Deep structure and surface structure: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Latest revision as of 17:12, 7 October 2024

Deep structure and surface structure (also D-structure and S-structure although those abbreviated forms are sometimes used with distinct meanings) are concepts used in linguistics, specifically in the study of syntax in the Chomskyan tradition of transformational generative grammar.

The deep structure of a linguistic expression is a theoretical construct that seeks to unify several related structures. For example, the sentences "Pat loves Chris" and "Chris is loved by Pat" mean roughly the same thing and use similar words. Some linguists, Chomsky in particular, have tried to account for this similarity by positing that these two sentences are distinct surface forms that derive from a common (or very similar^[1]) deep structure.

Origin

Chomsky coined and popularized the terms "deep structure" and "surface structure" in the early 1960s.^[2] American linguist Sydney Lamb wrote in 1975 that Chomsky "probably [borrowed] the term from Hockett".^[3] American linguist Charles Hockett first used the dichotomous pair "deep grammar" vs "surface grammar" in his 1958 book titled A Course in Modern Linguistics. Chomsky first referred to these Hockettian concepts in his 1962 paper The Logical Basis of Linguistic Theory (later published as Current Issues in Linguistic Theory in 1964). In it Chomsky noted that "the difference between observational and descriptive adequacy is related to the distinction drawn by Hockett (1958) between 'surface grammar' and 'deep grammar', and he is unquestionably correct in noting that modern linguistics is largely confined in scope to the former."^[4] The phrases 'depth grammar' and 'surface grammar' had been used by Ludwig Wittgenstein to denote the same ideas in his Philosophical Investigations (1953).^[5]

In Chomskyan linguistics

In early transformational syntax, deep structures are derivation trees of a context-free language. These trees are then transformed by a sequence of tree rewriting operations ("transformations") into surface structures. The terminal yield of a surface structure tree, the surface form, is then predicted to be a grammatical sentence of the language being studied. The role and significance of deep structure changed a great deal as Chomsky developed his theories, and since the mid-1990s deep structure no longer features at all^[6] (see minimalist program).

It is tempting to regard deep structures as representing meanings and surface structures as representing sentences that express those meanings, but this is not the concept of deep structure which Chomsky favoured. Rather, a sentence more closely corresponds to a deep structure paired with the surface structure derived from it, with an additional phonetic form obtained from processing of the surface structure. It has been variously suggested that the interpretation of a sentence is determined by its deep structure alone, by a combination of its deep and surface structures, or by some other level of representation altogether (logical form), as argued in 1977 by Chomsky's student Robert May. Chomsky may have tentatively entertained the first of these ideas in the early 1960s, but quickly moved away from it to the second, and finally to the third. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the generative semantics movement put up a vigorous defence of the first option, sparking an acrimonious debate, the "Linguistics Wars".^[7]

Chomsky noted in his early years that by dividing deep structures from surface structures, one could understand "slip of the tongue" moments (where someone says something that they did not intend) as instances where deep structures do not translate into the intended surface structure.^[8]

Extension to other fields

The appeal of the deep structure concept soon led people from unrelated fields (architecture, music, politics, and even ritual studies) to use the term to express various concepts in their own work. In common usage, the term is often used as a synonym for universal grammar—the constraints which Chomsky claims govern the overall forms of linguistic expression available to the human species. This is probably due to the importance of deep structure in Chomsky's earlier work on universal grammar, though his concept of universal grammar is logically independent of any particular theoretical construct, including deep structure.

According to Middleton (1990), Schenkerian analysis of music corresponds to the Chomskyan notion of deep structure, applying to a two-level generative structure for melody, harmony, and rhythm, of which the analysis by Lee (1985) of rhythmical structure is an instance. (See also: Chord progression § Blues changes.)

Notes

^ In the first formulations of transformational grammar, active and passive pairs had identical deep structures. As the theory developed, it became necessary to mark whether a sentence was active or passive in the deep structure itself, with the result that active/passive pairs had almost-but-not-quite identical deep structures.
^ Kordić 1991, pp. 105–106.
^ Lamb 2006, p. 179
^ Chomsky 1964, p. 30
^ Waugh, Butler (May 1968). "Deep and Surface Structure in Traditional and Sophisticated Literature: Faust". South Atlantic Bulletin. 33 (3). South Atlantic Modern Language Association: 14–17. doi:10.2307/3198402. JSTOR 3198402.
^ Cipriani, Enrico. "Semantics in Generative Grammar: A Critical Survey". Lingvisticae Investigationes.
^ Harris, Randy Allen (1995). The Linguistics Wars. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-509834-X.
^ Carlson [et al.], Neil R. (2005). Psychology: The Science of Behaviour 3rd Canadian Edition. Pearson. pp. 310–311. ISBN 0-205-45769-X.

