With inspiration blossoming from the Classic model I.e. the “Wernicke-Lichtheim-Geschwind model” of how the human mind processes language, the more recent contemporary models psycholinguists have thought and observed into existence move beyond by attempting to identify the corticol and subcortical links by using more precise role specific anatomical features and adopting an integrative perspective with continuing focus on emerging precise terms. As the exploration of how the brain accomplishes and integrates the various sub-functions that influence and comprise human language develops, so does the terminology; it seems as though the importance of the terms used and created within the field of psycholinguistics to adequately depict the distributed connectivity is being recognised by many. So far there is a strong position amongst many that there is no individual region in the brain that holds just one word or concept, instead single patches in the brain may be associated with various words which are semantically or phonologically related; especially as there is no consistent illustration for the ‘Brocas’ and ‘Wernicke’s’ areas. Human language does not appear to be only cognitive basics, this is highlighted through simple observations into the role the human motor abilities, such as the impact of the somatonsensory cortex on attention areas or environmental factors (e.g. socioeconomic, cognitive stimulation, child-directed speech and bilingualism positions and experiences) effecting language processing. There’s also a vast amount of differences to be noted with vocal, written and signed languages all of which already hold an array of research using the ever-updating use of technology to highlight them. The function of language is not localised but it appears to be an action of combined forces throughout the sensorial sphere. It could be suggested that only the most elementary functions can be assigned to defined areas in the cortex, the associations we see in the world such as consciousness, concepts and thinking, these are an achievement of the fibre tracts which connect the different regions of the cortex to each other.
The classical model can be found in the clinical work of the French Paul Broca, who in 1861 illustrated the posterior two thirds of the inferior frontal gyrus as the foundation for the ability to articulate language; like similar methods in modern times, this was based on observation on behavioural aspects in relation to brain lesions. Furthermore, appealing to the notion of “language epicentres” in 1874 it was German neurologist Carl Wernicke who observed patients difficulty understanding spoken language despite fluent articulation (Wernicke, 1874/1969); autopsies revealed lesions in the superior temporal gyrus leading to the conclusion that this region plays a crucial role in language comprehension, there is a strong conception that language emerges out of the interactions of such areas within the brain, more on the neurological basis of language and how malleable the mind can be, has been and may be revealed through findings related to atypical language (aphasia, language after congenital/acquired injury to the immature mind, and developmental disorders relating to language – dysphasia. Certain models have a spatial precision that is too limited to test specific hypothesis about brain and behaviour relationships, despite the speculation among language scientists that the Classic model should be obsolete, there is a survival of the model in both its prevalence and terminology uses.
The typically referred to in psycholinguistics areas ‘Broca’ and ‘Wernicke’ possess a scope to which they do not have cytoarchitectonic and myeloarchitectonic homogeneity; this has been acknowledged since the early twentieth century (Campbell, 1905; Smith, 1907) as well as in contemporary times (Dinov, & Toga, 2004; Goucha & Friederici, 2015). The acknowledgment of this helps us to realize how much of a dynamic and ubiquitous process language acquisition, comprehension and production is and the significance of meta communication. It is important to note the use of technology when attempts have been made to correlate structure to function within the brain, because the features or set of features certain patches of the cortex entails are still under examination, it is necessary for us to be precise and attentive when we want to make mention of the brain. Overtime we have gained settled and growing knowledge about phonological and syntactical structure as well as formulating an understanding about semantic/conceptual and spatial structures, this greatly supports the examination of the relationships among these layers and how they are encoded internally as well as outwardly expressed and the transference of non-meaningful to meaningful units (e.g. parsing). For example, the units connecting phonology and syntax may not be the same corresponding with syntax and conceptual structures; this touches upon the mapping and philosophical issues such as intentionality linguists can encounter. There is also the dilemma of the existence of many individual differences and cultural divergences when it comes to the neurological foundations of language. From afresh individuals can create speech and writing to embody internal symbols, so furthermore revealing the architecture of the human brain and the capabilities to generate and differentiate things throughout our life encounters. Even though language may be constrained by regularities statistical rules, the individual differences do unveil the cognitive system and the support of communication (even with ourselves) and how it is a pervasive part of having an experience of being a part of the homo-sapiens at a certain moment in evolution. Through our living experiences we try to use language to encode so much of what (even if only small pieces are outwardly expressed and shared) we experience, influences from the cultural systems we encounter may have a pervasive impact on the organization of the cognitive sphere. A striking facet of studying language through the lens of culture is that as language is so richly organized we may be able to make detailed measurements and predictions for possible cross-cultural variances or possible “universal” patterns in the cognitive system, hence the importance of linguists studying both individual cases as well as the prospective and cross-sectional studies, because of how dynamic the neurology of language seems to be. Another important reason to study the cultural influences on the fibres of the brain is that language seems to be a preserver for cultural principles, although the structure of languages change overtime it is rare to witness shifts at a large measure such as the revival of archaic grammatical structures in an instant, so maintenance is an aspect in ensuring longevity in certain practices and this somehow relates the hierarchies in the brain. Moreover, language warrants sharing and distributing, as language is not an optional skill to acquire if raised as a person of a group, no matter how small or how wide this group becomes throughout a lifetime, the surrounding influences may shape the neurons. For example, norms are created and reinforced through human interaction, so looking at a feature such as if a norm becomes preserved in morphological nouns, it could affect the cognitive arrangement. There are emerging approaches surrounding connectionist psycholinguistics, using human language data through computational constructions, particularly in relation to syntactic processing; structure dependency and recursion, for example are concepts related to symbolic processing. The connectionist models are useful for cognitive science in portraying neuronlike paradigms, such as the capacity to process syntax and how activation may be distributed.