You could check out Chomsky's "Language and Mind" where he dissociates himself from Structuralism. It nicely contrasts with Newmeyer's article "Has There Been a 'Chomskyan Revolution' in Linguistics?" in which he states that "one can, with good

reason, refer to Chomsky as a 'structuralist'." In the end, it boils down the question of which aspect of Structuralism/Generativism you focus on or consider as central; in one aspect Chomsky is a pure Structuralist, in another aspect he is not.

Thanks a lot, Simon for sharing your views. I search still continues for other positions on the question.

Generally, Chomsky suggests that the basic principles of any language are determined in the mind and that all human beings share the same principal linguistic structure, regardless of socio-cultural differences. For a starting point, see his Syntactic Structures and Logical Structure of Linguistic Theory (1955, 75).

You may be interested in taking a look at Claude Hagège, Critical reflections on generative grammar, Lake Bluff (Ill.), Jupiter Press (Edward Sapir

Monographs Series in Language, Culture and Cognition, 10), 1981 ( = La grammaire générative. Réflexions critiques, Paris, PUF, 1976).

I strongly recommend John E. Joseph's collection of essays. From Whitney to Chomsky: Essays in the history of American linguistics, John Benjamins, 2002, for the relationship between Chomsky and Structuralism.

By observing that some important facts had never been analyzed adequately in structuralism , Chomsky gave an innateness hypothesis.Chomsky insists that if children are not born with a predisposition to acquire a language in almost the same way as they are born with the innate ability to walk, these phenomena (learning different parts of linguistic structures will never be possible.