  This ambiguity is important when one is evaluating Chomskyan claims  that we have innate knowledge of UG. For on the first reading of  ‘Universal Grammar’ distinguished above, that claim will  be true so long as any form of nativism turns out to be true of language learners (i.e., so long as they possess any  inborn knowledge about language). On the second reading, however, it  is possible that learners have innate knowledge of language  without that knowledge's being knowledge of UG (as currently described by linguists): learners might know things about language,  yet not know Binding Theory, or the Principle of Structure  Dependence, etc.