References

Chomsky, Noam (1957), Syntactic Structures, The Hague/Paris: Mouton, ISBN 978-3-11-021832-9
Chomsky, Noam (1964), Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, The Hague: Mouton, ISBN 9783110867565
Chomsky, Noam (1965), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press
Chomsky, Noam (1981), Lectures on Government and Binding, The Hague: Mouton, ISBN 9783110141313
Chomsky, Noam (1986), Barriers, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press
Kordić, Snježana (1991). "Transformacijsko-generativni pristup jeziku u Sintaktičkim strukturama i Aspektima teorije sintakse Noama Chomskog" [Transformational-generative approach to language in Syntactic structures and Aspects of the theory of syntax of Noam Chomsky] (PDF). SOL: Lingvistički časopis (in Serbo-Croatian). 6 (12–13): 103–112. ISSN 0352-8715. S2CID 186964128. SSRN 3445224. CROSBI 446914. ZDB-ID 1080348-8. (CROLIB). Archived (PDF) from the original on January 16, 2013. Retrieved 11 September 2021.
Lamb, Sydney (2006), "Mutations and Relations", Language and Reality: Selected Writings of Sydney Lamb, London and New York: Continuum
C. S. Lee (1985). "The rhythmic interpretation of simple musical sequences: towards a perceptual model", in P. Howell, I. Cross and R. West (eds.), Musical Structure and Cognition (Academic Press), pp. 53–69.
Richard Middleton (1990). Studying Popular Music. Open University Press.
Sakai, Yuko (2017a). Sentence Generation: Syntax Tree Diagram in English, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Ainu. Createspace. ISBN 978-1545429006
Sakai, Yuko (2017b). English Syntax Tree Diagram: Based on Universal Sentence Structure. Createspace. ISBN 978-1547232208
L. Samovar & R. Porter (2003). Communication between Cultures. Wadsworth Publishing.

[1] In the first formulations of transformational grammar, active and passive pairs had identical deep structures. As the theory developed, it became necessary to mark whether a sentence was active or passive in the deep structure itself, with the result that active/passive pairs had almost-but-not-quite identical deep structures.

[FOOTNOTEKordić1991105–106-2] Kordić 1991, pp. 105–106.

[3] Lamb 2006, p. 179

[4] Chomsky 1964, p. 30

[5] Waugh, Butler (May 1968). "Deep and Surface Structure in Traditional and Sophisticated Literature: Faust". South Atlantic Bulletin. 33 (3). South Atlantic Modern Language Association: 14–17. doi:10.2307/3198402. JSTOR 3198402.

[Cipriani-6] Cipriani, Enrico. "Semantics in Generative Grammar: A Critical Survey". Lingvisticae Investigationes.

[7] Harris, Randy Allen (1995). The Linguistics Wars. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-509834-X.

