According to Noam Chomsky, children can speak or form sentences even without

formal education because it is natural for them to learn a language. Because they have
grammar buried in their minds, this will also serve as their guide in constructing
sentences. According to Chomsky and other linguists, despite our worldwide linguistic
diversity ranging from 5000 to 6000, We still have sentence construction similarities.
Linguists believe it is a "universal grammar" that is inherent in the human brain and is
stored there.
I don't disagree with it exactly, but I find it highly unconvincing, for a number of reasons.

1. The argument for the poverty of the stimulus, which is the motivation for universal
grammar, is based on a mixture of misunderstanding and logical fallacies.

2. UG (Universal Grammar) does not provide a solution in any way. In essence, the
argument for UG is an argument from ignorance, a god of the gaps. I don’t know
how babies could learn something as complex as language from the finite input
they get, so it must be innate. But we have absolutely no idea how something like
UG could be instantiated in our genes or our brains. To the extent to which UG is
a testable hypothesis at all, it can only ever be disproved, and will only ever
explain those things for which we have no better explanation. however, it has
been shown that animals perform behavior that necessitates recursion. If
recursion with statistical learning of the input is not sufficient to explain language,
then recursion is not UG.