Chomsky's innateness hypothesis is based on his observations that some important facts can never be otherwise explained adequately.

乔姆斯基认为语是生的，儿童与生俱来的拥有种语学的能力，叫做" 语机制" 。这是种让他们适合语学的独特知识。乔指出儿童生被赋予种能力，不仅包括学语的趋势和潜能，还包括关于语性质的知识。从这种观点可看出，儿童生拥有语法关系及语法范畴的知识，并且这种知识是普遍的。这种处理语的方法，是对心理学的行为主义和哲学上的经验主义的种挑战，并使语学成为了心理学的支。乔姆斯基的赋假设是建立在他对些重要现象的观察的基础之上的，这些现象无法用其他的理论解释清楚。

So they both accept the innateness, but that there must be something innate.

因此，他们都认同语能力的先性，但认为必须存在某些具体的先特质。

And ultimately he's going to say, we're going to accept innateness in the sense of two, but reject it in terms of one.

最终他会说，我们将接受第二种意义上的先性，但拒绝第种意义上的先性。

11-1-2-1No Innate Ideas It is obvious that if Locke is going to say that all ideas come from experience, he must reject the theory of innateness.

11-1-2-1没有先的想法很明显，如果洛克要说所有的想法都来自经验，他必须拒绝先性理论。

Formalists, represented by Chomsky, argue that children are born with language talent(the innateness hypothesis), and they can acquire mother tongue with few efforts in a short time span.

以乔姆斯基为代表的形式主义者认为，儿童生来就具有语赋（先假说），他们可以在短时间内不费力气地母语。

So he says innateness in section three, he says it can be either, I mean, given by nature, or it can mean something that's binding in virtue of its nature.

因此，在第三部中，他提到“先性”时指出，它可以有两种含义：是指由自然赋予的，二是指因其本质而具有约束力的。

I want to jump back and just be less synoptic here, because I think when he says, let's just talk about this idea of innateness starting at section three, he does want to say there's something innate.

我想回到前面， 在这里不再那么概括性地讲述，因为我认为当他提到， “让我们从第三部开始， 专门讨论先性这概念”时，他确实想表达存在某种先性的东西。

So he brings up the Pythagorean theorem in section 5 because he wants to say, right, so he's distinguishing innateness in the sense of given by nature, right, so there are innate impulses and sentiments, which he calls prejudices.

因此， 他在第五部提到毕达哥拉斯定理， 是因为他想表达，他正在区那种由自然赋予的先性，即存在些由自然赋予我们的先冲动和情感，他称之为偏见。