  You might wonder, however, whether this latter kind of account really differs substantively from that of a nativist. Assuming that she does not reject adaptationism altogether, the nativist will presumably be  committed to the idea that the innate language organ, or faculty  embodying knowledge of UG, was derived from pre-existing structures  that were either functionless or had non-linguistic functions. These  structures subsequently acquired linguistic functions through being  selected for that reason: they became adaptations for language. But  so too would the various capacities postulated by Tomasello. As soon  as they started being used for language learning, that's to say, they would have been selected for that function (in addition to any other  functions they might serve, and always assuming that linguistic  abilities were on balance beneficial). Hence they too will over time  become adaptations for language. On both Tomasello's and the  nativist's view, in other words, the inborn structures responsible  for language acquisition will have acquired the biological function  of enabling language acquisition: they will be specialized for that  purpose. Is Tomasello, then, a nativist?