Chomskys viewpoints:

Children are biologically programmed for language and language develops in

the child in just the same way that other biological functions develop.
The environment makes only a basic contribution, that is, the availability of
people who speak to the child. Therefore, the childs biological endowment
(LAD) will do the rest.
Children are born with a specific innate ability to discover for themselves the
underlying rules of a language system on the basis of the samples of a natural
language they are exposed to.
Chomsky argues that behaviorism cannot provide sufficient explanations for childrens
language acquisition for the following reasons:
Children come to know more about the structure of their language than they
could be expected to learn on the basis of the samples of language they hear.
The language children are exposed to includes false starts, incomplete
sentences and slips of the tongue, and yet they learn to distinguish between
grammatical and ungrammatical sentences.
Children are by no means systematically corrected or instructed on language
by parents.
LAD (an imaginary black box existing somewhere in the brain):
LAD contains the principles which are universal to all human languages (i.e..
Universal Grammar UG).
For the LAD to work, children need access only to samples of a natural
language, which serve as a trigger to activate the device.
Once the LAD is activated, children are able to discover the structure of the
language to be learned by matching the innate knowledge of basic
grammatical principles (UG) to the structures of the particular language in the
environment.
Evidence used to support Chomskys innatist position:
Virtually all children successfully learn their native language at a time in life
when they would not be expected to learn anything else so complicated (i.e.
biologically programmed).
Language is separate from other aspects of cognitive developments (e.g.,
creativity and social grace) and may be located in a different module" of the
brain.
The language children are exposed to does not contain examples of all the
linguistic rules and patterns.
Animals cannot learn to manipulate a symbol system as complicated as the
natural language of a 3- or 4-year-old child.
Children acquire grammatical rules without getting explicit instruction.
Therefore, childrens acquisition of grammatical rules is probably guided by
principle of an innate UG which could apply to all languages.
The biological basis for the innatist position:
The Critical Period Hypothesis (CPH)
Lenneberg: There is a specific and limited time period (i.e., critical period) for the LAD
to work successfully.
The best evidence for the CPH is that virtually every child learns language on a similar
schedule in spite of different environments.
Three case studies of abnormal language development - evidence of the CPH
(Read the case studies on pp. 19-21).

1. Victor a boy of about 12 years old (1799)

2. Genie a girl of 13 years old (1970)
 3. Deaf signers (native signers, early learners, vs. late learners)
2. Problems of Innatism:
1. The innatists placed too much emphasis on the final state (i.e. the linguistic
competence of adult native speakers), but not enough on the developmental
aspects of language acquisition.
2. Language acquisition is an example of childrens ability to learn from
experience. What children need to know is essentially available in the language
they are exposed to.