Having language is a uniquely human characteristic, yet language acquisition in children is not well understood. Most explanations involve the observation that children imitate what they hear and the assumption that humans have a natural ability to understand grammar. Behaviorist BF Skinner originally proposed that language must be learned and cannot be a module. The mind was made up of sensorimotor abilities and learning laws that govern gradual changes in the behavior of an organism (Skinner, BF, 1957). Noam Chomsky's review of Skinner's Verbal Behavior (Chomsky, 1959) challenged this belief by arguing that children learn languages ​​governed by highly subtle and abstract principles, and do so without explicit instruction or other environmental cues. Therefore, language acquisition must depend on an innate, species-specific module. Much of the debate over language acquisition has attempted to test this once revolutionary and still controversial collection of ideas. In this article I will discuss the evidence that supports Chomsky's view of language acquisition, along with the research that opposes his view. I will first present a brief overview of Chomsky's view on language acquisition, from there I will present supporting and opposing arguments from other researchers. Chomsky's linguistic theory is based on the following empirical fact: "children learn languages ​​with limited stimuli", or the poverty of evidence problem (Chomsky, 1959). Exposure to language is necessary for a language to be acquired, and so environment and education are not entirely left out of the equation. However, this theory states that a child is born with an innate predisposition to a... middle of paper... who can learn many things, and because we are extraordinary social animals who appreciate communication. Or language emerges anew in each generation, because it is the best solution to the problems we care about. Problems that only humans can solve. These are the debates that have raged for centuries in the various sciences that study language. Since research consistently points towards an innate mechanism responsible for our acquisition of language, I believe that the innatist view of language acquisition is partially correct. Where I think their view is wrong is when they claim that language will develop independently of the input. All the studies I looked at showed a correlation between language acquisition and the immediate language environment. Without adequate exposure to language, we are unable to acquire a broad linguistic faculty.