The idea that we have brains hardwired with a mental template for learning grammar—famously espoused by Noam Chomsky of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology—has dominated linguistics for almost half a century. Recently, though, cognitive scientists and linguists have abandoned Chomsky’s “universal grammar” theory in droves because of new research examining many different languages—and the way young children learn to understand and speak the tongues of their communities. That work fails to support Chomsky’s assertions.Chomsky was given way too much authority in his field, even to the extent that, should you disagree with even a portion of his thesis, one would be labeled by some noxious term. Much of that is because he managed to turn his crackpot notions into political theory that was advantageous for ideologues.
The research suggests a radically different view, in which learning of a child’s first language does not rely on an innate grammar module. Instead the new research shows that young children use various types of thinking that may not be specific to language at all—such as the ability to classify the world into categories (people or objects, for instance) and to understand the relations among things. These capabilities, coupled with a unique human ability to grasp what others intend to communicate, allow language to happen.
The fact that his theory dominated the bulk of educational philosophy for the past half-century may explain why many under the age of fifty can't write a proper sentence or express a coherent thought. It may even be why debate and discussion have devolved into screaming matches, legislative "silencing" of opponents, and the need for grown people on college campuses to have "safe spaces" complete with toys and stuffed animals.