This is not the main topic in this post, but clearing this misconception is fundamental if we want good communication

between paradigms.
To read the following, forget that you think you know what "UG" means.
There are no current anti-UG theories. Just different theories of what UG is. UG is, by definition, all cognitive capacities that
make humans capable of learning a language. Let's distinguish five possible different positions about the nature of UG:
1. UG doesn't exist. Cognitive capacities play no role in language acquisition or they simply don't exist.
2. UG exists and encompasses allhuman cognitive capacities, none of which specifies anything about language.
3. UG exists and ecompasses somehuman cognitive capacities, the rest is the same as above.
4. UG exists and encompasses some/all human cognitive capacities, which specify at least some things about language
(say, what human voices sound like, or perhaps the set of possible phonological features, or whatever).
5. UG exists and encompasses some human cognitive capacities which are used exclusively for language-learning, and
language acquisition happens solely through these domain-specific capacities.
No theory I know of states (1). Some philosophers may state something of the sort. Most scientists claiming they are "against
UG" actually believe something between (3) and (4). That's because the term "UG" has been used quite differently in the
generative tradition and the anti-generative tradition. A very unfortunate thing.
The generative notion of UG falls within (4), and not (5), as many people seem to believe for some reason. Most or all theories
I know of fall within (4), in fact. I know of no theory that denies that babies come into this world with some sort of capacity for
distinguishing the human voice from background noise and/or an instruction to pay attention to human voices. I suppose it's
possible for some theories to state (2) or (3) but I don't know of any. (Again, there's quite a few linguists who claim to not
believe in any "domain-specific faculty of language", but they're using the term in some other way, as they don't seem to deny
what I just mentioned about the human voice and so on)
I'm not arguing there aren't important discussions about the nature of UG, but they are much less polarised than some of the
literature would make you believe. Most people who claim to be against UG are actually against UGs of type (4) which include
a lot of information about syntax. That's an important discussion, and one definitely worth having. It's also clear that the
generative tradition has always posited UGs with a lot of information about syntax, I'm not saying that's not the case.
This distinction is very important, because one day you'll read a generativist saying UG is a conceptual necessity and, if you
don't know they mean that cognitive capacities play a role in language acquisition is a conceptual necessity; and instead you
interpret UG the way the anti-generativist tradition defines it (a type (4) UG with a lot of information about how syntax works)
then you'll think that generativist is saying my theory is a conceptual necessity, which would be nonsensical pedantry, and
you'd probably get all angry and stuff.