How scientific is Chomsky's theory of linguistics

In this study, I have endeavoured to appraise and criticise Noam Chomsky's work in linguistics. My intention was to distinguish those parts of Chomsky's work that were non-scientific from those that were. I have concluded that, in large part, Chomsky's work is not comprised of scientific theories. Rather I claim that he has established a rationalist progressive research programme in linguistics. In support of this conclusion, I show that Chomsky's primary contribution to linguistic research has been his exposition of the history and philosophy of linguistics. Further, I show that this exposition is standardly presented to defend Chomsky's tacit claim: there is (and has been) a positive (metaphysical) heuristic guiding successful linguistic research since at least the time of the influence of the Port-Royal Grammar. This heuristic is better known as the innateness hypothesis--there is an essence of language and it is inborn.;In this study I have presented: the relevant history of the study of language especially with regard to the use of the innateness hypothesis; the relevant history of method in science; and the basics of Chomsy's work in linguistics. Finally, to contrast with my claim that Chomsky's contribution is primarily a Lakatosian research programme, I examine the claim that Quine's neo-empiricist work on language makes him the leading current proponent of a behaviourist linguistic research programme.