I thought there was evidence against Universal Grammar. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-chomsky-s-theory-of-language-learning/ https

I thought there was evidence against Universal Grammar. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-chomsky-s-theory-of-language-learning/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/evidence-rebuts-c... > A key flaw in Chomsky’s theories is that when applied to language learning, they stipulate that young children come equipped with the capacity to form sentences using abstract grammatical rules. (The precise ones depend on which version of the theory is invoked.) Yet much research now shows that language acquisition does not take place this way. Instead young children begin by learning simple grammatical patterns; then, gradually, they intuit the rules behind them bit by bit. Chomsky's work is important, but the main part of it doesn't seem to be holding up under prolonged study. (Don't take my word for it, though, I know very little about the formal study of linguistics.)