An aspect of first language acquisition I found interesting was the debate between nativism and empiricism. Nativist scientists believe we are born with linguistic knowledge and empiricists believe imitation of others is how linguistic knowledge grows. If given a choice I would say data-driven empiricist belief is stronger than the pre-programmed generative theory of universal grammar by Noam Chomsky because I believe that when babies are born they have a blank canvas of a brain. In other words, our brains are not necessarily empty, but they are ready to be painted/learn from the knowledge we gain from people around us at an early age. 

Nativism does make a good argument about explicit teaching not being necessary because some children learn without a conversation being directly about them. Imitation is not the sole reason for learning nor does it explain how kids can say/do new things without seeing or hearing it. Mimicry lacks originality, therefore how can new things be made without some sort of formula? Focusing too much on mimicry might be supporting an argument for having no free will.

Despite favoring empiricism over nativism I think both can be true and are essential to understanding more about linguistics. Every person has different experiences with learning due to circumstances they can’t control. Some learn naturalistically and others are instructed. It’s like the nature versus nurture argument. Our environment against genes or how they were taken care of at birth. Both nature and nurture play a huge role and having a positive combination of both is a privilege many are not born into. Both mimicry and universal grammar are used by children fortunate enough to be able to get both. Those less unfortunate may be forced to rely on universal grammar or mimicry. Whichever way will help them survive will be the dominant way of learning a language for them.