Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-2dmjx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-08T14:54:31.681Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

‘Global Rules’: A Rejoinder

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 April 2026

C. L. Baker  and
Michael K. Brame
C. L. Baker
Affiliation:
University of Texas
Michael K. Brame
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Lakoff 1970 offers seven sets of data which he believes furnish support for revising current models of syntactic description in such a way as to allow global rules, i.e. rules that make reference to more than a single point in a derivation. A close examination of these data reveals that only two sets cannot be given an adequate treatment within the framework sketched in Chomsky 1965; and even these two sets do not warrant the wide-ranging extension of current syntactic theory which L proposes. Furthermore, L's seven arguments, even if they were accepted, would furnish no support for his assertions concerning the nature of semantic representation.*

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , March 1972 , pp. 51 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © Linguistic Society of America 1972

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

Footnotes

*

This paper was written while both authors were at the University of Texas, Austin, and was supported in part by the National Science Foundation through Grant GS-2468. We are indebted to Joan Bresnan and Lauri Karttunen for a number of helpful criticisms of a preliminary draft; in acknowledging their aid, we do not wish to imply that they agree with anything in the paper. Responsibility for any errors of fact or interpretation of course rests entirely with us.

References

Andrews, Avery. 1971. Case agreement of predicate modifiers in Ancient Greek. Linguistic Inquiry 2.127–151.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. 1970. Double negatives. Linguistic Inquiry 1.169–186.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. 1971. Stress level and auxiliary behavior in English. Linguistic Inquiry 2.167–181.Google Scholar
Bierwisch, M. 1968. Two critical problems in accent rules. Journal of Linguistics 4.173–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bresnan, Joan W. 1970. On complementizers: toward a syntactic theory of complement types. Foundations of Language 6.297–321.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. 1971. Sentence stress and syntactic transformations. Lg. 47.257–281.Google Scholar
Baker, C. L. ms. Contraction and the transformational cycle in English. MIT.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1957. Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1964. On the notion ‘rule of grammar’. The structure of language, ed. by Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J. J., 119–136. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1970. Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. To appear in The goals of linguistic theory, ed. by Peters, P. Stanley. Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Emonds, Joseph E. 1970. Root and structure preserving transformations. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Geis, Michael. ms. A derivational constraint on simplification of certain comparative constructions. University of Illinois.Google Scholar
Katz, J. J., and Postal, Paul M. 1964. An integrated theory of linguistic descriptions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
King, Harold V. 1970. On blocking the rules for contraction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 1.134–136.Google Scholar
Klima, E. S. 1964. Negation in English. The structure of language, ed. by Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J. J., 246–323. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.-Y. 1968. Review of Indirect object constructions in English and the ordering of transformations, by Charles J. Fillmore. Lg. 44.374–378.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1970. Global rules. Lg. 46.627–639.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1971. Syntactic irregularity. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Langacker, Ronald W. 1969. An analysis of English questions. Unpublished, University of California at San Diego.Google Scholar
Lees, R. B. 1961. Grammatical analysis of the English comparative construction. Word 17.171–185. (Reprinted in Modern studies in English, ed. by Reibel, David A. and Schane, Sanford A., 303–15. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969.).Google Scholar
Rosenbaum, Peter S. 1967. The grammar of English predicate complement constructions. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1969a. Auxiliaries as main verbs. Studies in philosophical linguistics, ed. by Todd, William (series one). Evanston, Ill.: Great Expectations.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1969b. Guess who? Papers from the 5th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 252–286.Google Scholar
Zwicky, Arnold M. 1970. Auxiliary reduction in English. Linguistic Inquiry 1.323–336.Google Scholar