Bickerton believes that children can learn language only because they already know one, namely, the bioprogram. It is interesting to note at this point the similarity between Bickerton’s reasoning and that of Chomsky: both assume that the child’s exposure to degenerate or impoverished input leads to the conclusion that there must be an innate language acquisition device, for how else could children learn language if they are not pre-programmed? One could however argue that it is instead Chomsky’s and Bickerton’s impoverished imaginations and highly restricted database rather than the allegedly meagre input which children are supposed to receive which brings them to argue “how else?”.
- Romaine (1988), a pag.275