Hernandez, Martinez, & Kohnert, 2000; Illes et al., 1999; Kim, Relkin, Lee,
& Hirsch, 1997; Paradis, 1999; Perani et al., 1998). This research suggests
that the notion of a localized language faculty described by the minimalist
program is not viable. Such a large lateral region of the cerebral cortex is in-
volved in language processing that we cannot even state that the left hemi-
sphere is the “language center” with much accuracy (Bhatnagar et al., 2000;
Ojemann, 1983). As Fabbro (2001) reported, the right hemisphere “is cru-
cially involved in the processing of pragmatic aspects of language use,” espe-
cially during second-language learning (p. 214). Fabbro also noted that
“when a second language is learned formally and mainly used at school, it ap-
parently tends to be more widely represented in the cerebral cortex than the
first language, whereas if it is acquired informally, as usually happens with
the first language, it is more likely to involve subcortical structures (basal
ganglia and cerebellum)” (p. 214).
These findings are supported by a variety of studies of children who at birth
were diagnosed as having one diseased hemisphere that would lead to death if
left alone. In some cases, the entire left hemisphere was removed, but these
children nevertheless developed language function with only minor deficits
(Day & Ulatowska, 1979; Dennis & Kohn, 1975; Dennis & Whitaker, 1976;
Kohn, 1980). The right hemisphere “rewired” itself to assume responsibility
for language processing.
Also worth noting is that neurological language function differs from
person to person to a significant degree even among monolinguals. When
people undergo surgery to remove brain tumors, the operation must be per-
formed with the patient awake so that the medical team can map the loca-
tions of the various language areas by asking him or her to respond orally to
questions. If the language faculty is a bodily organ, as Chomsky (1995,
2000) argued, it seems reasonable to expect it to be located pretty much in
the same place for everyone. In this light, the assessment of the Society for
Neuroscience takes on added significance: “The neural basis for language is
not fully understood” (2002, p. 19).
Certainly, one could claim that a theory of grammar or a theory of language
does not need to be congruent with the findings in medicine and neurosci-
ence, but is any theory relevant that is lacking empirical validation? Conse-
quently, Chomsky’s (1995, 2000) claim for a centralized language
function—a “biological organ,” as he called it (2000, p. 117)—appears insup-
portable. Unless evidence to the contrary emerges through brain research, we
are left to conclude that “language faculty” is, at best, a poor choice of words
to describe an array of cognitive processes that together allow us to produce
and process language.
NOAM CHOMSKY AND GRAMMAR 193