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




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!





Omar and Marina





In SHARE 188


1.-    Contributions of memory circuits to language learning

2.-    In Language Teaching, Which is more important: Language or


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 la Fonética de la Lengua Inglesa

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 la Universidad Nacional de Córdoba.






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, Georgetown University, Washington, DC, USA.




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 (Norman, 2002).


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, Taylor, & Lang, 1988; Willingham, 1998). Learning in the

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, Huntington’s and other diseases affecting the basal ganglia (Young & Penney, 1993). The two pathways are modulated by dopaminergic projections from the substantia nigra to the neostriatum. Indeed, it is this bundle of neurons which degenerates in Parkinson’s disease. These nigrostriatal dopaminergic neurons appear to have a role not only in the real-time modulation of the direct and indirect pathways, but also in the reinforcement learning functions of the basal ganglia, specifically in memory consolidation (Doya, 2000; Packard& Knowlton, 2002; White, 1997).

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 44 in Broca’s area (Rizzolatti, Fadiga, Gallese, & Fogassi, 1996) (Broca’s area is defined here as a portion of human inferior frontal cortex, including and perhaps limited to cortex corresponding to BA 44 – pars opercularis – and BA 45 – pars triangularis; Amunts et al., 1999). Each of these frontal regions plays an important role in the procedural memory system.

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,

240 M.T. Ullman / Cognition 92 (2004) 231–270 1998; Rizzolatti et al., 2000). Intriguingly, F5 – the monkey homologue of BA 44 – contains “mirror neurons”, which fire not only at the execution of particular learned sequential motor skills (i.e. each neuron discharges with specific goal-oriented movement sequences), but also during the observation of (and even the sound of) the same action sequences (Kohler et al., 2002; Rizzolatti, Fogassi, & Gallese, 2001). Evidence suggests that human BA 44 also has this mirror function (Rizzolatti et al., 2001). It has been suggested that in humans such neurons may play a role in language, in particular in language comprehension (Rizzolatti & Arbib, 1998).

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 44 in Broca’s area.

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 (La Grutta & Sabatino, 1988; Sabatino, Ferraro, Liberti, Vella, & La, 1985). Several studies have suggested that lesions to the hippocampus can result in increased dopamine transmission in the portion of the striatum to which the hippocampus projects (Jaskiw, Karoum, &Weinberger, 1990; Lipska, Jaskiw, Chrapusta, Karoum, &Weinberger, 1992). Neurochemically, acetylcholine appears to play a role in the interaction (Packard&Knowlton, 2002), perhaps by enhancing function of the hippocampus (see above), which could in turn inhibit function of the striatum via the projections described above. Moreover, acetylcholine can also directly inhibit the function of

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; Greenfield, 1991; Lieberman et al., 1992; Rizzolatti & Arbib, 1998).

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 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 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., 1997, in press). Agrammatism is

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., 1997, in press).


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 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). 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). 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). 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. 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.



Support was provided to MTU by a McDonnell-Pew grant in Cognitive Neuroscience, a

research grant from the National Alliance For Autism Research, NSF SBR-9905273, NIH

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.




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

York: Elsevier Science.

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). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Alvarez, P., & Squire, L. R. (1994). Memory consolidation and the medial temporal lobe: a simple network model. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 91(15), 7041–7045.

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, New York: Cambridge University Press.

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). Leipzig: Max Planck Institute of Cognitive Neuroscience.

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). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Bauman, M. L. (1992). Motor dysfunction in autism. In A. Joseph, & R. Young (Eds.), (1) (pp. 658–661).Movement disorders in neurology and psychiatry, Boston, MA: Blackwell.

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),


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. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

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(1 Pt 1), 48–59.

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., La Tendresse, S., & Craft, S. (2001). Testosterone supplementation improves spatial and verbal memory in healthy older men. Neurology, 57(1), 80–88.

Chomsky, N. (1965). Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Chomsky, N. (1970). Remarks on nominalization. In R. Jacobs, & P. Rosenbaum (Eds.), Readings in English transformational grammar (pp. 184–221). Waltham, MA: Ginn.

Chomsky, N. (1995). The minimalist program. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

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. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 14, 42–75.

