[realpatriot71]

But the processes and mechanisms of language are complicated, and there is no single neurological study which locates all linguistic processes within any specific section of the human brain. The best that has been posited is that various functions within the brain contribute to the processes of perception, syntax, motor control, and memory, all of which constitute language as a whole.

I can't disagree with anything you've said. The brain is interconnected in such a fashion that "language" as an idea or concept needs more than just the simple areas of the brain dealing with language and speech to correctly communicate in a larger executive context. However, I can kill a specific spot of brain and said person will no longer be able to understand language at all, no matter how well other functions are operating.

[RightWingAtheist]

It has been postulated that the visual and linguistic modules are strongly correlated, and possibly even "split" from the same ancestral module. It would explain why we have have both a "spoken" and "gestural" grammar, as well as our abilities at writing and visual representation (drawing and sculpting, etc.), traits which can NOT be explained as being a result of selective evolutionary pressures, as language can.

[angkor]

OK, but back to the original point, I'm simply saying that the "language template" referred to in the article is not located in any specific physical section of the brain. It's a meta-function also associated with "learning" (which is of a higher order than mere syntax).

That's why I mentioned Bateson in my first post. He seemed to have a philosophical handle on the dynamics of learning itself, which might (or might not) be the meta-template that drives language.

Haven't studied this stuff in years, but it's interesting.