I don't see how language instruction as instinct could be compared to a machine. A machine metaphor implies that somebody designed and installed the ability to acquire language, not that people came out of the uterus with the ability to acquire language, which is what instinct/genetically pre-wired means in my mind.

The examples UG people typically give are that 3 year olds pick up language without having the foggiest idea about complex grammatical concepts or structures, they just know them. That to me is what is meant by 'instinct'.

@Putin33

Are you saying that it's *not* true that people are born with an ability to acquire language, without consciously and explicitly knowing grammatical concepts? Almost everyone acquires language, and almost no one can describe the grammar they use themselves.

I don't think most neurologically typical people are "programmed" for language through instruction. It's instinct reinforced with cues and corrections from speakers to learners, which is what I meant when I agreed with you that immersion alone doesn't cut it. There has to be guidance as well.

What is this speech therapy evidence you're referring to? If someone has a cognitive deficit for acquiring language, then clearly other methods need to be tried. But that doesn't mean that instinct plus guidance doesn't typically suffice.