No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 April 2026
The question considered here is the correctness of the assumption that transformational rules are extrinsically ordered. One type of argument that has frequently been given in support of this assumption is shown to be invalid: it shows that if the rules in question are to be extrinsically ordered, they must be ordered in some particular way, but it fails to show that the facts cannot be accounted for without imposing extrinsic order on these rules. Thus the assumption that rules are not extrinsically ordered is found to be viable.1