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, D. D., Barwick, M., Im, N., Menna, R., Horodezky, N. B., & Isaacson, L. (2000). The interface between ADHD and language impairment: an examination of language, achievement, and cognitive processing. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41(3), 353–362.

Conway, C., & Christiansen, M. (2001). Sequential learning in non-human primates. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 5(12), 539–546.

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. New England Journal of Medicine, 318(21), 1349–1354.

Cowan, N. (1999). An embedded-process model of working memory. In A. Miyake, & P. Shah (Eds.), Models of working memory (pp. 62–101). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

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). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

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. New England Journal of Medicine, 326(8), 531–539.

Damasio, H. (1995). Human brain anatomy in computerized images. New York: Oxford University Press.

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, New York: Elsevier Science.

de Saussure, F. (1959). A course in general linguistics. London: Peter Owen.

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, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

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). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

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, Amsterdam: Elsevier.

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. New York: Oxford University Press.

Embick, D., Marantz, A., Miyashita, Y., O’Neil, W., & Sakai, K. L. (2000). A syntactic specialization for Broca’s area. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 97, 6150–6154.

Estabrooke, I. V., Mordecai, K., Maki, P., & Ullman, M. T. (2002). The effect of sex hormones on language processing. Brain and Language, 83, 143–146.

Fabbro, F., Clarici, A., & Bava, A. (1996). Effects of left basal ganglia lesions on language production. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 82(3 Pt 2), 1291–1298.

Faillenot, I., Toni, I., Decety, J., Gregoire, M. C., & Jeannerod, M. (1997). Visual pathways for object-oriented action and object recognition: functional anatomy with PET. Cerebral Cortex, 7, 77–85.

Farah, M. J., & Grossman, M. (1997). Semantic memory impairments. In T. E. Feinberg, & M. J. Farah (Eds.),Behavioral neurology and neuropsychology (pp. 473–477). New York: McGraw-Hill.

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. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

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). New York: McGraw-Hill.

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, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1993). Working memory and language. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

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). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

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. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

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 Academy of Sciences USA, 99(16), 10911–10916.

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.

Greenfield, P. M. (1991). Language, tools, and brain: the ontogeny and phylogeny of hierarchically organized sequential behavior. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 14, 531–595.

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, Orlando, FL.

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.

Halle, M., & Marantz, A. (1993). Distributed morphology and the pieces of inflection. In K. Hale, & S. J. Keyser (Eds.), The view from building 20. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Hammond, E. J., Meador, K. J., Aung-Din, R., & Wilder, B. J. (1987). Cholinergic modulation of human P3 event-related potentials. Neurology, 37(2), 346–350.

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, I., Egan, G., Sonkkila, C., Tochon-Danguy, H., Paxinos, G., & Watson, J. (2000). Selective right parietal lobe activation during mental rotation: a parametric PET study. Brain, 123(Pt 1), 65–73.

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). New York:McGraw-Hill.

Hikosaka, O., Sakai, K., Miyauchi, S., Takino, R., Sasaki, Y., & Putz, B. (1996). Activation of human presupplementary motor area in learning of sequential procedures: a functional MRI study. Journal of Neurophysiology, 76(1), 617–621.

Hikosaka, O., Sakai, K., Nakahara, H., Lu, X., Miyachi, S., Nakamura, K., & Rand, M. K. (2000). Neural mechanisms for learning of sequential procedures. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (pp. 553–572). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

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). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Jackendoff, R. (1997). The architecture of the language faculty. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

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 Academy of Sciences USA, 96(13), 7592–7597.

Johnson, J. S., & Newport, E. L. (1989). Critical period effects in second language learning: the influence of maturational state on the acquisition of English as a second language. Cognitive Psychology, 21(1), 60–99.

Johnston, J. R., & Weismer, S. E. (1983). Mental rotation abilities in language-disordered children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 26(3), 397–403.

Jordan, K., Heinze, H. J., Lutz, K., Kanowski, M., & Jancke, L. (2001). Cortical activations during the mental rotation of different visual objects. Neuroimage, 13(1), 143–152.

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). Dordrecht: Kluwer.

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. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

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, Dordrecht: Foris.

