> Sure, I am down with that, but the discussion is a bit different here,
> isn't it? We are wondering if, as Chomsky thinks, there is something
> like a specialised organ, in the brain (Chomsky usually refers to only
> the "mind", but has mentioned "brain" in some occasions), that caters
> to the language capacity. Chomsky thinks so.
Okay, let's talk about the brain. What neurocognitive researchers have discovered in the past 20 years is that there is far more plasticity and less strict localization of function than we originally thought. Based on the fundamental brain research about the primary somatosenory cortex, the motor cortex, the visual cortex, etc., most early neurocognitive researchers assumed (like Chomsky) that we would discover similar localized areas for most or all higher cognitive functions.
Short answer--not so much. One example: the storage of long-term memories. There is no well-defined region in the brain where we store long-term memories, and strangely, neural activity in different locations in the brain can trigger the same memory. Here's an example related to language development: if young children have massive brain trauma due to an accident, the brain will "reroute" around the damaged tissue by developing new interneural connections, and cognitive and linguistic development will continue normally. Note that this happens even if the regions of the brain typically involved in language function (e.g., Broca's area) are completely destroyed.
Thus the notion that we will find a hardwired, specific area of the brain responsible for UG is based on assumptions about brain functioning
that do not appear to be consistent with the current neurocognitive research on brain plasticity.
Miles