green, R., Sanders, G., & Hines, M. (1998). Estrogen and memory in a
transsexual population.Hormones and Behavior, 34(2), 199–208.
Milner,
A. D. (1996). Neglect, extinction, and the cortical streams of visual
processing. In P. Thier, & H.-O.Karnath (Eds.), Parietal lobe contributions
to orientation in 3D space (pp. 3–22).
Mishkin,
M., Malamut, B., & Bachevalier, J. (1984). Memories and habits: two neural
systems. In G. Lynch, J. L. McGaugh, & N. W. Weinburger (Eds.),
Neurobiology of learning and memory (pp. 65–77).
Mitchell,
J. A., & Hall, G. (1988). Caudate-putamen lesions in the rat may impair or
potentiate maze learning depending upon availability of stimulus cues and
relevance of response cues. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology B,
40(3), 243–258.
Moro,
A., Tettamanti, M., Perani, D., Donati, C., Cappa, S. F., & Fazio, F.
(2001). Syntax and the brain: disentangling grammar by selective anomalies.
Neuroimage, 13(1), 110–118.
Moscovitch,
M. (1992). Memory and working-with-memory: a component process model based on
modules and central systems. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 4, 257–267.
Mostofsky,
S. H., Goldberg, M. C., Landa, R. J., & Denckla, M. B. (2000). Evidence for
a deficit in procedural learning in children and adolescents with autism:
implications for cerebellar contribution. Journal of the International
Neuropsychological Society, 6(7), 752–759.
Murphy,
D. G., De Carli, C., Daly, E., Haxby, J. V., Allen, G., White, B. J., McIntosh,
A. R., Powell, C. M.,Horwitz, B., Rapoport, S. I., & Schapiro, M. B.
(1993). X-Chromosome effects on female brain: a magnetic resonance imaging
study of Turner’s syndrome. Lancet, 342(8881), 1197–1200.
Nebes,
R. D. (1997). Alzheimer’s disease: cognitive neuropsychological aspects. In T.
E. Feinberg, &M. J. Farah (Eds.), Behavioral neurology and neuropsychiatry
(pp. 545–550).
Neville,
H., Nicol, J. L., Barss, A., Forster, K. I., & Garrett, M. F. (1991).
Syntactically based sentence processing classes: evidence from event-related
brain potentials. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 3(2), 151–165.
Newman,
A. J., Pancheva, R., Ozawa, K., Neville, H. J., & Ullman, M. T. (2001). An
event-related fMRI study of syntactic and semantic violations. Journal of
Psycholinguistic Research, 30(3), 339–364.
Ni, W.,
Constable, R. T., Menci, W. E., Pugh, K. R., Fulbright, R. K., Shaywitz, S. E.,
Gore, J. C., & Shankweiler,
D.
(2000). An event-related neuroimaging study distinguishing form and content in
sentence processing.Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(1), 120–133.
Nicolson,
R. I., Daum,
Nishitani, N., Uutela, K., Shibasaki, H., & Hari, R. (1999). Cortical visuomotor integration
during eye pursuit and eye-finger pursuit. Journal of Neuroscience, 19(7),
2647–2657.
Nissen,
M. J., Knopman, D. S., & Schacter, D. L. (1987). Neurochemical dissociation
of memory systems.Neurology, 37(5), 789–794.
Nobre,
A. C., Allison, T., & McCarthy, G. (1994). Word recognition in the human
inferior temporal lobe. Nature,372, 260–263.
Norman,
J. (2002). Two visual systems and two theories of perception: an attempt to
reconcile the constructivist and ecological approaches. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences, 25, 73–96.
Oetting,
J. B., & Horohov, J. E. (1997). Past tense marking by children with and
without specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research,
40, 62–74.
Ohta,
M. (1987). Cognitive disorders of infantile autism: a study employing the WISC,
spatial relationships, conceptualization, and gesture imitations. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 17, 45–62.
Oki,
J., Takahashi, S., Miyamoto, A., & Tachibana, Y. (1999). Cerebellar
hypoperfusion and developmental dysphasia in a male. Pediatric Neurology,
21(4), 745–748.
Olivares, E., Bobes, M. A., Aubert, E., & Valdes-Sosa, M. (1994). Associative ERP effects with
memories of artificial faces. Cognitive Brain Research, 2(1), 39–48.
Opitz,
B., & Friederici, A. D (in press). Interactions of the hippocampal system
and the prefrontal cortex in learning language-like rules. Neuroimage.
Osterhout,
L., & Holcomb, P. J. (1992). Event-related brain potentials elicited by
syntactic anomaly. Journal of Memory and Language, 31, 785–806.
Owen,
S., & McKinlay,
Packard,
M., Hirsh, R., & White, N. (1989). Differential effects of fornix and
caudate nucleus lesions on two radial maze tasks: evidence for multiple memory systems.
Journal of Neuroscience, 9(5), 1465–1472.
Packard,
M., & Knowlton, B. (2002). Learning and memory functions of the basal
ganglia. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 25, 563–593.
Packard,
M., & McGaugh, J. (1996). Inactivation of hippocampus or caudate nucleus
with lidocaine differentially affects expression of place and response
learning. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 65(1), 65–72.
Packard,
M. G. (1998). Posttraining estrogen and memory modulation. Hormones and
Behavior, 34(2), 126–139.
Packard,
M. G. (1999). Glutamate infused posttraining into the hippocampus or
caudate-putamen differentially strengthens place and response learning.
Proceedings of the National
Passingham,
R. (1993) (21). The frontal lobes and voluntary action,
Patterson,
K., Lambon Ralph, M. A., Hodges, J. R., & McClelland, J. L. (2001).
Deficits in irregular past-tense verb morphology associated with degraded
semantic knowledge. Neuropsychologia, 39, 709–724.
Peigneux,
P., Maquet, P., Meulemans, T., Destrebecqz, A., Laureys, S., Degueldre, C.,
Delfiore, G., Aerts, J.,Luxen, A., Franck, G., Van der Linden, M., &
Cleeremans, A. (2000). Striatum forever, despite sequence learning variability:
a random effect analysis of PET data. Human Brain Mapping, 10(4), 179–194.
Peigneux,
P., Maquet, P., Van der
Penhune,
V. B., Zattore, R. J., & Evans, A. C. (1998). Cerebellar contributions to
motor timing: a PET study of auditory and visual rhythm reproduction. Journal
of Cognitive Neuroscience, 10(6), 752–765.
Penke,
M., Weyerts, H., Gross, M., Zander, E., Munte, T. F., & Clahsen, H. (1997).
How the brain processes complex words: an ERP-study of German verb inflections.
Perry,
R., & Zeki, S. (2000). The neurology of saccades and covert shifts in
spatial attention: an event-related fMRI study. Brain, 123(Pt 11), 2273–2288.
Petrides,
M. (1996). Specialized systems for the processing of mnemonic information
within the primate frontal cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal
Society of
Petrides,
M., Alivisatos, B., & Evans, A. C. (1995). Functional activation of the
human ventrolateral frontal cortex during mnemonic retrieval of verbal
information. Proceedings of the National
Petrides, M., & Pandya, D. (1984). Projections to the frontal cortex from the
posterior parietal region in the rhesus monkey. Journal of Comparative
Neurology, 228(1), 105–116.
Phillips,
S. M., & Sherwin, B. B. (1992). Effects of estrogen on memory function in
surgically menopausal women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 17(5), 485–495.
Pierce,
S., & Bartolucci, G. (1977). A syntactic investigation of verbal autistic,
mentally retarded, and normal children. Journal of Autism and Childhood
Schizophrenia, 7(2), 121–134.
Pinker,
S. (1984) (7). Language learnability and language development,
Pinker,
S. (1994). The language instinct.
Pinker,
S. (1999). Words and rules: the ingredients of language.
Pinker,
S., & Ullman, M. T. (2002). The past and future of the past tense. Trends
in Cognitive Sciences, 6(11),456–463.
Podzebenko,
K., Egan, G. F., & Watson, J. D. G. (2002). Widespread dorsal stream
activation during a parametric mental rotation task, revealed with functional
magnetic resonance imaging. Neuroimage, 15, 547–558.
Poldrack,
R., & Packard, M. G. (2003). Competition among multiple memory systems:
converging evidence from animal and human brain studies. Neuropsychologia,
41(3), 245–251.
Poldrack,
R. A., Clark, J., Pare-Blagoev, E. J., Shohamy, D., Moyano, J. C., Myers, C.,
& Gluck, M. A. (2001).Interactive memory systems in the human brain.
Nature, 414, 546–550.
Poldrack,
R. A., Prabhakaran, V., Seger, C. A., & Gabrieli, J. D. (1999). Striatal
activation during acquisition of a cognitive skill. Neuropsychology, 13(4),
564–574.
Poldrack,
R. A., Wagner, A. D., Prull, M. W., Desmond, J. E., Glover, G. H., &
Gabrieli, J. D. (1999). Functional specialization for semantic and phonological
processing in the left inferior prefrontal cortex. Neuroimage,10(1), 15–35.
Postle,
B. R., & Corkin, S. (1998). Impaired word-stem completion priming but
intact perceptual identification priming with novel words: evidence from the
amnesic patient H.M. Neuropsychologia, 15, 421–440.
Rammsayer,
T. H., Rodewald, S., & Groh, D. (2000). Dopamine-antagonistic,
anticholinergic, and GABAergic effects on declarative and procedural memory
functions. Cognitive Brain Research, 9(1), 61–71.
Ramondo,
N., & Milech, D. (1984). The nature and specificity of the language coding
deficit in autistic children. British Journal of Psychology, 75, 95–103.
Rapin,
Resnick,
S., Maki, P., Golski, S., Kraut, M., & Zonderman, A. (1998). Effects of
estrogen replacement therapy on PET cerebral blood flow and neuropsychological
performance. Hormones and Behavior, 34(2), 171–182.
Rice,
M., & Oetting, J. B. (1993). Morphological deficits of SLI children:
evaluation of number marking and agreement. Journal of Speech and Hearing
Research, 36(6), 1249–1257.
Rizzolatti,
G., & Arbib, M. A. (1998). Language within our grasp. Trends in
Neuroscience, 21(5), 188–194.
