As a generative linguist I don't really see this. Popular perceptions fluctuate, but the field is still carrying on more or less the same. Nothing in particular has been discovered in the past few years that would give anyone cause to abandon generative linguistics.
I think this is the prevailing view within linguistics departments (with a few exceptions). Statistical NLP, machine learning, computational anthropology, developmental psychology, etc. are all increasingly reliant on the non-generative work coming out of psycholinguistics and child language acquisition (Levy, Jaeger, Gibson, Wasow, Tomasello, Lieven, Bannard if you want some names).
I don't think there's much of a shift there. You're talking about fields which never had much of a connection with generative linguistics, and where there's no logical reason to think that results in generative linguistics should be particularly relevant or helpful. (Who ever thought that Barriers would have anything to tell us about computational anthropology?)
Generative linguistics is in fact increasingly relevant to NLP, since people are moving towards more complex language models. That's not to say that cutting edge research in syntax is going to be helpful to people trying to solve practical NLP problems, but by the same token, string theory isn't much use if you're trying to build a bridge. It tends to be the basic and well-established results within a field that have useful applications outside it.
I feel like people who make claims like the above are a bit divorced from reality. What would have usurped it as the reigning theory of syntax? OT Syntax? Maybe some sort of extension of DM (itself a spawn of generative ideas)...? Functionalist approaches are still a thing, but I don't think they're any more in vogue than they were 20 years ago.
NLP/Comp Ling is another story entirely, of course, as are semantics, pragmatics, experimental ling, phono pursuits, etc. But for hard syntactic theory I don't think the generative ling is going anywhere.
I mentioned in another comment that linguistics is a multi-paradigmatic field, with different paradigms having different conferences and professional networks. this is the consequence: generative linguists are increasingly out of step with the field as a whole, and yet satisfied with the level of research, publications, &c.
Couldn't you say the same thing about any of the other paradigms? Everyone likes to think that they'e forging ahead on the one true path and leaving the others behind.
