Editing Minimalist program (section)

== Criticisms ==
In the late 1990s, [[David E. Johnson]] and Shalom Lappin published the first detailed critiques of Chomsky's minimalist program.<ref>Johnson, David E. and Shalom Lappin (1997), "A Critique of the Minimalist Program" in ''Linguistics and Philosophy'' 20, 273–333, and Johnson, David E. and Shalom Lappin (1999). ''Local Constraints vs Economy.'' Stanford: CSLI</ref> This technical work was followed by a lively debate with proponents of minimalism on the scientific status of the program.<ref>* Lappin, Shalom, Robert Levine and David E. Johnson (2000a). "The Structure of Unscientific Revolutions." ''[[Natural Language and Linguistic Theory]]'' 18, 665–771</ref><ref>Lappin, Shalom, Robert Levine and David E. Johnson (2000b). "The Revolution Confused: A Reply to our Critics." ''[[Natural Language and Linguistic Theory]]'' 18, 873–890</ref><ref>Lappin, Shalom, Robert Levine and David E. Johnson (2001). "The Revolution Maximally Confused." ''[[Natural Language and Linguistic Theory]]'' 19, 901–919</ref> The original article provoked several replies<ref>{{cite journal|last=Holmberg|first=Anders|year=2000|title=Am I Unscientific? A Reply to Lappin, Levine, and Johnson|journal=[[Natural Language & Linguistic Theory]]|volume=18|issue=4|pages=837–842|doi=10.1023/A:1006425604798|s2cid=169909919}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Reuland|first=Eric|year=2000|title=Revolution, Discovery, and an Elementary Principle of Logic|journal=[[Natural Language & Linguistic Theory]]|volume=18|issue=4|pages=843–848|doi=10.1023/A:1006404305706|s2cid=169181486}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Roberts|first=Ian|year=2000|title=Caricaturing Dissent|journal=[[Natural Language & Linguistic Theory]]|volume=18|issue=4|pages=849–857|doi=10.1023/A:1006408422545|s2cid=189900101}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Piattelli-Palmarini|first=Massimo|year=2000|title=The Metric of Open-Mindedness|journal=[[Natural Language & Linguistic Theory]]|volume=18|issue=4|pages=859–862|doi=10.1023/A:1006460406615|s2cid=169864677}}</ref><ref>{{cite journal|last=Uriagereka|first=Juan|year=2000|title=On the Emptiness of 'Design' Polemics|journal=[[Natural Language & Linguistic Theory]]|volume=18|issue=4|pages=863–871|doi=10.1023/A:1006412507524|s2cid=170071816}}</ref> and two further rounds of replies and counter-replies in subsequent issues of the same journal.

Lappin et al. argue that the minimalist program is a radical departure from earlier Chomskyan linguistic practice that is not motivated by any new empirical discoveries, but rather by a general appeal to ''perfection'', which is both empirically unmotivated and so vague as to be unfalsifiable. They compare the adoption of this paradigm by linguistic researchers to other historical paradigm shifts in natural sciences and conclude that of the minimalist program has been an "unscientific revolution", driven primarily by Chomsky's authority in linguistics. The several replies to the article in ''Natural Language and Linguistic Theory'' Volume 18 number 4 (2000) make a number of different defenses of the minimalist program. Some claim that it is not in fact revolutionary or not in fact widely adopted, while others agree with Lappin and Johnson on these points, but defend the vagueness of its formulation as not problematic in light of its status as a research program rather than a theory (see above).

Prakash Mondal has published a book-length critique of the minimalist model of grammar, arguing that there are a number of contradictions, inconsistencies and paradoxes within the formal structure of the system. In particular, his critique examines the consequences of adopting some rather innocuous and widespread assumptions or axioms about the nature of language as adopted in the Minimalist model of the language faculty.<ref>Mondal, Prakash (2014). Language, Mind and Computation. London/New York: Palgrave Macmillan.</ref>

Developments in the minimalist program have also been critiqued by Hubert Haider, who has argued that minimalist studies routinely fail to follow scientific rigour. In particular, data compatible with hypotheses are filed under confirmation whereas crucial counter-evidence is largely ignored or shielded off by making ad hoc auxiliary assumptions. Moreover, the supporting data are biased towards [[Subject-verb-object|SVO]] languages and are often based on the linguist's introspection rather attempts to gather data in an unbiased manner by experimental means. Haider further refers to the appeal to an authority figure in the field, with dedicated followers taking the core premises of minimalism for granted as if they were established facts.<ref>{{Cite journal  |last=Haider |first=Hubert |date=2018 |title=On Minimalist theorizing and scientific ideology in grammar theory |url=http://rgdoi.net/10.13140/RG.2.2.15886.82242|language=en |doi=10.13140/RG.2.2.15886.82242|s2cid=210177085}}</ref>