Rizzolatti, G., Fadiga, L., Gallese, V., & Fogassi, L. (1996). Premotor cortex and the
recognition of motor actions. Cognitive Brain Research, 3(2), 131–141.
Rizzolatti,
G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2000). Cortical mechanisms subserving
object grasping and action recognition: a new view on the cortical motor
functions. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (pp.
539–552).
Rizzolatti,
G., Fogassi, L., & Gallese, V. (2001). Neurophysiological mechanisms
underlying the understanding and imitation of action. Nature Review
Neuroscience, 2(9), 661–670.
Rizzolatti,
G., Luppino, G., & Matelli, M. (1998). The organization of the cortical
motor system: new concepts. Electroencephalography and Clinical
Neurophysiology, 106(4), 283–296.
Ross,
J. L., Roeltgen, D., Feuillan, P., Kushner, H., & Cutler, G. B., Jr.
(2000). Use of estrogen in young girls with Turner syndrome: effects on memory.
Neurology, 54(1), 164–170.
Ruchkin,
D. S., Grafman, J., Cameron, K., & Berndt, R. S (in press). Working memory
retention systems: a state of activated long-term memory. Behavioral and Brain
Sciences.
Rumelhart,
D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). On learning the past tenses of English
verbs. In J. L. McClelland,
D. E.
Rumelhart, & PDP Research Group (Eds.), (2) (pp. 216–271). Parallel
distributed processing: explorations in the microstructures of cognition,
Rumsey,
J. M. (1996). Neuroimaging studies of autism. In G. R. Lyon, & J. Rumsey
(Eds.), Neuroimaging: a window in to the neurological foundations of learning
and behavior in children (pp. 119–146).
Rutter,
M. (1978). Diagnosis and definition. In M. Rutter, & E. Schopler (Eds.),
Autism: a reappraisal of concepts and treatment (pp. 1–25).
Sabatino, M., Ferraro, G., Liberti, G., Vella, N., & La, G. V. (1985). Striatal and septal influence on
hippocampal theta and spikes in the cat. Neuroscience Letters, 61(1–2), 55–59.
Sagar,
H. J., Cohen, N. J., Sullivan, E. V., Corkin, S., & Growdon, J. H. (1988).
Remote memory function in Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease. Brain, 111,
185–206.
Saint-Cyr,
J. A.,
Sakata,
H., & Taira, M. (1994). Parietal control of hand action. Current Opinion in
Neurobiology, 4(6), 847–856.
Sakata,
H., Taira, M., Mine, S., & Murata, A. (1992). Hand-movement related neurons
of the posterior parietal cortex of the monkey: their role in visual guidance
of hand movements. In R. Caminiti, P. B. Johnson, & Y.
Burnod
(Eds.), Control of arm movement in space (pp. 185–198).
Schacter,
D. L., & Tulving, E. (Eds.), (1994). Memory systems 1994.
Schroeder,
J. A., Wingard, J., & Packard, M. G. (2002). Post-training reversible
inactivation of the dorsal hippocampus reveals interference between multiple
memory systems. Hippocampus, 12, 280–284.
Schubotz,
R. I., & von Cramon, D. Y. (2001). Interval and ordinal properties of
sequences are associated with distinct premotor areas. Cerebral Cortex, 11(3),
210–222.
Schwartz,
M. F., Marin, O. S. M., & Saffran, E. M. (1979). Dissociations of language
function in dementia: a case study. Brain and Language, 7, 277–306.
Seidler,
R. D., Purushotham, A., Kim, S. G., Ugurbil, K., Willingham, D., & Ashe, J.
(2002). Cerebellum activation associated with performance change but not motor
learning. Science, 296(5575), 2043–2046.
Sherwin,
B. B. (1988). Estrogen and/or androgen replacement therapy and cognitive
functioning in surgically menopausal women. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 13(4),
345–357.
Sherwin,
B. B. (1998). Estrogen and cognitive functioning in women. Proceedings of the
Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 217(1), 17–22.
Shimamura,
A. P. (1995). Memory and frontal lobe function. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The
cognitive neurosciences (pp. 803–813).
Shughrue,
P. J., Scrimo, P. J., & Merchenthaler,
Sigman,
M., & Ungerer, J. A. (1984). Cognitive and language skills in autistic,
mentally retarded, and normal children. Developmental Psychology, 20(2),
293–302.
Silveri,
M. C., Leggio, M. G., & Molinari, M. (1994). The cerebellum contributes to
linguistic production: a case of agrammatic speech following a right cerebellar
lesion. Neurology, 44, 2047–2050.
Simos,
P. G., Basile, L. F. H., & Papanicolaou, A. C. (1997). Source localization
of the N400 response in a sentence-reading paradigm using evoked magnetic
fields and magnetic resonance imaging. Brain Research,762(1–2), 29–39.
Smith,
E. E., & Jonides, J. (1997). Working memory: a view from neuroimaging.
Cognitive Psychology, 33(1), 5–42.
Smith,
E. E., & Jonides, J. (1999). Storage and executive processes in the frontal
lobes. Science, 283(5408),1657–1661.
Snowling,
M. (2000). Dyslexia (2nd ed.).
Sorensen,
K., & Witter, M. (1983). Entorhinal efferents reach the caudato-putamen.
Neuroscience Letters, 35(3),259–264.
Spencer,
A. (1991). Morphological theory.
Squire,
L. R., Clark, R. E., & Knowlton, B. J. (2001). Retrograde amnesia.
Hippocampus, 11(1), 50–55.
Squire,
L. R., & Knowlton, B. J. (2000). The medial temporal lobe, the hippocampus,
and the memory systems of the brain. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new
cognitive neurosciences (pp. 765–780).
Squire,
L. R., & Zola, S. M. (1996). Structure and function of declarative and
nondeclarative memory systems. Proceedings of the National
Stromswold,
K., Caplan, D., Alpert, N., & Rauch, S. (1996). Localization of syntactic
comprehension by positron emission tomography. Brain and Language, 52, 452–473.
Suzuki, W. A., & Amaral, D. G. (1994). Perirhinal and parahippocampal cortices of
the macaque monkey: cortical afferants. Journal of Comparative Neurology,
350(4), 497–533.
Suzuki,
W. A., & Eichenbaum, H. (2000). The neurophysiology of memory. Annals of
the
Szelag,
E., von Steinbuchel, N., & Poppel, E. (1997). Temporal processing disorders
in patients with Broca’s aphasia. Neuroscience Letters, 235, 33–36.
Tager-Flusberg,
H. (1985). The conceptual basis for referential word meaning in children with
autism. Child Development, 56(5), 1167–1178.
Tallal,
P., Jernigan, T. L., & Trauner, D. (1994). Developmental bilateral damage
to the head of the caudate nuclei: implications for speech-language pathology.
Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology, 2, 23–28.
Tallal,
P., & Piercy, M. (1978). Defects of auditory perception in children with
developmental dysphasia. InM. A.Wyke (Ed.), Developmental dysphasia (pp.
63–84).
Tallal,
P., Stark, R., & Mellits, E. (1985). Identification of language-impaired
children on the basis of rapid perception and production skills. Brain and
Language, 25(2), 314–322.
Thompson-Schill,
S. L., D’Esposito, M., Aguirre, G. K., & Farah, M. J. (1997). Role of left
inferior prefrontal cortex in retrieval of semantic knowledge: a reevaluation.
Proceedings of the National Academ of Sciences
Tirosh, E., & Cohen, A. (1998). Language deficit with an attention-deficit
disorder: a prevalent comorbidity.Journal of Child Neurology, 13(10), 493–497.
Tulving,
E., Kapur, S., Craik, F. I. M., Moscovitch, M., & Houle, S. (1994).
Hemispheric encoding/retrieval asymmetry in episodic memory: positron emission
tomography findings. Proceedings of the National
Ullman,
M. T., (1999). Naming tools and using rules: evidence that a
frontal/basal-ganglia system underlies both motor skill knowledge and
grammatical rule use. Brain and Language, 69, 316–318.
Ullman,
M. T. (2001a). The declarative/procedural model of lexicon and grammar. Journal
of Psycholinguistic Research, 30(1), 37–69.
Ullman,
M. T. (2001b). The neural basis of lexicon and grammar in first and second
language: the declarative/procedural model. Bilingualism: Language and
Cognition, 4(1), 105–122.
Ullman,
M. T. (2001c). A neurocognitive perspective on language: the declarative/procedural
model. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 2, 717–726.
Ullman,
M. T. (2003). Is Broca’s area part of a frontal/basal-ganglia procedural memory
circuit? Paper presented at Perception, Action, Syntax and the Brain, Max
Planck Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience,
Ullman,
M. T. (in press). Evidence that lexical memory is part of the temporal lobe
declarative memory, and that grammatical rules are processed by the
frontal/basal-ganglia procedural system. Brain and Language.
Ullman,
M. T., Corkin, S., Coppola, M., Hickok, G., Growdon, J. H., Koroshetz, W. J.,
& Pinker, S. (1997). A neural dissociation within language: evidence that
the mental dictionary is part of declarative memory, and that grammatical rules
are processed by the procedural system. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience,
9(2),
266–276.
Ullman,
M. T., Estabrooke,
Ullman,
M. T., & Gopnik, M. (1999). Inflectional morphology in a family with
inherited specific language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics, 20(1),
51–117.
Ullman,
M. T., Hartshorne, J. K., Estabrooke, I. V., Brovetto, C., & Walenski, M
(submitted). Sex, regularity,frequency and consistency: a study of factors
predicting the storage of inflected forms. Manuscript submitted for
publication.
Ullman,
M. T., Izvorski, R., Love, T., Yee, E., Swinney, D., & Hickok, G (in
press). Neural correlates of lexicon and grammar: evidence from the production,
reading, and judgment of inflection in aphasia. Brain and Language.
Ullman,
M. T., & Pierpont, E. I (in press). Specific language impairment is not
specific to language: the procedural deficit hypothesis. Cortex.
Ungerleider,
L. G., & Mishkin, M. (1982). Two cortical visual systems. In D. J. Ingle,
M. A. Goodale, & R. J.W.Mansfield (Eds.), Analysis of visual behavior (pp.
549–587).
van der
Lely, H. K. J. (1996). Specifically language impaired and normally developing
children: verbal passive vs. adjectival passive sentence interpretation.
