Language according to Noam Chomsky

Language, according to Noam Chomsky: 

“There are several reasons why language has been and will continue to be of particular significance for the study of human nature.”

One is that language appears to be a true species property, unique to the human species in its essential and common part of our shared biological endowment.

Furthermore language enters in a crucial way into thought, action, and social relations.

Finally, language is relatively accessible to study. In this respect the topic is quite different from others that we would hope to address: problem solving, artistic creativity, and other aspects of human life and activity.”

Upon reflection on his principles, there are some points I would like to make and ask for your opinion.

As a nativist, Chomsky tends to believe language to be an innate ability. With this principle and its derivatives, he has almost driven the radical behaviorists like Skinner et al into extinction. Has anybody proved him wrong? How?

Chomsky seems to put it that language comes before thought and action. Others may argue that the reverse is also true. Many, fed up with this chicken-and-egg debate, seem not to care of what appears to come first, so they choose to ignore it. I have found this sort of debate cognitively stimulating.

Lastly, language is something not easy to define, but possible to study systematically. We are not alone, though. Artists have troubles defining what ‘beauty’ is. Biologists cannot satisfactorily define the word ‘life’. Trying to figure out what ‘ matter’ is always gives physicists headaches.

What do you think?