Noam Chomsky proposed his Language Acquisition Device to explain human language learning. It is true that people acquire languages most flexibly until 14 years old. It is true that people could not merely memorize language: there has to be a logical capacity. I do comprehend that a device may be something devised, as well as a faculty that devises. However, a device is often a thing that could be operated externally, from the outside. Association with such governance could not be my ideal.
I have always preferred the human language faculty. Language skill needs the brain entire, regardless of age.
The break of the 19th and 20th centuries had people used to specialization. Linguistics was separate from psychology, as neurology from endocrinology. Human language became recognized as located in two areas, Broca and Wernicke.
Wernicke or Broca, they are not the visual or auditory tissue. Do we learn language without hearing or seeing it? Wernicke or Broca, they are not the frontal lobes, as of the forehead: do we learn to say and use our [t] or [d] without goal-oriented thinking? Wernicke or Broca are not the limbic system, brainstem, or parietal gnostic structures to integrate the senses: could the humanity ever have evolved language in some “non-time” and “non-space”?
The matter with the brain is that it does not have a singular superior structure we could call the mind. Brains make networks within. One time, a network or its part is more active. Another time, it is another network or part of a network. Whether we would call it a soul, a personality, or brain epiphenomenon (when particularly tired), the brain re-orients for activity without a permanently dominant gyrus or sulcus. If we would enjoy a political metaphor, brain structures would be a democracy. There is no king or queen tissue that would all the time preside.
More, there is no universal brain logic. Neurons connect as we join thought and experience. Neurons that would look identical, and would give the same parameter in measurement, might have very different cognitive contents. As people grow, learn and think more, the connections usually become as dense as to make “hidden” layers: continually active, they make telling which neurons work for what ― impossible.
This is why I do not see sense in trying to have “brain devices” and scanning them for parameters. Feel welcome to read: