I think an example is in order because this really hits a spot on this cultural analysis debate that I think everyone is missing. We often lean on the side of i

I think an example is in order because this really hits a spot on this cultural analysis debate that I think everyone is missing. We often lean on the side of innateness which the theory that we want to prove has a domain whose scope is really big — "innateness" is the formulation of words necessary to describe the phenomenon within the speech genre underway. The point behind Chomsky sentences is that truth plays a role in language, all language, even scientific language, which is not always necessarily and sufficiently conditioned by the morphological construction presently being given attention, or what can we call an object of intention. So, the point here is that lots of theories exist, but regardless of their linguistic narrative, they tend to fail at larger orders of abstraction. There are two absolutely perfect examples. 1. Most families don't celebrate Mother's Day. 2. Cross-country runners are breed, not born. 1 not only is a combination of both, but we behave very often as if it were false. We have such a trait in virtue of an innate quality, namely of having a mother. Yet we all learned not by any conscious effort to warn ourselves from the principle; it's part and parcel of our "innate" characteristic. With 2, I often hear this expressed in terms of geological factors. Does the environment at any given time contribute to the innate material our theory describes?