186 1 year, French surgeon and neuroanatomist Paul Brooke published an interesting case at an anthropological conference held in Paris: patients can understand others' words and communicate with others with facial expressions and gestures, but it is very difficult to speak, and they can only say the word "tan". What is the reason? The results showed nothing: the patient's speech-related muscles and vocal organs were completely normal. The truth didn't come out until the patient died after autopsy. There is an injury in the back of the inferior frontal gyrus in the left hemisphere of his brain, the size of an egg. This shows that the reason for not being able to speak is not the vocal organs, but the brain. This lesion is located just in front of the area of the cerebral cortex that controls the movement of oropharyngeal muscles, which is obviously related to the completion of pronunciation and speech by oropharyngeal muscles. Therefore, Blocker assumed that this was the location of the language center of the brain. In the same year, a similar case was found in Bullokar. Later, he collected more similar cases. Blocker's idea has been confirmed. It is worth noting that the focus of all these cases is in the left hemisphere of the brain. 1885, Blocker published his paper "We Speak with the Left Hemisphere of the Brain". This paper reveals that the brain is the organ of language generation and command, points out where the language center is, and shows that different parts of the cerebral cortex have different division of labor, which lays the foundation for the functional orientation theory of the cerebral cortex and becomes a milestone in the history of brain science development. Shortly thereafter, many scholars published articles to support Blocker's view, and called the posterior part of the inferior frontal gyrus of the cerebral hemisphere Bullokar area, which is recognized as the location of the center of human language movement. Is the language center "just this one, no branch"? 1874, German neurologist Karl Wernicke reported another case: the patient could speak on his own initiative and his hearing was very normal. Strangely, however, he couldn't understand other people's works or even his own words. Autopsy results showed that there were lesions in the superior temporal gyrus of the cerebral hemisphere. Therefore, wernicke speculates that this area is related to language understanding and is the center of language perception. Later, some scientists named this area Wernicke District. Now, Wernicke's area is a vast area of the temporal lobe and parietal lobe in the back of the cerebral hemisphere. Bullokar District and Wernicke District constitute the main parts of the language center. However, there are still great differences on the issue of language center. The above is the view of the positioning school. British neuroscientist Jackson and others stand on the side of anti-localization. They believe that language is the function of the whole brain, not limited to a certain part. The occurrence of language is the combination of different signals in different parts of the cerebral cortex. Once the brain is ill, there will be different degrees of language combination disorder and language disorder due to the different scope of the lesion. The two factions expressed their opinions, and the debate was very fierce. Because broca District and Wernicke District have been recognized by the scientific community, the positioning school has an advantage in the debate, but the debate has not stopped. 1906, Pierre Marie, a French neurologist, re-examined the brains of the patients listed in Blocker's report, and thought that the damaged area in the patients' brains was much larger than that reported by Blocker. Therefore, she publicly declared: "broca District is invalid in the function of human language." From this perspective, the debate continues. Can the language center recognized by the localization school be regarded as the core part in charge of language activities, and can the extensive areas related to language in the brain advocated by the anti-localization school be regarded as the relevant parts in charge of language activities? At present, there is still a lack of evidence, and it is too early to draw conclusions.