Lingua, 98, 243–272.
van der
Lely, H. K. J., & Christian, V. (2000). Lexical word formation in children
with grammatical SLI: a grammar-specific versus an input-processing deficit?
Cognition, 75, 33–63.
van der
Lely, H. K. J., & Stollwerck, L. (1996). A grammatical specific language
impairment in children: an autosomal dominant inheritance? Brain and Language,
52, 484–504.
van der Lely, H. K. J., & Ullman, M. T. (2001). Past tense morphology in
specifically language impaired and normally developing children. Language and
Cognitive Processes, 16(2), 177–217.
Van
Meter, L., Fein, D., Morris, R., Waterhouse, L., & Allen, D. (1997). Delay
versus deviance in autistic social behavior. Journal of Autism and
Developmental Disorders, 27(5), 557–569.
Vargha-Khadem,
F., Watkins, K. E., Price, C. J., Ashburner, J., Alcock, K. J., Connelly, A.,
Frackowiak, R. S.,Friston, K. J., Pembrey, M. E., Mishkin, M., Gadian, D. G.,
& Passingham, R. E. (1998). Neural basis of an inherited speech and
language disorder. Proceedings of the National
12695–12700.
Wagner,
A. D., Schacter, D. L., Rotte, M., Koutstaal, W., Maril, A., Dale, A. M.,
Rosen, B. R., & Buckner, R. L. (1998). Building memories: remembering and
forgetting of verbal experiences as predicted by brain activity.Science,
281(5380), 1188–1191.
Walenski,
M., Sosta, K., Cappa, S., & Ullman, M. T. Deficits on irregular verbal
morphology in Italian-speaking Alzheimer’s disease participants. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Weckerly,
J., Wulfeck, B., & Reilly, J. (2001). Verbal fluency deficits in children
with specific language impairment: slow rapid naming or slow to name? Child
Neuropsychology, 7(3), 142–152.
Weismer,
S. E., & Hesketh, L. J. (1996). Lexical learning by children with specific
language impairment: effects of linguistic input presented at varying speaking
rates. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39,177–190.
Weyerts,
H., Penke, M., Dohrn, U., Clahsen, H., & Mu¨nte, T. F. (1997). Brain
potentials indicate differences between regular and irregular German plurals.
NeuroReport, 8(4), 957–962.
White,
N. M. (1997). Mnemonic functions of the basal ganglia. Current Opinion in
Neurobiology, 7, 164–169.
Whitehouse,
D., & Harris, J. C. (1984). Hyperlexia in infantile autism. Journal of
Autism and Developmental Disorders, 14(3), 281–289.
Willingham,
D. B. (1998). A neuropsychological theory of motor skill learning.
Psychological Review, 105(3),558–584.
Wise,
S. P., Boussaoud, D., Johnson, P. B., & Caminiti, R. (1997). Premotor and
parietal cortex: corticocortical connectivity and combinatorial computations.
Annual Review of Neuroscience, 20, 25–42.
Wise,
S. P., Murray, E. A., & Gerfen, C. R. (1996). The frontal cortex-basal
ganglia system in primates. Critical Reviews in Neurobiology, 10(3–4), 317–356.
Wolff,
P. H., Cohen, C., & Drake, C. (1984). Impaired motor timing control in
specific reading retardation.Neuropsychologia, 22(5), 587–600.
Woolley,
C. S., & Schwartzkroin, P. A. (1998). Hormonal effects on the brain.
Epilepsia, 39(8), S2–S8.
Young,
A. B., & Penney, J. B. (1993). Biochemical and functional organization of
the basal ganglia. In J.Jankovic, & E. Tolosa (Eds.), Parkinson’s disease
and movement disorders (2nd ed.) (pp. 1–11).
Zettin,
M., Cappa, S. F., D’Amico, A., Rago, R., Perino, C., Perani, D., & Fazio,
F. (1997). Agrammatic speech production after a right cerebellar haemorrhage.
Neurocase, 3, 375–380.
© Cognition 92 (2004) 231–270
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2.- IN LANGUAGE TEACHING, WHICH IS MORE IMPORTANT:
LANGUAGE OR
TEACHING?
In Language Teaching,
Which is more important: Language or Teaching?
By Penny Urr
Linguistics – including applied linguistics – is said to be the parent academic discipline of TEFL (see, for example, Johnson, 1986, Brown, 1989): it deals not only with the subject-matter of our teaching – pronunciation, grammar, semantics, discourse structure and so on – but also with aspects of language learning and use. Pedagogy, on the other hand, is about the nature of effective classroom teaching (not necessarily EFL): what kinds things children perceive, understand, remember better, and under what circumstances; what the teacher can do to motivate learning; classroom management and control; teacher-student relationships; and so on.
Both the study of language (linguistics) and that of teaching (pedagogy) are obviously essential to the teacher of English as a foreign language. But if both are essential, why should we concern ourselves with the question of which of them is more important?
The answer is, I think that in professional practice there is often an apparent conflict between the two which is not so easily resolved and which forces the teacher – whether she is aware of it or not – to make decisions about which has the priority.
An example. Supposing I am designing a first-year syllabus for ten-year olds learning English as a foreign language. Frequency studies might indicate that words like crocodile, elephant, and butterfly are far less commonly used than words like engine, wheel, seat, (West, 1953). If we design our syllabus according to linguistic considerations, we will naturally prefer to teach the more common words earlier. But crocodile etc. appeal to children both because of their meaning and because they are fun to (try to) say: and a reliable pedagogical principle is that children tend to learn more easily, words that appeal to them. As a teacher, I am interested in my students’ motivation and rapid acquisition of new vocabulary which they can use to say things, as much as in the usefulness of that vocabulary. So I may well prioritize the less common words.
Another example from methodology this time. There is some fairly convincing evidence (described in Dulay, Burt and Krashen, 1982) that shows that children learning a second language in natural ‘immersion’ conditions have a long ‘silent period’ before they start to speak. Applying this in the classroom, one would need to spend the first few weeks, at least, doing all the talking oneself, or not necessarily demanding verbal response from the students. But classroom teaching cannot afford the luxury of ‘immersion’ conditions. We have four lessons a week instead of the learner’s entire interaction time, and we cannot wait for natural processes: we have to speed things up by getting the learners to speak as soon as they can. Also, active performance by the learners allows us to give encouraging feedback, which reinforces learning and raises motivation and self-image – again, pedagogical principles.
In these examples, I have made it fairly clear that I would prioritize the pedagogical argument, and why. Here is a third example, where I would not. Frequency studies again. It has been shown that the present progressive tense is far less frequent than the present simple (Duskanova and Urbanova, 1967; or you can test this out for yourself by taking a random selection of written and spoken texts and counting!). But the present progressive is far more ‘teachable’: its structure does not entail the difficult do/does interrogative and negative forms, and its meaning can be easily demonstrated in the classroom and lends itself to interesting mime – and picture-based practice. The temptation is to teach the present progressive first, and to spent more time on it – a temptation, I think, which should be resisted.
In other words, when deciding what to teach and how to put it across, I have to consider both linguistic and pedagogical arguments, and then decide which has the priority, or how to combine them. In deciding, I need to use all the knowledge I have gained about TEFL through courses, experience, reading, discussion and reflection.
Teachers who have been through TEFL or Applied Linguistics courses as a preparation for their job may often find that they have been taught to rely mainly on linguistics as a basis for teaching. Most of their theoretical courses and reading will have been on linguistic subjects; relatively little on pedagogy or education as such. The section of the course devoted to teaching experience cannot help but relate to pedagogy – but usually on a strictly practical level: classroom techniques and teaching behaviour. So that trainees come out with a lot of theoretical linguistic knowledge, but little idea how to integrate it with practical classroom pedagogy; for example, they may know a lot about the phonology of English, but have no idea about how to teach pronunciation. On the other hand they may have some good teaching ideas, but little awareness of relevant principles of pedagogy or how the linguistics can be best utilized within them. For instance, they may have been taught that group work is desirable; but may have failed to learn to distinguish between situations where group work is pedagogically valid and where it is not; or may have no awareness of the role of group or pair work in the development of communication strategies.
And you see the results in the classroom. Trained EFL teachers may try uneasily at first to apply some of the (applied) linguistics research-based knowledge in the classroom, but most swiftly abandon it, and base their teaching on techniques they learned through practice or observation. Thus a lot of teaching is opportunistic and unprincipled (‘that procedure works so I’ll use it, never mind the theory’). This is unfortunately often reflected in the literature; you get on one hand, articles giving ‘practical tips’ with no reasoned rationale accompanying them, or on the other, descriptions of research-based or purely speculative theory, with only very dubious links with professional action.
So what do I want?
First, I wish training courses would devote more time to discussing the principles of good pedagogy – we need more courses on things like ‘classroom climate and motivation’, ‘lesson design’, ‘activity design’, classroom management’. And it wouldn’t hurt to look seriously at the teaching/learning methods of other subjects: science, history, art.
Secondly, I wish there were more integration of theory with practice. Theoretical coursework has its place in the learning of the principles of both pedagogy and linguistics – but these principles spring from and ultimately express themselves in human action, so this, surely, is how they should be learned. The principles of student-teacher relationships or of classroom discourse for example: these manifest themselves through real-time classroom interaction, and should be learned primarily, I think, by critical reflection and analysis of how trainees interacted with students in their practice teaching, or how their own teachers interacted with them – these reflections, of course, filled out and enriched by insights gained from books or lectures. One obvious implication of this model is that practice teaching becomes an essential part of a methodology course, rather than a separate component; recent classroom events (such as teacher-student exchanges) are discussed (in methodology sessions) and conclusions slotted into an overall conceptual framework of how language teaching/learning ‘works’.
Third, I wish there were more integration of linguistics and pedagogy. A methodology course should teach professional know-how based on both linguistics and pedagogical information. Such a course might be called (as the president of IATEFL, at the time of writing this article, Denis Girard, suggested years ago). The ultimate aim of such a course would be to get trainees to develop a rationale of language teaching, which enables them to make informed and principled choices between the conflicting claims of different theories.
