i think it was due to his "left-liberal" attitude which was/is "modern"; his linguistic theory itself is a very good example of a "trivialisation", science-theoretically speaking. brutally positivist ... ---- however, since i do not want to enter into this discussion (witih anybody), i only quote somebody else who pointed out a few mistakes of this theory a long time ago. so that i am not responsible for what is said here:

BEGIN QUOTE

The past fifteen years have witnessed a most curious linguistic bubble. This is/was the "Chomskyan revolution", or "generative adventure" (Danielsen 1972). The whole episode has no scientific merit (Maher 1975, Linell 1974, Itkonen 1974, Hammarström 1971, 1973, Danielsen 1972, 1973, Makkai 1975, Anttila 1975b; and many others, note particularly the bulk of articles of Makkai and Makkai (eds.) 1975, and Koerner (ed.) 1975). It was another camouflaged token of extreme American structuralism and behaviorism in particular, and as such it represents a big step backwards. The movement outdid also the negative aspects of the Neogrammarians, who instituted the following false steps (from Wilbur 1972):

1. Deliberate misinterpretation.

2. Emotional tone (nuova fede).

3. Formal position eliminates the need for explanation.

4. Rhetorical bows to the past.

5. Observation and description called explanation. 

Since the goal of Vennemann and Wilbur (1972) is to make Schuchardt and the transformationalists the good guys, Wilbur does not point out that these false steps apply equally well to the transformationalists (but see Anttila 1975d). [Anttila 1977: 1]

END QUOTE

REFERENCE:

Anttila, Raimo 1977: Analogy. The Hague, Paris, New York: Mouton (Trends in Linguistics. State-of-the-Art Reports 10).