Knight, R. T., & Grabowecky, M. (2000). Prefrontal cortex, time, and consciousness. In M. S. Gazzaniga (Ed.), The new cognitive neurosciences (pp. 1319–1340). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

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, I. C., Lythogoe,D. J., Williams, S. C. R., & David, A. S. (2000). Common and distinct neural substrates for pragmatic, semantic, and syntactic processing of spoken sentences: an fMRI study. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 321–341.

Kutas, M., & Hillyard, S. A. (1980). Reading senseless sentences: brain potentials reflect semantic incongruity. Science, 207(1), 203–205.

La Grutta, V., & Sabatino, M. (1988). Focal hippocampal epilepsy: effect of caudate stimulation. Experimental Neurology, 99(1), 38–49.

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. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Lieber, R. (1992). Deconstructing morphology: word formation in syntactic theory. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

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). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Matelli, M., Camarda, R., Glickstein, M., & Rizzolatti, G. (1986). Afferent and efferent projections of the inferior area 6 in the macaque monkey. Journal of Comparative Neurology, 251(3), 281–298.

Matelli, M., Luppino, G., Murata, M., & Sakata, H. (1994). Independent anatomical circuits for reaching and grasping linking the inferior parietal sulcus and inferior area 6 in macaque monkey. Society for Neuroscience Abstracts, 20, 404.4.

Maynard Smith, J. (1975/1993). The theory of evolution. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Mayr, E. (1963). Animal species and evolution. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

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 York: Oxford University Press.

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, D. D., & Liles, B. Z. (1987). Story grammar ability in children with and without language disorder: story generation, story retelling, and story comprehension. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 539–552.

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 New York Academy of Sciences, 682, 1–22.

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). Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag.

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). New York:Guilford Press.

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). New York: McGraw-Hill.

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, I., Schugens, M. M., Fawcett, A. J., & Schulz, A. (2002). Eyeblink conditioning indicates cerebellar abnormality in dyslexia. Experimental Brain Research, 143(1), 42–50.

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, I. (1997). Motor difficulties in children with developmental disorders of speech and language. Child: Care, Health and Development, 23(4), 315–325.

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 Academy of Sciences USA, 96(22),12881–12886.

Passingham, R. (1993) (21). The frontal lobes and voluntary action, New York: Oxford University Press.

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 Linden, M., Meulemans, T., Degueldre, C., Delfiore, G., Luxen, A.,Cleeremans, A., & Franck, G. (1999). Left inferior frontal cortex is involved in probabilistic serial reaction time learning. Brain and Cognition, 40(1), 215–219.

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. Essex Research Reports in Linguistics, 14, 1–41.

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.

266 M.T. Ullman / Cognition 92 (2004) 231–270

Petrides, M. (1996). Specialized systems for the processing of mnemonic information within the primate frontal cortex. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological Sciences, 351(1346),1455–1462.

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 Academy of Sciences USA, 92(13), 5803–5807.

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, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Pinker, S. (1994). The language instinct. New York: William Morrow.

Pinker, S. (1999). Words and rules: the ingredients of language. New York: Basic Books.

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, I., & Wilson, B. C. (1978). Children with developmental language disability: neuropsychological aspects and assessment. In M. A. Wyke (Ed.), Developmental dysphasia (pp. 13–41). London: Academic Press.

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). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

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, Cambridge, MA: Bradford/MIT Press.

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). Baltimore,MD: Brookes.

Rutter, M. (1978). Diagnosis and definition. In M. Rutter, & E. Schopler (Eds.), Autism: a reappraisal of concepts and treatment (pp. 1–25). New York: Plenum.

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., Taylor, A. E., & Lang, A. E. (1988). Procedural learning and neostriatal dysfunction in man. Brain, 111(4), 941–959.

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). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.

Schacter, D. L., & Tulving, E. (Eds.), (1994). Memory systems 1994. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

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). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Shughrue, P. J., Scrimo, P. J., & Merchenthaler, I. (2000). Estrogen binding and estrogen receptor characterization (ERalpha and ERbeta) in the cholinergic neurons of the rat basal forebrain. Neuroscience,96(1), 41–49.

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.). Oxford: Blackwell.

Sorensen, K., & Witter, M. (1983). Entorhinal efferents reach the caudato-putamen. Neuroscience Letters, 35(3),259–264.