References:
Brown, G. (1989) (interview) ‘Sitting on a rocket’ ELT Journal 43/3, 167-72
Dulay, H., Burt, M. and Krashan, S. (1982)
Languate Two,
Duskanova, L. and Urbanova, V. (1967) ‘A
frequency count of English tenses with applications to TEFL’,
Girard, D. (1972) Linguistics and Language
Teaching,
Johnson, K. (1986) ‘ESL teacher training: the case for the prosecution’ in Bickley, V. (ed) Future Directions in ELT Education, Asian and Pacific Perspectives, Hong Kong University Education Department
West, M. (ed) (1953) A General Service List
of English Words,
© The Teacher Trainer
------------------------------------------------------------------------
3.- DO BOYS
AND GIRLS LEARN LANGUAGES DIFFERENTLY?
Big Gender Differences in
Language Learning
by Kate Melville
30 November 2006
Neuroscientists from
It appears that girls mainly use a system that is based around memorizing words and associations between them, whereas boys rely primarily on a system that governs the rules of language. "Sex has been virtually ignored in studies of the learning, representation, processing and neural bases of language. This study shows that differences between males and females may be an important factor in these cognitive processes," said the study's lead author, Michael Ullman.
In the study, the researchers examined brain activity around phrases like "Yesterday, I holded the bunny." They hypothesized that girls would be better than boys at remembering irregular past-tenses of verbs, like "held", since these words are memorized in declarative memory. And if girls remember "held" better than boys, they should make fewer errors like "holded", since these over-regularization errors are made when children can't remember irregular past-tenses, and so resort to combing the verb with an "ed" ending, just as they do for regular verbs like "walked".
The experiment took in a group of 10 boys and 15 girls, age 2 to 5, who used regular and irregular past-tense forms in their normal speech. To the researchers' surprise, and contrary to their predictions, they discovered that the girls over-regularized far more than boys.
Investigating which verbs the girls made the mistakes on, they found an association between the number of similar sounding regular past-tense verbs, and the particular verb that was over-regularized. For example, girls tended to say "holded" or "blowed" because many other rhyming verbs use the regular past-tense form (such as folded, molded, and flowed, rowed, stowed, respectively).
The researchers contend that this kind of analogy-based processing suggests the girls were relying on their declarative memory to create the past tense. "This memory is not just a rote list of words, but underlies common patterns between words, and can be used to generalize these patterns," Ullman said. "In this case, the girls had memorized the regular past tenses of rhyming words, and were generalizing these patterns to new words, resulting in over-regularization errors" such as "holded" and "blowed".
In contrast, for the boys, there was no association between the number of similar sounding regular past-tense verbs, and the particular verbs that were over-regularized. So the boys did not make more over-regularizations on verbs like "holded" or "blowed" that have many rhyming regular past-tenses. This suggests, according to Ullman, that the boys were not forming these words in declarative memory, but were probably using the rule-governed system to combine verbs with "ed" endings.
"Although the two sexes seem to be doing the same thing, and doing it equally well, they are using two different neurocognitive brain processes to do it," Ullman said. He also noted that the brain areas tested in the study are responsible for more than just language use, reinforcing the notion that men and women may process information in fundamentally differently ways.
© 2006 by
------------------------------------------------------------------------
4.- ADVANCED VOCABULARY IN CONTEXT: SAUTÉED CHERRIES WITH ICE
CREAM
June 27, 2008, 10:06 am
Recipe of the Day:
Sautéed Cherries With Ice Cream
This is a rethinking of the summer pie: a sweet, chunky sauce that’s great with ice cream, without the crust or the superfluous spice.
Sautéed Cherries With Ice Cream
Yield 4 servings
Time 20 minutes
The time-consuming part of the process is the pitting, and there are a couple of techniques worth mentioning: wear old clothes or an apron, and do it in a deep sink, over a bowl, to catch the juice and reduce the amount of cleaning time. Pop each cherry open with your fingers and remove the pit.
Ingredients
About
2 tablespoons sweet butter
1/4 cup sugar, or to taste
Tiny pinch salt
Method
1. Pit and stem cherries over a bowl. Put butter, or water, if you prefer, in a 10- or 12-inch skillet, and turn heat to medium. When butter melts, add cherries and turn heat to high. Cook, stirring occasionally, until cherries begin to give up their juice, a minute or two. Stir in sugar and salt.
2. Cook until cherries begin to break down, again just a minute or two. Taste and add more sugar if you like. Remove from heat.
3. To serve, spoon ice cream into 4 dishes, and top with cherries. Cherries may be served hot, warm or at room temperature.
15 comments so far...
1.June 27th,2008
10:30 am oh where, where was this recipe
one month ago! i was up to my eyeballs in cherries and i ended up bottling some
cherry pie filling with “superfluous sauce.” how i wish i could have my
cherries back. i would love to try this wonderfully simple recipe. i will save
for next year. (i live out of the
— Posted by rachelle
2.June 27th,2008
11:09 am Oh, that sounds excellent! Easier than pie… ha! Can’t wait to try it with the hazelnut ice cream I have in the freezer right now…
http://croquecamille.wordpress.com
— Posted by Camille
3.June 27th,2008
11:36 am A couple of years ago we took a
half-day cooking lesson in
— Posted by Judith
4.June 27th,2008
12:51 pm And this will be dessert!I might even add some freshly whipped cream! So fabulous!
Have a great weekend all you food lovers!
— Posted by Beaux de Cuisine
5.June 27th,2008
12:58 pm Sounds fitting for our July 4th picnic — substituting butter for dairy-free margarine and serving this heavenly cherry sauce over dairy-free ice cream. Have been making coconut milk- based ice creams recently in our ice cream maker and they’re foolproof recipes from the June 2008 issue of Vegetarian Times.
— Posted by Priscilla Feral
6.June 27th,2008
1:37 pm Sounds divine, will try it tomorrow with some homemade vanilla ice cream. I think I will add a tablespoon of Kirsch to the cherries after they come off the heat though, just an added little kick.
— Posted by Jodie
7.June 27th,2008
3:29 pm I generally am not a great believer in kitchen “gadgets” (I don’t own a food processor), but I do find a cherry pitting tool to be useful. It basically has a ring of metal which holds the cherry; you hold the tool sort of like a hypodermic syringe and press a plunger through the fruit. You can actually pit a bunch of cherries without dying your hands totally red!
— Posted by Robert Rothman
8.June 27th,2008
8:08 pm If you’re pitting sour (pie) cherries, allow me to recommend a paperclip. Just stick it in the stem end and you’ll find it makes a handy scoop to bring out the pit. Good for cherry integrity and a lot less messy.
Wish I’d known about it all those years sitting across the bucket from my father during canning season.
— Posted by Hope
9.June 28th,2008
3:31 pm This works with lots of fruits. Blueberries are my favorites. But bananas, peaches, apples and mandarin oranges do well, too.
Pits and flavor — I wonder if that’s why there is invariably one (and only one) cherry in each can of cherries that contains its pit — and which always ends up in the guest-of-honor’s pie slice.
— Posted by Carol
10.June 28th,2008
4:12 pm Sounds absolutely delicious! I have
some Breyer’s natural vanilla in the freezer and some cherry trees out in my
yard. I will have to wait a short time, however, since the cherries are not
ripe yet here in
— Posted by Don Hendriksen
11.June 28th,2008
8:52 pm Use apple juice instead of butter or water then you can ditch the sugar. A clove or half a cinnamon stick works well, and, if the cherries are very sweet, some lemon rind.
— Posted by rdb
12.June 29th,2008
8:04 am As I posted here on French Letters http://frenchletters.wordpress.com/2008/05/17/life-is-j ust-a-sea-of-cherries/ when you’re drowning in cherries you can also make wine with the pits, and even the leaves, of cherries, not to mention preserving them in alcohol.
And yes, it’s common here in
— Posted by Abra
13.June 29th,2008
11:10 am Try using a little frozen apple juice concentrate if you would like to avoid the butter (or water) and sugar.
— Posted by west
14.June 30th,2008
3:28 am Oh, these sound so good. We lost our 20+ year-old sour cherry tree a few years ago, and I miss it so.
— Posted by Stephanie
15.June 30th,2008
4:06 pm This is simply the teetotalers version of “Cherries Jubilee”. Escoffier lives!! Delish!!! Lets try it with peaches!
— Posted by vivian
© 2008 by The New York Times Company
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5.- ESPECIALISTA
EN TRADUCCIÓN EN RELACIONES ECONÓMICAS
INTERNACIONALES
Especialista
en Traducción en Relaciones Económicas Internacionales en Idioma Inglés
Acreditada por
Resolución (con validez nacional) del Ministerio de Educación, Ciencia y
Tecnología Nº 1145/2007.
Características
El Ciclo de
Especialización en Traducción en Relaciones Económicas Internacionales es un
programa de formación integral que articula los aspectos teóricos y el análisis
de las problemáticas propias de las Relaciones Económicas Internacionales así
como la profundización de la competencia lingüística en relación con la
traducción en este campo de especialidad.
Destinatarios
La carrera está
dirigida a Traductores Públicos e Intérpretes en idioma inglés.
Los traductores
Públicos e Intérpretes de otras lenguas egresados de carreras que tengan la
lengua inglesa como tercera lengua y egresados de carreras afines al área
deberán presentar una prueba de admisión.
Objetivos
• Preparar especialistas que sean capaces
de desempeñar mediaciones lingüísticas de responsabilidad en el sector público
y privado, que cuenten con una sólida base teórica y práctica y con una visión
amplia de las Relaciones Internacionales.
• Proponer nuevas formas de examinar el
entorno de los asuntos regionales y hemisféricos para poder oficiar como
mediadores interlingües en situaciones en que se traten problemas relativos al
desarrollo socioeconómico y político de las Relaciones Internacionales.
• Contribuir a la formulación de nuevas
propuestas frente a los desafíos más importantes que presenta la mediación
interlingüe en las Relaciones Internacionales.
Perfil y
Competencias del Egresado
1. Participar en equipos interdisciplinarios
del área de las Relaciones Económicas Internacionales mediante la traducción de
toda documentación que sea pertinente.
2. Participar en rondas de negocios y
discusiones multilaterales como mediador lingüístico y realizar trabajos de
interpretación consecutiva y simultánea.
3. Diseñar bases de datos terminológicos del
área específica, tanto monolingües como bilingües, con el fin de normalizar la
terminología que se utilizará en los simposios o encuentros académicos y
profesionales.
