  In this entry, ‘Universal Grammar’ will always be used in the second of these senses, to refer to a specific theory as to the  content of learners' innate knowledge of language. Where the issue  concerns merely their having some or other innate knowledge  about language (and is neutral on the question of whether any  particular theory about that knowledge is true), I will talk of  ‘innate linguistic information.’ Clearly, an argument to  the effect that speakers have inborn knowledge of UG entails the  claim that they have innate linguistic information at their disposal. The reverse, however, is not the case: there might be reason to think that a speaker knows something about language innately, without its  constituting reason to think that what they know is Universal Grammar as described by Chomksyan linguists; Chomksy might be right that we  have innate knowledge about language, but wrong about what the  content of that knowledge is. These issues will be  clarified, as necessary, below.