[8] Carlson [et al.], Neil R. (2005). Psychology: The Science of Behaviour 3rd Canadian Edition. Pearson. pp. 310–311. ISBN 0-205-45769-X.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
+{{Short description|Architecture of early generative grammar}}
-In [[linguistics]], specifically in the study of [[syntax]] in the tradition of [[generative grammar]] (also known as [[transformational grammar]]), the '''deep structure''' of a linguistic [[Sentence (linguistics)|expression]] is a theoretical construct that seeks to unify several related structures.  For example, the sentences "Pat loves Chris" and "Chris is loved by Pat" mean roughly the same thing and use similar words.  Some linguists, in particular [[Noam Chomsky]], have tried to account for this similarity by positing that these two sentences are distinct ''surface forms'' that derive from a common ''deep structure''.
+'''Deep structure''' and '''surface structure''' (also '''D-structure''' and '''S-structure''' although those abbreviated forms are sometimes used with distinct meanings) are concepts used in [[linguistics]], specifically in the study of [[syntax]] in the [[Noam Chomsky|Chomskyan]] tradition of [[transformational generative grammar]].
-<ref>In the first formulations of transformational grammar, active and passive pairs had identical deep structures. As the theory developed, it became necessary to mark whether a sentence was active or passive in the deep structure itself, with the result that active/passive pairs had almost-but-not-quite identical deep structures.</ref>
+The deep structure of a linguistic [[Sentence (linguistics)|expression]] is a theoretical construct that seeks to unify several related structures.  For example, the sentences "Pat loves Chris" and "Chris is loved by Pat" mean roughly the same thing and use similar words.  Some linguists, Chomsky in particular, have tried to account for this similarity by positing that these two sentences are distinct ''surface forms'' that derive from a common (or very similar<ref>In the first formulations of transformational grammar, active and passive pairs had identical deep structures. As the theory developed, it became necessary to mark whether a sentence was active or passive in the deep structure itself, with the result that active/passive pairs had almost-but-not-quite identical deep structures.</ref>) deep structure.
-The concept of deep structure plays an important role in [[transformational grammar]]. In early transformational syntax, deep structures are derivation trees of a [[context free language]].  These trees are then transformed by a sequence of tree rewriting operations ("transformations") into [[surface structure]]s.  The [[terminal yield]] of a surface structure tree, the surface form, is then predicted to be a grammatical sentence of the language being studied. The role and significance of deep structure changed a great deal as Chomsky developed his theories, and since the mid 1990s deep structure no longer features at all (see [[Transformational grammar]]).
+==Origin==
-It is tempting to regard deep structures as representing meanings and surface structures as representing sentences that express those meanings, but this is not the concept of deep structure favoured by Chomsky. Rather, a sentence more closely corresponds to a deep structure paired with the [[surface structure]] derived from it, with an additional [[phonetic form]] obtained from processing of the surface structure. It has been variously suggested that the interpretation of a sentence is determined by its deep structure alone, by a combination of its deep and surface structures, or by some other level of representation altogether ([[Logical form (linguistics)|logical form]]), as argued in 1977 by Chomsky's student [[Robert May (linguist)|Robert May]]. Chomsky may have tentatively entertained the first of these ideas in the early 1960s, but quickly moved away from it to the second, and finally the third. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the [[generative semantics]] movement put up a vigorous defence of the first option, sparking an acrimonious debate, the "[[Linguistics Wars]]".<ref>Harris, Randy Allen. (1995). ''The linguistics wars''. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-509834-X.</ref>
+Chomsky coined and popularized the terms "deep structure" and "surface structure" in the early 1960s.{{sfn|Kordić|1991|pp=105–106}} American linguist [[Sydney Lamb]] wrote in 1975 that Chomsky "probably [borrowed] the term from Hockett".<ref>{{harvnb|Lamb|2006|p=179}}</ref> American linguist [[Charles F. Hockett|Charles Hockett]] first used the [[dichotomy|dichotomous]] pair "deep grammar" vs "surface grammar" in his 1958 book titled ''A Course in Modern Linguistics''. Chomsky first referred to these Hockettian concepts in his 1962 paper ''The Logical Basis of Linguistic Theory'' (later published as ''[[Current Issues in Linguistic Theory]]'' in 1964). In it Chomsky noted that "the difference between observational
+and descriptive adequacy is related to the distinction drawn by Hockett (1958) between 'surface grammar' and 'deep grammar', and he is unquestionably correct in noting that modern linguistics is largely confined in scope to the former."<ref>{{harvnb|Chomsky|1964|p=30}}</ref> The phrases 'depth grammar' and 'surface grammar' had been used by [[Ludwig Wittgenstein]] to denote the same ideas in his ''[[Philosophical Investigations]]'' (1953).<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Waugh |first1=Butler |title=Deep and Surface Structure in Traditional and Sophisticated Literature: Faust |journal=South Atlantic Bulletin |date=May 1968 |volume=33 |issue=3 |pages=14–17 |publisher=[[South Atlantic Modern Language Association]]|doi=10.2307/3198402 |jstor=3198402 }}</ref>