4. Realizar síntesis argumentativas en idioma
inglés o español de trabajos académicos, presentaciones comerciales
relacionadas con el área, entre otras.
5. Asesorar a organismos públicos y privados
en asuntos relativos a políticas lingüísticas, toda vez que dicho asesoramiento
se refiera a las Relaciones Económicas Internacionales.
6. Desarrollar cursos de capacitación en
lengua extranjera para todos aquellos profesionales y especialistas que deban
comprender la terminología específica del área y las características del
discurso de esta área de especialidad. Se hará hincapié en la interculturalidad
que se presenta en la actualidad.
7. Participar en la redacción y traducción de
contratos interempresariales modernos tales como joint ventures, franquicias,
leasing, fideicomisos, agencia, distribución, transferencia tecnológica,
confidencialidad y otros similares.
Autoridades de
Directora: Mag.
María Cristina de Ortúzar
coordinacionidiomas@umsa.edu.ar
Coordinadora:
T.P. Sandra Ramacciotti
Comité Académico:
T.P. Ana María
Paonessa
Mag. Ana Traversa
Dr. Ricardo
Balestra
Profesores:
Dr. Eduardo Sisco,
Dr. Horacio Arce, Dr. Ricardo Palestra, Dra. Hada de Pucio
T.P. Sandra
Ramacciotti, Lic. Emilia Rosa Ghelfi, T.P. Ana María Paonessa,
Lic. Patricia
García Ces, Mag. Ana Traversa, Lic. Andrea Rebecchi, Dr. Osvaldo Fernández, Dra.
Constanza Fandezio, Dra. Hilda Albano y Lic. Cecilia Gulia.
Plan de Estudios
La organización
del plan de estudios tiene una duración de dos cuatrimestres.
La estructura de
la especialización se organiza en tres áreas articuladas con el objetivo de
facilitar el trabajo integrado de los diferentes aspectos que se pretenden
desarrollar:
Área
Metodológica:
- Metodología de
- Seminario de
Integración y Trabajo Final
Área Teórica:
- Introducción a
- Mercado de
capitales
- Derecho
Internacional Económico
Área
Instrumental:
- Teoría de
- Tecnología para
el trabajo en neología y terminología
- Taller de
escritura y géneros discursivos en español
- Taller de
escritura y géneros discursivos en lengua Inglesa
- Taller de
Traducción sobre textos especializados del área jurídica y económica
Práctica
Profesional:
Trabajo Final
Integrador
Lugar y Horario:
Las clases
comenzarán el viernes 8 de agosto de 2008.
El dictado de las
asignaturas tendrá lugar los viernes de
Aranceles:
Costo total: $
3.300
- Matrícula: $500
(una matrícula)
- Siete cuotas de
$400.
Cuota por
presentación de trabajo final: $400.
Proceso de Admisión
Los interesados
deberán realizar una entrevista con
• Carta de
Motivación
• Breve CV
• Fotocopia
legalizada del título (diploma o analítico)
• 1 foto 4x4
• Fotocopia del
DNI
Los que no posean
título de Traductor o Intérprete deberán realizar una prueba de admisión que
evaluará los siguientes conocimientos:
- Lengua A:
aptitudes para traducir (español)
- Lengua B:
conocimientos activos y pasivos (inglés)
Para más
Información:
informes@umsa.edu.ar
posgrado@umsa.edu.ar
posgrado1@umsa.edu.ar
posgrado2@umsa.edu.ar
-----------------------------------------------------------
6.- TEACHING CHILDREN: INTEGRATION OF DIVERSITY THROUGH ART
Facultad de
Lenguas – Universidad Nacional de Córdoba
Asociación
Cordobesa de Profesores de Inglés
Instituto “Juan
Zorrilla de San Martín”
Announce: Teaching Children: Integration of Diversity through Art
August 9th and 16th – 9:00 to 18:00 hours
Auditorio Facultad de Lenguas
Lecturers:
Prof. Patricia
Zorio - ACPI
Prof. Susana
Liruso - Facultad de Lenguas
Prof. Ana María
Leiguarda - Facultad de Lenguas
Prof. Adriana
Millikosky - Instituto “Juan Zorrilla de San Martín”
Fees:
ACPI – FAAPI
Members $ 60
Non-members: $
100
Students $ 70
Registration:
Librerías Blackpool & SBS (Córdoba)
Online: info@acpi.org.ar
-----------------------------------------------------------
7.- COURSE ON TEACHING PHONOLOGY TO YOUNG LEARNERS
English & Fun is very pleased to announce:
Teaching Phonology to Young Learners
By Clem Durán and Silvia Bozzi
When?
Saturday July 19th - 9.30 to 12.00
Where?
Escuela Argentino
Modelo
Riobamba 1059
Ciudad de Buenos Aires -
How to introduce children
into The Magic World of Sounds and Rhythm
By Clem Durán & Silvia Bozzi
Part 1 (9.30 – 11)
• Reasons for dealing with phonology in the classroom.
• Difficulties for Spanish speakers. Positive and negative transfer.
• Brief description of the English sounds.
• Rhythm – Weak and strong forms (contrast and distribution of stress)
• The role of the teacher.
• The teaching of sounds: recognition and imitation - drilling and repetition - integration)
Break
Part 2 (11.20 – 12)
• A brief introduction to MINI MILLIE, a practical approach to phonology for young learners. The participants will get a description of the material and the chance to experiment with the sound cards through games and other activities.
This event is FREE OF CHARGE but vacancies are limited so please confirm your attendance in advance.
Raffles!!!
Registration: info@welcometoenglishandfun.com
Mini Millie
Teaching pronunciation needs to be carried out with love and care, in a lively and humorous manner and with a great deal of patience. Never should a child feel hurt or exposed or convinced that he cannot do it.
The teachers in turn should not find the task overwhelming or feel tempted to give up in dispair if they do not see immediate acceptable results.They will be surprised at their own resources to get the best of their students in their attempt to integrate phonology with the other aspects of the language. Playing with sounds can be fun; do it with passion and enthusiasm and it will turn into a highly creative and enjoyable experience.
Mini Millie
by Clem Durán & Silvia Bozzi
A Practical Approach to English Phonology for Children
Contents:
Teacher’s book
Sound Cards
Workbook
CD
Dictionary of Sounds
Learning to speak a foreign language is often best achieved by using both the aural and the visual senses. For older learners, the use of phonetic script can help immensely. Young learners, however, need a different kind of visual stimulus to identify and remind them of the main English sounds and intonation patterns. Mini Millie aims to provide this.
The material consists of a set of amusing cartoon style pictures (big cards for the teacher and a pack of small cards for the students), a teacher’s book, a CD with recorded material, a dictionary of sounds and a workbook. The pictures help to make young learners aware of the phonological differences between Spanish and English. Through games and other activities based on the pictures, they are guided away from the pitfalls of pronunciation based on spelling and are led to explore and dramatise the features of the target language.
Each sound is represented by a character whose name includes the sound in question. So that the first visual contact should not be spelling, students are trained to “write” words with their cards. Mini Millie is not a course in itself. It is intended to be used in conjunction with almost any existing text for young learners and provides supplementary material to help in teaching the English pronunciation.
For further information, please contact hello-millie@hotmail.com
If you want to buy the components, please contact English & Fun:
info@welcometoenglishandfun.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
8.- NET
LEARNING: ESPECIALIZACIONES EN E-LEARNING Y MOODLE
NET LEARNING
anuncia su Calendario de Agosto
Especialícese
en E-Learning
Net-Learning y el
Centro de soluciones de e-learning de
"Experto
Universitario en Implementación de Proyectos de E-Learning"
Vínculo a nuestra
web: EIPEL
Este trayecto
consta de 5 cursos que se pueden realizar de manera independiente.
En Agosto:
20 de Agosto: Capacitación
de tutores para el entorno virtual
4 Semanas
Vínculo a nuestra
web: CTEV
27 de Agosto: Diseño
didáctico de materiales para el entorno virtual
4 Semanas
Vínculo a nuestra
web: DMEV
Especialícese en
Moodle
Net-Learning
presenta su nuevo éxito:
Ciclo
Completo de Formación en Moodle
Vínculo a nuestra
web: IEM
Inscripciones: info@net-learning.com.ar - (+54 11)
4796-0181 - 4464-0350
Visite nuestro
blog: http://www.net-learning.com.ar/blog/
---------------------------------------------------
9.- THIRD
INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON LITERATURE AND CULTURE
IN ENGLISH
Universidad
Nacional de
Facultad de
Humanidades y Ciencias de
Departamento de
Lenguas y Literaturas Modernas
Departamento de
Letras
Centro de
Literaturas y Literaturas Comparadas
“I came upon it in a dream…”
Stevie Smith
The Chairs of English Literature, North-American Literature, English Culture, and Literary Translation are pleased to announce the
Third International
Conference on Literature and Culture in English
Dates: 2, 3, 4
October 2008
Venue:
Suggested Topics for the Presentations
The
perception of the English-speaking world
Travel
Literature.
Literature
in translation.
Identity and subjectivity.
Drama:
text, staging and criticism.
New
territorializations: frontiers, contacts, hibridity.
All presentations must be framed within the fields of Cultural Studies in English and/or Literature in English. No paper dealing with the teaching and learning of foreign languages will be accepted, irrespective of whether they include aspects of one or both fields.
There will be plenary sessions and simultaneous sessions.
Keynote Speakers
The following guest speakers have confirmed participation:
Dr. José Roberto
O’Shea (Universidade Federal de Santa Catarina, Brazil)
Dr. Luise von Flotow (
Dr. Elena
Duplancic de Elgueta (Universidad Nacional de Cuyo, Argentina)
Dra. Cristina
Elgue de Martini (Universidad Nacional de Córdoba, Argentina)
Dr. José Gabriel López Guix (
Pre-registration Information
To facilitate registration and payment during the Conference, both presenters and attendees are required to send the following information by August 15:
1) Category (presenter or attendee)
2) Full name
3) Identity card number
4) Full contact address
Contributions
Abstracts
Contributions should not have been published elsewhere and will be read by a Review Committee. The deadline for the submission of abstracts (200 words) is August 17, 2008. Abstracts should include the author’s name and surname, institutional affiliation, and thematic thread and be sent to any of the following addresses:
NB: Abstracts and full papers must be sent
in Microsoft Word (doc) format or rtf. format Files must be identified with the
presenter’s name. For
example: perez_abstract.doc or perez_abstract..rtf; perez_paper.doc,
perez_paper.rtf
Full Papers
Papers are welcome in English or Spanish.