Spencer, A. (1991). Morphological theory. Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell.

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). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Squire, L. R., & Zola, S. M. (1996). Structure and function of declarative and nondeclarative memory systems. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences USA, 93, 13515–13522.

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 New York Academy of Sciences, 911, 175–191.

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). New York: Academic Press.

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 USA, 94(26), 14792–14797.

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 Academy of Sciences USA, 91, 2016–2020.

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,

Leipzig, Germany.

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),


Ullman, M. T., Estabrooke, I. V., Steinhauer, K., Brovetto, C., Pancheva, R., Ozawa, K., Mordecai, K., & Maki,P. (2002). Sex differences in the neurocognition of language. Brain and Language, 83, 141–143.

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). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

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 Academy of Sciences USA, 95(21),


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). Baltimore,MD: Williams and Wilkins.

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







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.




Brown, G. (1989) (interview) ‘Sitting on a rocket’ ELT Journal 43/3, 167-72

Dulay, H., Burt, M. and Krashan, S. (1982) Languate Two, New York: Oxford University Press

Duskanova, L. and Urbanova, V. (1967) ‘A frequency count of English tenses with applications to TEFL’, Prague Studies in Mathematical Linguistics 2

Girard, D. (1972) Linguistics and Language Teaching, London: Longman

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, London: Longman.



© The Teacher Trainer







Big Gender Differences in Language Learning

by Kate Melville

30 November 2006




Neuroscientists from Georgetown University Medical Center say that boys and girls use different parts of their brains to process some basic aspects of grammar. Their study, published in the journal Developmental Science, suggests that gender is an important factor in the acquisition and use of language.



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 Georgetown University Medical Center









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.




About 2 pounds cherries

2 tablespoons sweet butter

1/4 cup sugar, or to taste

Tiny pinch salt

1 pint vanilla ice cream



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 US- gotta wait for the trees.)


— 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…


— Posted by Camille


3.June 27th,2008

11:36 am A couple of years ago we took a half-day cooking lesson in Paris which included making a cherry clafouti. The instructor had us make it two ways - one with the pits and one without - and then sample the results. As he predicted, the one with the pits had much more flavor, but of course was more complicated to eat. That explained another experience I had in a private home in Paris - cherry tarts were served without warning that the pits were still in the cherries - it must be a common thing to do in France.


— 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 Michigan.


— 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 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 France to leave the pits in things, especially clafouti, for the added flavor. I find that the wine I made with the cherry pits has a flavor of roses, which is pretty interesting.


— 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






La Universidad del Museo Social Argentino anuncia la Carrera de Postgrado de:


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.




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.




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.




       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 la Carrera


Directora: Mag. María Cristina de Ortúzar


Coordinadora: T.P. Sandra Ramacciotti


Comité Académico:

T.P. Ana María Paonessa

Mag. Ana Traversa

Dr. Ricardo Balestra



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 la Investigación

- Seminario de Integración y Trabajo Final


Área Teórica:

- Introducción a la Economía y Macroeconomía

- Mercado de capitales

- Derecho Internacional Económico


Área Instrumental:

- Teoría de la Comunicación

- 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 18 a 22 horas y los sábados de 9 a 14 horas en la sede de la Universidad.



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 la Directora/Coordinadora de la carrera y deberán presentar la siguiente documentación:


• 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:







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



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”




ACPI – FAAPI Members $ 60

Non-members: $ 100

Students $ 70


Registration: Librerías Blackpool & SBS (Córdoba)








English & Fun is very pleased to announce:


Teaching Phonology to Young Learners

By Clem Durán and Silvia Bozzi



Saturday July 19th - 9.30 to 12.00



Escuela Argentino Modelo

Riobamba 1059

Ciudad de Buenos Aires - Argentina


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)





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.








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



Teacher’s book

Sound Cards



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


If you want to buy the components, please contact English & Fun:







NET LEARNING anuncia su Calendario de Agosto


Especialícese en E-Learning


Net-Learning y el Centro de soluciones de e-learning de la Universidad Tecnológica Nacional de Buenos Aires.

