>>10407636Short answer, no. Most critics of the theory in its broadest sense are incredibly and unfairly uncharitable to it, and I feel that most linguists who are adamantly against it project certain assumptions that they have of it, such as that it necessarily implies a 'logical positivist' conception of meaning, onto it while ignoring that Chomsky himself denies that his work is incompatible with fuzzier and 'messier' pragmatic approaches to language. Chomsky's ideas still do predict specific aspects of language that we do not otherwise have a better explanation for. The following article explore s this a bit:
https://munin.uit.no/bitstream/handle/10037/10310/article.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=yNow having said that, there do exist more meaningful criticisms of Chomsky's specific approaches to the study of any possible UG aspects of language, such as Ray Jackendoff's, but which still meaningfully work within a structuralist approach to grammar.
