【正文】 e is due to learning. With the development of science, scholars have gained better understanding about the nature of language and gradually deserted this view. Chomsky’s Innateness HypothesisThough his theories have undergone several stages of development and attacks on his theories never deceased, Noam Chomsky never waved his belief that humans are genetically programmed with knowledge about language. This belief of Chomsky is often referred to as the innateness hypothesis. The innateness hypothesis is the core of Chomsky’s explorations into the nature of language for all his theories of language nature are based on this innateness assumption. As he puts it, “No one finds it outlandish to ask the question: what genetic information accounts for the growth of arms instead of wings? Why should it be shocking to raise similar questions with regard to the brain and mental facilities?” (Chomsky, 1979: 84) Thus he tries to find out what is exactly innately imprinted for humans in his later works on Universal Grammar (UG), D and Sstructure, and minimalist program. Here it is worthy to point out that Chomsky also admits the necessity of learning in order to fully master a language. (Zhang amp。 Dai, 2008) Another Possibility of Language InnatenessA school of scholars hold the view that humans acquire language because of their general intelligence rather than special mental faculties for language. This view is popular in the field of cognitive linguistics since 1990s. Endowed with the general intelligence to solve puzzles and learn things, humans can learn and acplish almost anything within the capability of human (Sampson, 1980:178). To speak is just one of these activities human can learn. What should be pointed out and noted is that no special knowledge of language is preprogrammed in mind doesn’t mean language is not innate since to acquire or learn a language requires a series of innate capacity.2. DiscussionsIn this paper, instead of making judges on the two former mentioned views on the innateness of language or trying to determine which is right or better, the author intends to find proofs on the basis of former studies by scholars throughout the world to support the notion that a genetic basis is necessary for human to acquire language regardless the disputes over what is exactly innate. Biological EvidenceAs Jean Aitchison points out, “if an animal is innately programmed for some type of behavior, then there are likely to be biological clues” (Aitchison, 2000: 47). Birds can fly because they have wings. Similarly, human can talk may have its correspondent biological features as well. Therefore, numerous studies have been conducted, especially studies on aphasia and lateralization of human brain, in order to find the biological evidence for innate language capacity. Thus through close observation and experiment, it has been proved true that human vocal tract and brain have a number of slightly unusual features.First, human teeth are unusual pared with those of other animals. They are even in height, and form an unbroken barrier. They are evenly spaced and equalsized, making the articulation of a number of sounds possible and easier. Second, human lips have muscles which are considerably more developed and show more intricate interlacing than those in the lips of other primates and thus provides great favor for the articulation of a number of sounds. Third, human mouth is relatively small, and can be opened and shut rapidly. This makes it simple to pronounce sounds such as P and B, which requires a total stoppage of the airstream. Fourth, human tongue is thick, muscular and mobile which makes the articulation of a range of vowels possible. Fifth, human larynx is much simpler in structure than that of other primates which makes air move more freely