"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: - (+54 11) 4796-0181 - 4464-0350

Visite nuestro blog:








Universidad Nacional de La Plata

Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias de la Educación

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: La Plata



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 (University of Ottawa, Canada)

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 (University of Barcelona, Spain)


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 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. Reading time will be absolutely restricted to 15 minutes.


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.



1.      Margins: Top 2,50 cm; bottom 2,50 cm; right and left 2,50 cm.

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,


        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.




Until August 31                                              As from September 1

Presenters from Argentina   100 Argentine pesos.         120 Argentine pesos.

Presenters from Latin America       U$S 35               U$S 40

Presenters from other countries     U$S 60               U$S 70

Attendees     40 Argentine pesos or U$S 15

Students      free of charge



Contact Information



Gabriel Matelo:

Verónica Rafaelli



Postal address

Departamento de Lenguas y Literaturas Modernas

Calle 48 entre 6 y 7  4º piso

(1900) La Plata




Departamento de Letras

Calle 48 entre 6 y 7  5ºpiso

(1900) La Plata

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



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








International Trade. Translation and Terminology

(Taller de traducción de documentos de Comercio Exterior)



Trad. Púb. Horacio R. Dal Dosso



Miércoles 23 de Julio de 2008 de 18:00 a 22:00


CINUR. Tacuarí 237, piso 1, oficina 16

Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires, Argentina


Arancel (Incluye:  Materiales, cafés, sorteos de suscripciones a la revista Multilingual) 



Inscripción (Vacantes: 25)  

Cierre: Lunes 21 de Julio de 2008 a las 17:00


Pagos: Banco Río Santander

Caja de ahorro en $ 073-357597/4

CBU: 07200731 30000035759747







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).




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);




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 la Universidad de Granada, de la que obtuvo el Diploma de Estudios Avanzados (DEA) del Tercer Ciclo, correspondiente al Doctorado en Traducción, Sociedad y Comunicación, programa que recibió la mención de Doctorado de Calidad del Ministerio de Educación y Ciencia de España. Sus líneas de investigación son: Didáctica de la Traducción y Nuevas Tecnologías. Investigador de los recursos de Internet aplicados a la traducción. En 2006 publicó su base de datos con más de 600 recursos útiles para traductores: En 2007 obtuvo el DEA mediante la defensa de su trabajo de investigación titulado «La inclusión de las TIC en los programas universitarios de formación de traductores de la Argentina», una obra inédita en su género. Traductor Público (UADE) e Intérprete de Inglés (CIT). Profesor de Geografía y Ciencias Biológicas. Cursó la Tecnicatura en Administración de Empresas y es Operador de Exportaciones. Participó en varios seminarios relacionados con estas áreas, que se dictaron en los Estados Unidos, Italia y la Argentina.

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 la UNESCO.


Visite el sitio  







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- Buenos Aires -

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










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.




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 la República Argentina.


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.



Correo electrónico:


Se extienden certificados.  Actividad gratuita







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 Austria, Poland , Italy , Malta , the UK and now lives in the USA . He has published a number of course books and resources materials. His books include Spotlight on FCE (2007) and Practical Grammar (forthcoming) both published by Heinle. Currently, he is also involved in designing and delivering online teacher training courses.


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

Instituto Superior de Cultura Inglesa CAMBRIDGE Tel/fax 03544-420445


Heinle Cengage Learning

Rojas 2128, Buenos Aires, Argentina. C1416CPX Tel:(0) 5411 4582-0601






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*




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:

Completar Ficha de Inscripción online



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:







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 la Educación de la Facultad de Filosofía y Letras de la Universidad de Buenos Aires, es constituir un espacio de intercambio, análisis y discusión de las políticas, modelos y pedagogías de la formación docente que permita mapear los avances producidos y las dificultades persistentes, tender puentes, desde el reconocimiento recíproco, entre diferentes experiencias institucionales y diferentes tradiciones formativas, y apoyar la conformación de una red de instituciones formadoras con el compromiso de continuar esta iniciativa mediante la organización de congresos en forma periódica y sistemática, así como instalar los debates necesarios para incidir de algún modo en el enriquecimiento de nuestro sistema educativo.


