Hostname: page-component-89b8bd64d-46n74 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-05-06T19:56:14.025Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On some non-evidence for the cycle in syntax

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Ronald Neeld
Ronald Neeld*
Affiliation:
Tulane University
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

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.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 52 , Issue 1 , March 1976 , pp. 51 - 60
Copyright
Copyright © 1976 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Grinder, J. 1971. Chains of coreference. LI 2.183–202.Google Scholar
Grinder, J. 1972. On the cycle in syntax. Syntax and semantics I, ed. by Kimball, J., 81–111. New York: Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koutsoudas, A. 1971. Gapping, conjunction reduction, and coordinate deletion. Foundations of Language 7.337–386.Google Scholar
Koutsoudas, A. 1973a. Extrinsic order and the Complex NP Constraint. LI 4.69–81.Google Scholar
Koutsoudas, A. 1973b. Unordered rule hypotheses. Mimeographed. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1969. On derivational constraints. Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 117–139.Google Scholar
Postal, P. 1970. On preferential complement subject deletion. LI 1.439–500.Google Scholar
Postal, P. 1972. On some rules that are not successive cyclic. LI 3.211–222.Google Scholar
Postal, P. 1974. On raising: one rule of English grammar and its theoretical implications. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ringen, C. 1971. On arguments for rule ordering. Mimeographed. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Ross, J. R. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. MIT dissertation.Google Scholar