In the version to be read in the conference sessions, contributions should not
exceed eight pages (A4, Times New Roman 12, 1,5 spacing) written on one side
including notes and bibliography.
Conference Proceedings
To be publishable in the Conference Proceedings (digital version), full papers must reach the Committee by September 15, 2008.
Guidelines. To appear in the Conference Proceedings, contributions should not exceed 12 pages (A4) written on one side including notes and bibliography.
Requirements:
1. Margins:
Top
2. Font: Times New Roman. Spacing: 1,5
3. Size 12 (text) and 10 (notes)
4. Double spacing between title, subtitle, and text.
5. To highlight a word or phrase, use italics.
6. To insert 1-2 line quotes within the text, use italics. For longer quotes, use italics and indent the corresponding paragraph(s). Do not tab.
7. The notes should appear at the end (no footnotes) and should be numbered correlatively. References must appear within the text between parenthesis (AUTHOR’S SURNAME, year: page(s)).
8. The bibliography should appear after the notes and be listed alphabetically by author, following this model:
Author surname and name,
Year (between parenthesis),
Title in italics,
Place.
Publishing house.
Volume, issue, etc., page number (if
appropriate).
For journal articles, the title must appear between inverted comas and the journal’s name in italics.
Example 1.
Borges, Jorge Luis (1974), Obras Completas. 1923-1972, Buenos Aires, Emecé.
Example 2.
Baldersoston, Daniel (1983), "Los cuentos crueles de Silvina Ocampo y
Juan Rodolfo Wilcock", Revista Iberoamericana, Nº 125, Octubre - Diciembre
1983, pp. 743-752.
FEES
Until August 31 As from September 1
Presenters from
Presenters from
Presenters from other countries U$S 60 U$S 70
Attendees 40 Argentine pesos or U$S 15
Students free of charge
Contact Information
E-mail
Gabriel Matelo: matego@ciudad.com.ar
Verónica
Rafaelli veronicarafaelli@yahoo.com
Postal address
Departamento de
Lenguas y Literaturas Modernas
Calle 48 entre 6
y 7 4º piso
(1900)
or
Departamento de
Letras
Calle 48 entre 6
y 7 5ºpiso
(1900)
Tel. 0221-4230125/09 Interno 44
Academic Committee
President: Dr. Miguel Angel Montezanti
Vice-president: Dra María Minellono
Prof. Cecilia Chiacchio, Dr. Cristina Featherston, Prof. Silvana Fernandez, Prof. Anahí Mallol, Prof. Gabriel Matelo y Prof. Amanda Zamuner
Review Committee
Prof. Cecilia Chiacchio, Trad. Prof. Fabiana Datko, Prof. Silvana Fernandez, Prof. Anahí Mallol, Prof. Gabriel Matelo, Trad. Prof. Melina Porto, Trad. Prof. Amanda Zamuner
Assistants
Julieta
Amorebieta y Vera - Paula Gavagnin - Enzo Gazzaniga - Andrea Krikun – Carolina
Lozano - Patricia Lozano - Constanza Massano – Soledad Pérez - Verónica
Rafaelli - Florencia Regueral – María Laura Spoturno - Mercedes Vernet – Celina
Vidal
-----------------------------------------------------------
10.- SEMINARIO DE ACTUALIZACIÓN PROFESIONAL PARA
TRADUCTORES
International
Trade. Translation and Terminology
(Taller de
traducción de documentos de Comercio Exterior)
Expositor:
Trad. Púb.
Horacio R. Dal Dosso
Fecha:
Miércoles 23 de
Julio de 2008 de 18:00 a 22:00
Lugar:
CINUR. Tacuarí
237, piso 1, oficina 16
Ciudad Autónoma
de Buenos Aires, Argentina
Arancel (Incluye:
Materiales, cafés, sorteos de
suscripciones a la revista Multilingual)
$100
Inscripción (Vacantes:
25)
Cierre: Lunes 21
de Julio de
Pagos: Banco Río
Santander
Caja de ahorro en
$ 073-357597/4
CBU: 07200731
30000035759747
Programa
Objetivos
Conocer los
distintos organismos que intervienen en el Comercio Internacional.
Adquirir
vocabulario relativo al Comercio Internacional para entender la documentación.
Aprender a
traducir textos sobre Comercio Internacional.
Dirigido a Traductores,
intérpretes y estudiantes avanzados de traducción (inglés<>español).
Temas
International Agreements, Markets and Organizations;
Tariff and Non-Tariff Barriers;
Incoterms 2000;
Documents Relative to Goods;
Documents Relative to Payment;
Documents Relative to Transaction;
Documents Relative to Transportation;
Translation Practice;
Contrastive
Textual Analysis (USA, Europe);
Glossaries;
Forms.
Metodología
(taller de traducción)
Se analizan los
conceptos básicos junto con la documentación correspondiente.
Una vez
incorporada la terminología, se llevarán a cabo diferentes ejercicios de
traducción.
Traducción de:
Comfort Letter, Bill of Lading, Letter of Credit, Certificado de origen y otros
documentos.
Expositor: Horacio
R. Dal Dosso
Doctorando por
Participó en
varios proyectos de traducción. En el año 2004, trabajó en Francia como
Coordinador Lingüístico, en un proyecto de 4.000.000 de palabras (MBA). En el
año 2006, dirigió un proyecto de traducción que fue publicado por
Visite el sitio www.english-lab.com.ar
------------------------------------------------------------
11.- ILEC PREPARATION FOR TEACHERS AND TRANSLATORS
ILEC
preparation for English Teachers and Translators
You might
be wondering how to train ILEC students successfully…plunge into the
fundamentals of law…the basic tools English language teachers need in order to
train ILEC students.
Do you know
what the concept of “corporate veil” is all about? Do you know about its
collocation? Could you explain the difference between “damage” and “damages” in
Legal English? How do you say “medida cautelar” in English? Do you think you
are ready to prepare students for the International Legal English Certificate?
Module 1
The
Practice of Law
The
legal profession & the judicial system
• Types of lawyers-Practice areas-Law firm
culture-Content of provisions-Persons in court
• Documents in court-Types of law-The
sources of modern law-The subsidiary sources-The judicial system
Module 2
Company
Law (4 hours)
Company
Formation, Life & Death
• Company types-The “ultra vires”
doctrine-Constitutional documents-Defective incorporation
• Foreign incorporation-Sample
documents-Management-Capitalisation-Fundamental changes in a
company-Liquidation-Sample documents
Module 3
Contract
Law (4 Hours)
Contract
Formation & Types
• Definition-Elements-Classification-Outline
of a typical contract-Analysis of a sample agreement-Translation practice – key
contractual terminology & legalese
Where:
Interaction Language Studio
Av. L.N.
Alem 428 6 I-
Days and
time: Group I: Wednesdays from 18.30 to 20.30 or Group II Wednesdays from 16.30
to 18.30
Lecturer:
Prof./Trad. Ivana D’Agostino- ISP J.V. González/UMSA/Interaction teacher and
teacher trainer
Start date:
August 20 – Finishing date: September 24
Duration: 6 two-hour- weekly sessions
Fees: 240$
(whole course) or two installments of 135$
Enrolment
in progresss at Interaction Language Studio 4311-7220 or info@interactionls.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------
12.- JORNADAS
VIRTUALES DEL INSTITUTO SUPERIOR DEL PROFESORADO
“JOAQUÍN V. GONZÁLEZ”
Las Jornadas Virtuales son un espacio académico de comunicación “on line”
para acercar la práctica profesional docente del nivel Superior y nivel Medio y/o equivalente entre
pares y con los futuros graduados.
Objetivos:
Fortalecer la creación de una
red docente para la conceptualización de experiencias y reflexiones de proyectos didácticos.
Interpretar las fortalezas y
debilidades del uso de las TIC en los procesos de enseñanza y de aprendizaje.
Consensuar las prácticas interdisciplinarias que se desarrollan en el nivel medio o su equivalente.
Identificar una nueva cultura
profesional docente.
Desarrollar un canal de
comunicación entre docentes en actividad
y futuros graduados a través de
las TICS.
Destinatarios: Docentes en actividad del nivel Superior y del
nivel Medio y/o equivalente según las jurisdicciones. Alumnos de los Institutos de Formación
Docente de
Presentación de experiencias: Las experiencias a comunicar son del nivel
superior y medio y/o equivalente y sobre
actividades docentes para enseñar con
Interdisciplinarias y/o con la de
inclusión de TICs. El Comité Académico,
formado por un representante de Metodología de cada departamento del Instituto,
será responsable de evaluar la ponencia
reconociendo el valor de ser una propuesta conceptualizada en escuelas reales.
Fecha final de recepción de trabajos: 31 de julio de 2008
Organización: Entre el 1 y el 30 de septiembre del 2008 estarán
on line las aulas virtuales que alojan
los trabajos presentados por los docentes
y, los foros para que los participantes puedan debatir ideas y acordar
mejoras en la tarea profesional.
URL: http://jornadas-virtuales-jvg.buenosaires.edu.ar
Correo electrónico: jornadas_virtuales_jvg@buenosaires.edu.ar
Se extienden certificados.
Actividad gratuita
-------------------------------------------------------------------
13.- COURSE ON
STUDY SKILLS FOR FCE IN VILLA
DOLORES, CÓRDOBA
HEINLE Cengage Learning and Instituto Superior de Cultura Inglesa
Cambridge
“Developing learner independence and study skills for the FCE”
To be successful on the FCE, students will need to work hard both outside the classroom as well as in. However, we cannot assume that all students have the skills to work autonomously so it's important that we train them (especially younger students) in the techniques they'll need when preparing for the FCE exam. These include effective revision strategies, full use of self study materials and the ability to plan study time. In this talk and workshop, we'll look at practical ideas to train and develop independent FCE learners with reference to self study materials available with the new Spotlight on FCE course
Lecturer: John Hughes is a teacher trainer
and course book author. He has taught in
Date: July 30th
Time: 6,45 pm to 8 pm
Venue: Instituto
Superior de Cultura Inglesa CAMBRIDGE
Román Basail 48.
