Abstract
Tulane University The principle of cyclic application of rules has been important since Chomsky's Aspects. However, this principle has been called into question; and Grinder 1972 has argued that many examples thought to support the cycle do not, in fact, do so. Grinder discusses cases where rules must re-apply in certain derivations (e.g., Passive must apply, then Raising, then Passive again in the derivation of Alice was believed by us to have been kidnapped by Hector), and he argues that these cases can be explained without the use of a cycle. However, a new class of arguments has recently appeared, based on a theory without extrinsic ordering (cf. Koutsoudas 1973a): it has been claimed that the cycle must be used to explain why, in some derivations, a given rule must apply before another rule. I show that these arguments do not support the cycle, for in each instance some principle of grammar other than the cycle can explain the precedence of application of one of the rules.*
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callSimilar Papers
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
