Here's what we know:
Evidence supporting the "pre-wired" argument:
* Universality of language: All human cultures have language, suggesting a universal biological basis.
* Rapid language acquisition: Children acquire language incredibly quickly, even in complex environments.
* Critical period for language acquisition: Children who are not exposed to language during a critical period (roughly from birth to puberty) have difficulty acquiring it later.
* Specific brain regions for language: Brain imaging studies show that specific areas of the brain are dedicated to language processing.
* Universal grammar: Linguists like Noam Chomsky have proposed that humans have an innate "universal grammar" that guides language learning.
Counterarguments:
* Role of environment: While humans have a biological predisposition for language, the specific language they learn is heavily influenced by their environment.
* Variations in language: While there are some universal language features, there is also significant variation in language structures and sounds across cultures.
* Neurological plasticity: The brain is incredibly plastic and can adapt to different language experiences.
* Evolutionary adaptation: Some researchers argue that language is a product of evolutionary adaptation, not innate wiring.
Conclusion:
The evidence suggests that humans are born with a biological predisposition for language acquisition. However, this does not mean that language is fully determined by our genes. Our environment plays a crucial role in shaping the specific language we learn. It is likely that both innate capacities and environmental factors contribute to language development.
In summary, while humans are not born with a specific language pre-programmed into their brains, they possess an innate capacity for language acquisition, which is further shaped and developed through exposure to language and interaction with their environment.