Villa Dolores, Cba Tel/fax 03544-420445
Registration: - admission free-
Berta Alanis, Heinle's local rep: 0351-4807755 – 15 6264289 / 15 4021589 berta.alanis@cengage.com
Instituto
Superior de Cultura Inglesa CAMBRIDGE Tel/fax 03544-420445 institutocambridge@arnet.com.ar
Heinle Cengage Learning
Rojas 2128,
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
14.- I JORNADAS DE
HUMANIDADES Y ARTES "EL LENGUAJE Y LOS LENGUAJES"
I Jornadas de
Humanidades y Artes "El lenguaje y los lenguajes"
Organizadas por
el Instituto AP de Ciencias Humanas, Universidad
Nacional de Villa
María, Córdoba, Argentina. 2, 3 y 4 de septiembre de 2008
1º Circular
El lenguaje, un
vínculo, una relación, un existente, una posibilidad. Un
texto y un
pretexto.
El objetivo
central de estas jornadas es posibilitar la construcción de
un espacio de
reflexión e intercambio acerca de las múltiples
perspectivas en
que se presentan los conceptos de Lenguaje y Lenguajes
en la actualidad.
Para ello,
procuramos que docentes e investigadores de distintos campos
y saberes
disciplinarios que abordan tanto al Lenguaje como a los
Lenguajes, expongan,
analicen y comenten trabajos académicos vinculados
con esta
problemática.
De allí que,
junto al interrogante inicial acerca del Lenguaje y los
Lenguajes,
articulamos los siguientes ejes temáticos:
Lenguaje, arte y
comunicación*
Lenguaje y
educación*
Lenguaje,
política y memoria*
Lenguaje,
sociedad y cultura*
Resúmenes
Los interesados
pueden enviar sus resúmenes hasta el 28 de julio de 2008.
Cada resumen debe
contener entre 400 y 500 palabras e indicar el eje
temático al cual
adscribe, las líneas centrales del trabajo, el
problema abordado
y las consideraciones nodales que se plantean para ser
desarrolladas
durante el encuentro.
Envíos a: humanidadesyartesunvm@gmail.com
Completar Ficha
de Inscripción online
http://190.30.219.126/inscripcion/2008.curso_humanidades_y_artes/index.php
*Ponencias*
Durante la
realización de las jornadas, los participantes deberán
entregar en
formato papel y en CD las ponencias completas. Cada ponencia
deberá tener una
extensión mínima de 2500 palabras y máxima de 3500
palabras,
incluyendo notas y bibliografía.
Las ponencias
deben estar redactadas en formato Word, fuente Times New
Roman 12,
interlineado 1 y medio, notas al final del documento en fuente
Times New Roman
10.
Si se incluyen
imágenes o fotografías, las mismas deberán estar en
formato jpg de
300dpi.
Está prevista la
publicación de una selección de ponencias presentadas.
No se aceptarán
ponencias leídas o presentadas por terceros.
Costo de
inscripción
Expositores
docentes o graduados: $ 50.-
Expositores
estudiantes: $ 20.-
Asistentes:
Gratis
Será abonado al
inicio de las jornadas.
Para mayor
información: humanidadesyartesunvm@gmail.com
http://humanidadesyartesunvm.blogspot.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
15.- I CONGRESO METROPOLITANO DE FORMACIÓN DOCENTE - 2008
Fecha de
realización: 26, 27 y 28 de Noviembre de 2008
Lugar:
Facultad de Filosofía y Letras – Universidad de Buenos Aires – Puán 470 –
Ciudad de Buenos Aires
Presentación:
Las Escuelas Normales, los Institutos de Educación Superior y las Universidades
Nacionales, con sus diferentes tradiciones y misiones, comparten la tarea de
brindar formación inicial y continua para el ejercicio de la docencia en todos
los niveles del sistema educativo. En
los últimos años se han venido produciendo iniciativas desde las políticas
gubernamentales y diversos desarrollos desde las propias instituciones
tendientes a modificar los planes de estudio y ampliar las oportunidades
formativas para los/as estudiantes y docentes, a transformar las dinámicas de
funcionamiento y participación institucional, y otras. Por otra parte, los
debates actuales en el campo del desarrollo profesional docente, al mismo tiempo que nos advierten contra los
discursos y prácticas que desautorizan y aun amenazan la posición profesional
de maestros y profesores, plantean la necesidad de generar alternativas a las
carreras escalafonarias, mediante instancias de formación que como mínimo
acompañen, y en lo posible promuevan, los cambios en la trayectoria laboral y
la generación de entornos que favorezcan el desarrollo profesional de los
docentes.
En todo
caso, una mejor articulación entre las carreras profesionales de los docentes y
los trayectos de formación supone un desafío para las Escuelas, Institutos y
Universidades, que por lo general han venido trabajando de manera fragmentada
aun cuando los/as egresados/as comparten el espacio de trabajo en forma
cotidiana. El propósito del CONGRESO, que se realiza en el marco de la conmemoración
de los 50 años de la carrera de Ciencias de
Dinámica de
trabajo:
Conferencias
de especialistas nacionales y extranjeros
Mesas
redondas, Paneles y Simposios (con invitados-as especiales)
Foros de
discusión sobre experiencias o sobre temáticas relevantes
Mesas de
exposición de ponencias aceptadas
Posters-síntesis
de investigaciones o de experiencias
Especialistas
internacionales invitados/as
Philippe
Perrenoud
José
Contreras Domingo
Linda
Darling Hammond
Ejes y
temáticas en las diferentes modalidades de trabajo
EJE 1:
Políticas de formación docente inicial y continua
- Análisis y balance de las políticas de
formación docente
- Políticas curriculares en la formación de
maestros y profesores
- Articulación entre universidades e
institutos superiores
- Políticas de formación en relación con
otras políticas de Estado (salud, educación, sociales, otras).
- Políticas de capacitación y desarrollo
profesional
EJE 2:
Modelos institucionales de formación inicial y continua
- Modelos docentes y condiciones
institucionales de la formación
- Análisis de diversas modalidades de
formación
- La formación docente inicial y/o continua
en las instituciones formadoras
- Procesos de acreditación y evaluación
institucional
- Modelos de gobierno y gestión de las
instituciones de formación docente
EJE 3:
Pedagogías de la formación inicial y continua
- La práctica en la formación
- Memoria y narrativa docente
- Perfil del alumno de la formación docente
- Estudios históricos sobre corrientes de
formación docente
- Pedagogías de la formación y su
vinculación con los contextos
EJE 4: La
problemática de la enseñanza en la formación docente
- Impacto de las nuevas tecnologías en la
enseñanza
- Modelos de enseñanza vigentes en la
formación docente
- Dispositivos de formación que mejoran la
enseñanza
- Didáctica general y/o didácticas
específicas: encuentros y desencuentros
- La enseñanza en contextos de
vulnerabilidad social
- Formación del profesorado en distintas
disciplinas
EJE 5:
Formación y trabajo docente
- Formación para el trabajo/ Formación en
el trabajo.
- Comunicación entre docentes noveles y
docentes experimentados
- Evaluación de desempeño docente y
capacitación
- Profesionalización del profesorado
- Inducción profesional
- Profesión docente: construcción de la
identidad profesional
Comité
organizador por
Graciela
Morgade (Directora del Departamento de Ciencias de
Comunicación
y consultas: cformaciondocente2008@gmail.com
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
16.- CURSO DE PEDAGOGÍA DE
Cursos del CePEL
(2º cuatrimestre 2008)
El Centro de
Posgrado para el Estudio de Lenguas (CePEL) anuncia su oferta académica para el
2º cuatrimestre de 2008:
PEDAGOGÍA de
Profesoras Clem Durán
y Roxana Basso.
Duración: 1
cuatrimestre, organizado en 3 módulos correlativos.
Modalidad de
cursada: semipresencial.
Inicio: el módulo
1 comienza el sábado 23 de agosto
Horario:
Sede: Escuela de
Posgrado - Paraná 145, 2do piso, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires
Más información: cepel@unsam.edu.ar // 4580 – 7263 (atención de lunes a viernes,
de
-----------------------------------------------------------
17.- SECOND ANNUAL CONFERENCE OF
ASOCIACIÓN CORDOBESA DE
PROFESORES DE INGLÉS
We are very pleased to invite you to
participate in the Second ACPI Annual Conference, October 24 - 25 (Fri-Sat),
The aim of this Annual Conference is to share experiences and explore the testing process in the English teaching environment and the prospects for the future. This Conference will have the invaluable contribution of highly qualified teachers and researchers.
Objectives:
More specifically, we will:
• Observe the reality of our teaching practice from a critical and constructive view point.
• Explore subjects related to the evaluation process in EFL.
• Analize new methodological perspectives, innovative points of view and techniques which reflect the latest theoretical productions in the field of language teaching.
• Promote reflection, debate and exchange of ideas.
• Stimulate attendants to reflect upon their own practice through action research
• Promote scientific analysis and exploration of the outcome of research.
This will be a great opportunity to debate issues related to testing in EFL, present your work, reflect on your teaching practice, discover new and enlightening points of view and meet researchers, teacher trainers, materials designers and teachers from private and public schools all over the country.
Addressed to:
- Teachers of English in general
- Teacher-trainers
- Researchers
- Materials writers
- Advanced students in the last two years at teacher-training colleges
Topics:
Workshops, posters and papers will concentrate on practical ideas and current issues in the field of English Language Testing with a focus on our local school system as suggested below
Testing. For or Against Learning?
1) Testing. Concepts, typology and objectives
2) Testing as a learning tool
3) Evaluating teachers´practice.
4) Testing techniques and instruments
5) Materials design
6) Assessment
Types and length of Presentations:
- Workshops of 90 minutes
- Papers 45 minutes
- Poster Presentations
Paper submissions:
You are all welcome to submit your work as an attached file to: info@acpi.org.ar (The subject : ACPI2008-paper-submission).
Deadline: August 15th, abstract , 100-200 words and a summary, 600 words). We will also welcome full papers by this date.
Acceptance will be communicated by September 10th, 2008
You are requested to send the full paper after acceptance.
Only unpublished papers are eligible for submission!
All accepted papers will be published in the CD of Proceedings.