+==In Chomskyan linguistics==
-Chomsky noted in his early years that by dividing deep structures from surface structures, one could understand "slip of the tongue" moments (where one says something that they did not intend) as instances where deep structures do not translate into the intended surface structure.<ref> Carlson [et al.], Neil R. (2005). Psychology: The Science of Behaviour 3rd Canadian Edition. Pearson. pp. 310-311. ISBN 0-205-45769-X.</ref>
+In early transformational syntax, deep structures are [[derivation tree]]s of a [[context-free language]].  These trees are then transformed by a sequence of tree rewriting operations ("transformations") into surface structures.  The [[terminal yield]] of a surface structure tree, the surface form, is then predicted to be a grammatical sentence of the language being studied. The role and significance of deep structure changed a great deal as Chomsky developed his theories, and since the mid-1990s deep structure no longer features at all<ref name="Cipriani">{{cite journal | last1 = Cipriani | first1 = Enrico <!--| forthcoming--> |title = Semantics in Generative Grammar: A Critical Survey |journal = Lingvisticae Investigationes}}</ref> (see [[minimalist program]]).
+It is tempting to regard deep structures as representing meanings and surface structures as representing sentences that express those meanings, but this is not the concept of deep structure which Chomsky favoured. Rather, a sentence more closely corresponds to a deep structure paired with the surface structure derived from it, with an additional [[phonetic form]] obtained from processing of the surface structure. It has been variously suggested that the interpretation of a sentence is determined by its deep structure alone, by a combination of its deep and surface structures, or by some other level of representation altogether ([[logical form (linguistics)|logical form]]), as argued in 1977 by Chomsky's student [[Robert May (linguist) |Robert May]]. Chomsky may have tentatively entertained the first of these ideas in the early 1960s, but quickly moved away from it to the second, and finally to the third. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the [[generative semantics]] movement put up a vigorous defence of the first option, sparking an acrimonious debate, the "[[Linguistics Wars]]".<ref>Harris, Randy Allen (1995). ''The Linguistics Wars''. Oxford University Press. {{ISBN|0-19-509834-X}}.</ref>
-The "surface" appeal of the deep structure concept soon led people from unrelated fields (architecture, music, politics, and even ritual studies) to use the term to express various concepts in their own work. In common usage, the term is often used as a synonym for [[universal grammar]]&mdash;the constraints which Chomsky claims govern the overall forms of linguistic expression available to the human species. This is probably due to the importance of deep structure in Chomsky's earlier work on universal grammar, though his concept of universal grammar is logically independent of any particular theoretical construct, including deep structure.
+Chomsky noted in his early years that by dividing deep structures from surface structures, one could understand "slip of the tongue" moments (where someone says something that they did not intend) as instances where deep structures do not translate into the intended surface structure.<ref>
-According to Middleton (1990), [[Schenkerian analysis]] of music corresponds to the Chomskyan notion of deep structure, applying to a two-level generative structure for melody, harmony, and rhythm, of which the analysis by Lee (1985) of rhythmical structure is an instance. See also [[Chord progression#Rewrite rules]].
+Carlson [et al.], Neil R. (2005). Psychology: The Science of Behaviour 3rd Canadian Edition. Pearson. pp. 310–311. {{ISBN|0-205-45769-X}}.</ref>
+==Extension to other fields==
-==See also==
+The appeal of the deep structure concept soon led people from unrelated fields (architecture, music, politics, and even ritual studies) to use the term to express various concepts in their own work. In common usage, the term is often used as a synonym for [[universal grammar]]—the constraints which Chomsky claims govern the overall forms of linguistic expression available to the human species. This is probably due to the importance of deep structure in Chomsky's earlier work on universal grammar, though his concept of universal grammar is logically independent of any particular theoretical construct, including deep structure.
-*[[Transformational grammar]]
-*Deep Structure Studies (DSS I-VI)
-*Deep Structure Studies I: The Third Synthesis of Biology<ref>Winpen Hann.(2012).The Third Synthesis of Biology: Deep Structure Studies I.[https://www.createspace.com/3705738 ISBN-13: 978-1466442252]</ref>
-Darwinian biology is actually two directions. One is the well-known modern synthesis, which has an enlarged and revised evolutionary model combining the new genetics. Another is derived from the modern synthesis by introducing intraspecific adaptation comparison to microphysiology, creatively explained intraspecies variations, and life-history variations (e.g., adjusted seed size, varied offspring, adjusted reproductive timing, diversified sizes of individuals, adjusted sex determination or sex ratio, altered shape or behavior, regulated life history, transformed organ structures, etc.). This new biology developed very rapidly and is having an intense impact on the whole of life science. This super-synthesis is the third after evolutionism and the modern synthesis.
