Sources used in this document:

Although it seems rather complex, Chomsky's innateness hypothesis is perhaps the most easily obtained explanation of children's ability to learn a language. Human beings are programmed with a whole host of cognitive abilities when they are born. We have the instinct to suck, learn how to walk without necessarily being taught, and can think without lessons in how to do so, although we may need training or a specific environment to learn how to think critically, analyze deeply, or produce philosophical arguments. Chomsky's hypothesis simply suggests that language is similar to these other innate abilities that humans can achieve through cognition. In fact, in 1973, Golinkoff noted that children's ability to comprehend and acquire language might be linked to other types of cognitive acquisition, such as the agent -- recipient relationship. Still, Chomsky's theory of language acquisition is the most commonly accepted theory regarding the subject. The theory applies to children's development of words, morphology, and sentences, or syntax. Children also develop meaning, semantics, through properties of language acquisition. But can Chomsky's innateness hypothesis alone really explain how children acquire language? Does this mean that children will acquire language in the same way whether they live with parents who encourage them in developing their linguistic skills or parents who do not see the value of this reinforcement? Considering specifically the acquisition of semantics, I argue that children's language acquisition is a combination of both nature -- or innateness -- and nurture -- or environment.

I. The Role of Innateness in Semantic Acquisition

Chomsky has successfully shown that innateness, or universal grammar, plays an important role of children's acquisition of semantics. The third stage in a series of language acquisition steps, the acquisition of semantics suggests, along with the acquisition of morphology and syntax, that children create grammars (Fromkin et al., 2007, 322). At a relatively young age, children begin to understand sentences, and the meanings that sentences are attempting to communicate. Fromkin et al. (2007) mention one study where children as young as 17 months demonstrated their abilities to understand the differences in the sentences, "Ernie is tickling Bert," and, "Bert is Tickling Ernie" (p. 333). In an experiment that caused a significant reaction, Bortfeld at al. (2005) demonstrated young infants' ability to segment sentences. In fact, the researchers suggested that babies as young as six months old were able to use familiar words in