Format:
A4 – Font: Times New Roman, 12; 1.5-spaced; all four margins: 2,5. Microsoft Word Document – Follow APA conventions as necessary.
In your submission e-mail you must include the following information:
Full Name:
DNI:
Institution where you work (name / level / postal address / telephone number / e-mail):
Contact Information (your telephone number / postal address / e-mail):
Title of your paper
Suggestions: We will greatly appreciate papers with practical ideas that reflect present trends in education and applied linguistics supported by research from other teachers and experts in the field of education and ELT.
We will also welcome papers for publication from teachers and researchers who are not lecturers or presenters at this Annual Conference but who wish to share their unpublished academic production with other teachers.
-----------------------------------------------------------
18.- 21st ARTESOL CONVENTION: CALL FOR
PARTICIPATION
21ST ARTESOL Convention
Building Communities of Inquiry, Practice, and Creativity: Voices of the South
RESISTENCIA,
CHACO, ARGENTINA
OCTOBER 3-4, 2008
Centro Cultural
Nordeste
Arturo Illia 355,
Resistencia, Chaco, Argentina
CALL FOR
PARTICIPATION
From the Convention Program Committee
Dear Colleagues,
This year, the ARTESOL theme echoes almost literally part of the theme of TESOL2008, namely WORLDS OF TESOL: Building Communities of Inquiry, Practice and Creativity. We are grateful to “Big TESOL” for the loan. It is difficult to find a theme that can so efficiently trigger exploration of some of the most important issues currently being discussed in our profession. In a few words it unfolds a teaching/learning scenario where the roles of inquiry, constant dedication and creative drive are displayed, analyzed and evaluated. Drawing these concepts together helps us do away with old dichotomies of Theory / Practice, Researcher/ Practitioner. It also leads into a number of subthemes such as awareness, reflection, innovation, insightful observation, evaluation, ( to name just a few), which consciously or unconsciously influence our decision making in our daily professional practice.
In his preface to Kathleen Bailey, Andy Curtis and David Nunan’s book Pursuing Professional Development, (2001) Donald Freeman says: “These authors do what they write about and they write about what they do……. The work that results is firmly anchored in the daily practicalities of classrooms while examining larger issues of sense making in teaching.”
Drawing on Freeman’s suggestion let’s write our proposals to share what we do, and let’s do what we write in our proposals.
Thank you for your valuable participation
Bailey, K., Curtis, A., Nunan, D. (2201)
Pursuing professional development.
Deadline for submissions: Demonstrations, Workshops, Research: July 15, 2008.
Complete the form and send it ONLY by e-mail to: artesol@bcl.edu.ar
You may use additional space. You’ll be contacted by our Evaluation Committee by September 1, 2008.
However, if you have not received a reply by then, feel free to contact us.
(Type the mailing address to whom all correspondence should be sent)
………
(Name)
………
(Address)
………
(Home Phone #) (Office Phone #) (Fax #) (E-mail)
………
(City) (Province) (Zip Code) (Country)
Check here if a member of
Presenters (in the order they should be listed) Institutional Affiliation
Type of Section Type of Section
Demonstration Poster Session
Workshop
Research Paper
Title: ------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract: (50 words maximum, font Arial 11)
Biographical statements (25 words per presenter, 100 words total, font Arial 11)
Summary: One-page summary of the presentation content, line spacing 1.5 lines, font Arial 11.
Summaries will be edited and recorded on a CD, copies of which will be handed out to participants at the conference.
Equipment needed: --------------------------------------------------------
Call for Participation Guidelines
Types Of Presentations
Demonstration - 45 minutes
Rather than describing or discussing, a demonstration shows a technique for teaching or testing. Normally the presenter’s statement of the theory underlying the technique takes no more than five minutes. The rest of the time is used for showing, rather than telling. The abstract should include a brief statement of the presenter’s central purpose and a description of what will be demonstrated (e.g. role playing) and how it will be done (e.g. some of the audience participating as students or an unrehearsed lesson with actual students).
Workshop - 1hour 30 minutes.
In a workshop, one or more leaders work with a group, helping them either to solve a problem or to develop specific teaching or research techniques. There is very little lecturing by the leader (s), the emphasis is, rather, on the participant’s activity which is carefully structured by the leader(s).
The abstract should include a statement of the workshop’s goal, a summary of the theoretical framework, and a precise description of the tasks to be performed during the workshop.
Research Papers - 45 minutes.
A paper is an oral summary, with occasional reference to notes or a text, which describes or discusses something that the presenter is doing or has done in relation to theory or practice. The abstract should include references to the topic or principal findings
Poster Session
A poster session allows for informal discussion with participants during the time that a self-explanatory exhibit is presented on a large display board (Dimensions: 1.50 x 1m.); it includes a title, the name and institutional affiliation of the presenter (s), and a brief text with clearly labeled photos, drawings, graphs, or charts. Presenters must be available for discussion. The hour before the session is reserved for setting up the exhibit and the hour after for its dismantling. The abstract should state the main objective of the presentation whether it is an experience, an on-going project, or a theory the presenters wish to share.
Steps in submitting the Proposals
Submission steps for Demonstrations, Workshops, Research Papers, and Poster Sessions.
Step 1- Form Complete the Proposal Form
Step 2- Title Choose a title that will be clear to the intended audience, and limit it to a maximum of nine words. Capitalize only the first word, proper nouns, and initials, do not put the title in quotation marks. Example: Music and movement for kindergarten and the primary grades.
Step 3- Abstract One requirement of the proposal form is to provide an abstract that will appear in the program book, alphabetized under the first presenter’s last name, if the proposal is accepted. The abstract helps convention participants decide which presentations will be most appropriate to their concerns and needs. The abstract should adhere to the following guidelines:
- Abstract guidelines
(a) (a) It should not exceed 50 words.
(b) (b) It should be written in the third person, future tense (“The presenter will begin by... And she will then...”).
(c) (c) It should avoid all references to published works.
(d) (d) It should be carefully edited and proofread.
(e) (e) It should be written to draw the most appropriate audience to presentation
(f) (f) It should adhere to previously specified guidelines.
Example: "The SPEAK Test is
administered widely across the
Step 4- Biographical Statement In a maximum of 25 words, give your first name, family name, institutional affiliation, and relevant activities or publications. Degrees are normally listed, and titles such as professor are not capitalized. You can generally omit “currently”.
Example: Jane Doe, a specialist in
curriculum development and composition, teaches ESL in
Step 5- Summary One-page summary of the presentation content, line spacing 1.5 lines, font Arial 11. This summary is the only part of the proposal seen by the referees. It does not appear in the program book. It will be included in a CD for its editing and publication. Make sure that the best format (e.g., research paper, demonstration, etc.) has been selected and that the material outlined can be covered in the allotted time.
- Summary Content
(a) Demonstration: central purpose and description of what will be demonstrated.
(b) Workshop: statement of goal, synopsis of the theoretical framework, precise description of tasks to be performed.
(c) Research Papers: synopsis, including central and supporting ideas.
(d) Poster Session: main ideas to be presented and description of the visual display.
- Summary Writing Guidelines
(a) One-page summary of the presentation content, line spacing 1.5 lines, font Arial 11.
(b)The presentation’s purpose and point of view are clearly stated.
(c) Familiarity with current practices and/or research is evident.
(d) The contents have been carefully edited and proofread.
(e) Do not state presenters’ names on the summary form.
On the upper left corner of your proposal summary, write the following:
1. Type of presentation (i.e. Demonstration, workshop, poster session, research paper)
2. Audiovisual equipment needed
3. Title
All proposals must be sent to
Deadline for submissions: Demonstrations, Workshops, Research Papers, and Poster Sessions: July 15, 2008
------------------------------------------------------------
19.- COURSE ON
STORYTELLING IN BELGRANO
Storytelling
Games & A Storytelling Performance
August 15th
– 6.00 to 8.30 PM
Venue: Belgrano,
Ciudad de Buenos Aires.
Choosing a story
Adapting stories
Editing stories
Practical techniques to tell a story effectively
Literature on its feet
Jerome Bruner and The Narrative Thinking Style
Ernest Hemingway’s Tip of the Iceberg Theory
Limited vacancies
Material included
Certificates of attendance will be issued
Cost: $40,
For enrolment
and further information, contact fabianaparano@hotmail.com
fabianaparano@yahoo.com.ar or call 4784-9616 or 15 4187-2017
Biodata:
Fabiana
Parano is a Teacher, ELT Consultant, Writer and Storyteller. She holds a
Self-esteem Practitioner Degree (SEAL
------------------------------------------------------------
20.- CURSO SOBRE LITERATURA EN
LITERATURA Y
MITO: RELACIONES INTERTEXTUALES
Mgtr. Alejandra
Portela
Fechas: 1, 2 y 15
de agosto, 6 de setiembre
Horario.
Carga horaria: 40
horas
Créditos: 2 (dos)
Modalidad:
Presencial
Costo para
alumnos externos: $220 * Egresados y docentes de
Inscripción:
completar el formulario que se encuentra disponible en la página web de
----------------------------------------------------------------------
We would like to finish this issue of SHARE with message from a very dear SHARER
Gracias Omar a ustedes
por re suscribirme. Permanentemente están dando a los demás, algo que hoy en
día es muy poco común ver y se los agradezco de todo corazón,el compartir
desinteresadamente todo como hacen ustedes me llena de alegría! Dicen que hay
tanta dicha en dar como en recibir, pero ustedes se merecen mucho, es efecto
Boomrang y espero reciban el cariño,
afecto y aprecio de todos los que los leeemos, siempre saco muchas ideas del
material que mandan y anoche mismo navegué por sus páginas y: Guees what! Mas
ideas para las clases! Cariños y seguimos en contacto.
Gracias de nuevo
y hasta siempre! Carina Lubatti.
HAVE A WONDERFUL WEEK!
Omar and
Marina.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
SHARE is
distributed free of charge. All announcements in this electronic magazine are
also absolutely free of charge. We do not endorse any of the services announced
or the views expressed by the contributors. For more information about
the characteristics and readership of SHARE visit: http://www.groups.yahoo.com/group/ShareMagazine
VISIT OUR
WEBSITE : http://www.ShareEducation.com.ar
There you can read all past issues of SHARE in the section SHARE
ARCHIVES.
------------------------------------------------------------------------