  In sum, the neuroscientific evidence currently available provides no  support for linguistic nativism. The suggestion that localization of  function is indicative of a substantial degree of innate  prespecification is no longer tenable: localization can arise in many different ways. In addition, linguistic functions do not seem to be  particularly localized: language use and understanding are complex  tasks, involving many different brain areas — areas that are in at least some cases implicated also in other tasks. It is hard to see how to reconcile these facts with the Chomskyan postulation of a  monolithic ‘language organ,’ the development or  ‘growth’ of which is controlled largely by the genes.  Finally, the fact that complex functions can be learned and carried  out by areas of brain that are innately ‘prewired’ (if at all) to do quite different sorts of processing indicates that such  competences can be and are acquired without any inborn, task-specific guidance. This is not, of course, to say that language is one of the  competences that are acquired in this way. For all the current  evidence shows, many areas of cortex in which language develops may  indeed be ‘prewired’ for that task: linguistic nativism  is still consistent with what is now known. It is, however, to  suggest that although there may be other reasons to be a linguistic  nativist, general considerations to do with brain organization or  development as currently understood give no especial support to that  position.