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 la Facultad de Filosofía y Letras

Graciela Morgade (Directora del Departamento de Ciencias de la Educación); Andrea Alliaud; Claudia Probe; Dolores Román; José Antonio Castorina (Director del Instituto de Investigaciones en Ciencias de la Educación); Julia Rube; Daniel Suárez; Flavia Terigi

Comunicación y consultas:








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:



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: 9 a 13h.

Sede: Escuela de Posgrado - Paraná 145, 2do piso, Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires



Más información:  // 4580 – 7263 (atención de lunes a viernes, de 10 a 16h.)








We are very pleased to invite you to participate in the Second ACPI Annual Conference, October 24 - 25 (Fri-Sat), 2008 in the city of Córdoba.


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.




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





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:  (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.



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:




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.








21ST ARTESOL Convention

Building Communities of Inquiry, Practice, and Creativity: Voices of the South


OCTOBER 3-4, 2008



Centro Cultural Nordeste

Arturo Illia 355, Resistencia, Chaco, Argentina





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. Canada:  Heinle & Heinle

Deadline for submissions: Demonstrations, Workshops, Research:  July 15, 2008.

Complete the form and send it ONLY by e-mail to:

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)









(Home Phone #)      (Office Phone #)     (Fax #)       (E-mail)



(City)  (Province)      (Zip Code)                (Country)


Check here if a member of Argentina TESOL                Check here if a member of TESOL


Presenters (in the order they should be listed)     Institutional Affiliation






Type of Section      Type of Section

Demonstration Poster Session


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


ARGENTINA TESOL is an Argentine organization with broad interests. It is planned for professional development and provides opportunities for social interaction among colleagues who share common interests in the region. The program committee invites presentations dealing with classroom practices, research in language learning and teaching, or the connection between the two, but very especially encourages those in relation to teacher development and its challenges in the 21st century. We welcome proposals from teachers, teachers in preparation, graduate students, researchers, program administrators and materials and curriculum developers, including colleagues in related disciplines such as communication, education, linguistics, foreign languages, anthropology, sociology and psychology.


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 US to prospective graduate teaching assistants. Regardless of the score required for passing, American students frequently complain about foreign TAs. What are the parameters of intelligibility? Results from a statistically analyzed randomized sample will attempt to answer that and other questions“(49 words)


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 Houston public junior high schools. (17 words)


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 Argentina TESOL by e-mail:

Deadline for submissions: Demonstrations, Workshops, Research Papers, and Poster Sessions: July 15, 2008







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  or call 4784-9616 or 15 4187-2017





Fabiana Parano is a Teacher, ELT Consultant, Writer and Storyteller. She holds a Self-esteem Practitioner Degree (SEAL Argentina and The International Council for Self-esteem, USA) and an Accreditation for Creative Writing (Cambridge University, UK). She has majored in Storytelling both in English (with A Mckenna) and Spanish (with Ana Padovani). At the moment, she’s exploring the world of Mime Acting (Escobar-Lerdunchi). She trains teachers in the Art of Storytelling and how to apply it in a second or foreign language situation. She has given workshops and presentations throughout the country, at schools, teachers’ training colleges and for publishing houses, such as Pearson-Longman and Scholastic. She has also written stories based on the observation of daily conflicts within/among students, which she indulges in sharing with her varied audiences. She regularly gives Storytelling performances at diverse institutions, catering from young children to adults. Fabiana has been a School Headmistress (Amapola School) and an English Coordinator (Jardinar-Septiembre School). At the moment, she is the Director of DEAL (Dynamic English for All Learners).








Mgtr. Alejandra Portela



Fechas: 1, 2 y 15 de agosto, 6 de setiembre

Horario.  9 a 19 hs.

Carga horaria: 40 horas

Créditos: 2 (dos)

Modalidad: Presencial

Costo para alumnos externos: $220 * Egresados y docentes de la Facultad de Lenguas: consultar código de descuentos en pg. Web


Inscripción: completar el formulario que se encuentra disponible en la página web de la Facultad: y enviarlo por archivo adjunto o presentarlo a Secretaría de Posgrado, Facultad de Lenguas, UNC. Te: 4331073/74/75 int.22,





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.




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:

VISIT OUR WEBSITE : There you can read all past  issues of SHARE in the section SHARE ARCHIVES.