Explaining what? Time for nuance in the field of neurobiology of language

Advancements in studying language and the brain have led to important findings but also heated debates regarding the neurobiological basis of language. Despite ongoing discussions and recognition of some of the problems the field faces, the debate remains unresolved. We believe this is unsurprising as the fundamental causes of the disagreement are not addressed, that is, the core assumption that we should aim to find a single, definitive description of the neurobiological basis of language. Here, we discuss three critical sets of problems with the way questions in our field are being asked and answered: Problems with defining ‘language’, problems with identifying the neurobiological basis of language, and problems with overlooking the goal-dependence of research. Our analysis shows that, counterintuitively, all positions in the current debate –from “the language network is localised”, “the language network does not exist”, to “language is widely distributed”–can be regarded as both correct and incorrect. This is because each one of these claims can only be evaluated in the context of the research goal, conceptualisation of language, specific operationalisations, and chosen degree of abstraction. We conclude that we should use the wiggle room in defining language and identifying its neurobiological basis to our advantage. Adopting a ‘pluralist view’, a position that is increasingly influential in cognitive neuroscience and philosophy of neuroscience, would do justice to language as a multifaceted phenomenon. This will generate more nuanced answers that–thanks to, rather than despite this complexity–may prove to be more fruitful in the long run.