In an alternative to Chomsky’s "Universal Grammar," scientists explore language’s fundamental design constraints.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-understand-the-deep-structures-of-language
Starting with pioneering work by Joseph Greenberg, scholars have cataloged over two thousand linguistic universals (facts true of all languages) and biases (facts true of most languages).
Since we became aware of just how tightly constrained the variation in human language is, researchers have struggled to find an explanation. Perhaps the most famous account is Chomsky's Universal Grammar hypothesis, which argues that humans are born with innate knowledge about many of the features of language (e.g., languages distinguish subjects and objects), which would not only explain cross-linguistic universals but also perhaps how language learning gets off the ground in the first place.
Over the years, Universal Grammar has become increasingly controversial for a number of reasons, one of which is the arbitrariness of the theory: The theory merely replaces the question of why we have the languages we have, and not others, with the question of why we have the Universal Grammar we have, and not another one.
As an alternative, a number of researchers have explored the possibility that some universals in language fall out of necessary design constraints.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-understand-the-deep-structures-of-language