Universal Grammar

For all the information we are given in the chapters we read for the week in Saville-Troike and Lightbrown/Spada, I have found the most interesting topic is that of Universal Grammar.

Universal Grammar, as we have read, is part of Chomsky's theory on second language acquisition. It is one of three major theories that, in their turn, have each been replaced by the more recent. These three were, according to Saville-Troike:

Contrastive Analysis
Error Analysis
and
Monitor Model (which was based off Chomsky's metaphor for children's innate knowledge of language.)

Universal grammar plays a role in the Monitor Model of SLA theory but it is not entirely explained. According to Chomsky, universal grammar is the innate knowledge of children to acquire language. We all have the ability to acquire language, outside of the poverty of stimulus. The book by Saville-Troike discusses the idea that universal grammar is what all languages have in common but from what I've learned, and this is where my confusion comes in, universal grammar is an 'innate knowledge of language'. I suppose my idea of innate knowledge of language is that a child has the ability to learn any given language if they are exposed to said language, thus universal grammar is not necessarily what all languages have in common but it lays the framework for the child to focus in on a certain grammar of a certain language. When a child is born, it may be entirely possible that they have a grammar of all languages but as they grow older, those other grammars are faded out to make way for the native tongue. This being my own personal views on universal grammar, it then confused me quite a bit to read about how they believe universal grammar is what all languages have in common when it never seemed that way to me.

Do I have to relearn universal grammar now or am I on the right track?

peace & grace,
Kiersten