-This book makes a systematic summary on the developments of new biology for recent forty years, and provides richful consulation for biologists to select and grasp the future mainstream of life science.
+According to Middleton (1990), [[Schenkerian analysis]] of music corresponds to the Chomskyan notion of deep structure, applying to a two-level generative structure for melody, harmony, and rhythm, of which the analysis by Lee (1985) of rhythmical structure is an instance. (See also: [[Chord progression#Blues changes|Chord progression § Blues changes]].)
-*Deep Structure Studies II: New Experimental Biology<ref>Winpen Hann.(2012).New Experimental Biology: Deep Structure Studies II.[https://www.createspace.com/3714426 ISBN-13:978-1467987189]</ref>
-Modern biology has reached its limit in micro-oriented research-e.g., the predicament of the genome explanation project, difficulty in neuro-electro-signal decoding, how to make clear molecular metabolic network, etc. The "complexity" is the symbolization of biological history's inflection point.
-There are two brewing developmental directions in contemporary life science. One is the "systematic biology," which plans to synthetize huge quantities of molecular data by computing and systematic simulation. The other is the new innovation of "deep-structure theory" which introduce new concepts of "background modulation" and "vitastate" experimental and analytical models to analyze transformation of physio-morphs. The former might be trapped into trouble by "complexity," while the latter can avoid the information explosion.
+==See also==
-This Book has reviewed various schools of biological experiments for nearly 40 years, and developed deep-structure experimental system which open up new road for the major experimental fields of post-genomics, brain science, super AI, knotty diseases and so on.
+*[[Underlying representation]]
+== Notes ==
-*Deep Structure Studies III: The Brain's Super Intelligence Analysis<ref>Winpen Hann,Haina Hwa.(2012).The Brain's Super Intelligence Analysis:Deep Structure Studies III.[https://www.createspace.com/3730794 ISBN-13:978-1470089658]</ref>
+{{reflist}}
-Winpen Hann (Author), Haina Hwa (Author)
-There are actually two different directions in the study of neural information analysis and artificial intelligence simulation; one is electroneurographic signal decoding and artificial neural network experimentation, which uses mainstream methods of contemporary neural science, and the other is brain deep-structure analysis and its artificial simulation, which arises from adaptational biology and deep-structure theory. The former has met with an analysis and experimental dilemma because of the connotation-meaning black hole and information explosion. The latter can possibly overcome these two major obstacles and bring new hope and a breakthrough for brain science and super computer research.
 == References ==
+* {{citation
-{{Reflist}}
+|last=Chomsky
+|first=Noam
+|author-link=Noam Chomsky
+|title=Syntactic Structures
+|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=a6a_b-CXYAkC
+|year=1957
+|publisher=Mouton
+|location=The Hague/Paris
+|isbn=978-3-11-021832-9
+}}
+* {{Citation
+ | last = Chomsky
+ | first = Noam
+ | year=1964
+ | title= Current Issues in Linguistic Theory
+ | publisher= Mouton
+ | location = The Hague
+ | isbn = 9783110867565
+ | url=  https://books.google.com/books?id=OZuif4ZJjUUC
+ }}
+* {{Citation
+ | last = Chomsky
+ | first = Noam
+ | year=1965
+ | title= [[Aspects of the Theory of Syntax]]
+ | publisher= MIT Press
+ | location = Cambridge, Massachusetts
+ }}
+* {{Citation
+ | last = Chomsky
+ | first = Noam
+ | year=1981
+ | title= Lectures on Government and Binding
+ | publisher= Mouton
+ | location = The Hague
+ | isbn = 9783110141313
+ | url= https://books.google.com/books?id=l08tpkOOdNQC&q=%22deep+structure%22+OR+%22surface+structure%22&pg=PA1
+ }}
+* {{Citation
+ | last = Chomsky
+ | first = Noam
+ | year=1986
+ | title= Barriers
+ | publisher= MIT Press
+ | location = Cambridge, Massachusetts
+ }}
+* {{cite journal|title=Transformacijsko-generativni pristup jeziku u ''Sintaktičkim strukturama'' i ''Aspektima teorije sintakse'' Noama Chomskog|trans-title=Transformational-generative approach to language in ''Syntactic structures'' and ''Aspects of the theory of syntax'' of Noam Chomsky|last=Kordić|first=Snježana|author-link=Snježana Kordić|journal=SOL: Lingvistički časopis|year=1991|volume=6|issue=12–13|pages=103–112|language=sh|url=http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/446914.Transformacijsko-generativni_pristup.PDF |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130116112947/http://bib.irb.hr/datoteka/446914.Transformacijsko-generativni_pristup.PDF|archive-date=January 16, 2013|access-date=11 September 2021|issn=0352-8715|s2cid=186964128|ssrn=3445224|id={{CROSBI|446914}}. {{ZDB|1080348-8}}. [http://opak.crolib.hr/cgi-bin/unicat.cgi?form=D1941130086 (CROLIB)]}}
+* {{citation
+|last=Lamb
+|first=Sydney
+|author-link=Sydney Lamb
+|chapter= Mutations and Relations
+|title=Language and Reality: Selected Writings of Sydney Lamb
+|year=2006
+|publisher=Continuum
+|location=London and New York
+}}
+*C. S. Lee (1985). "The rhythmic interpretation of simple musical sequences: towards a perceptual model", in P. Howell, I. Cross and R. West (eds.), ''Musical Structure and Cognition'' (Academic Press), pp.&nbsp;53–69.
+*Richard Middleton (1990). ''Studying Popular Music''. Open University Press.
+*Sakai, Yuko (2017a). ''Sentence Generation: Syntax Tree Diagram in English, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Ainu''. Createspace. {{ISBN|978-1545429006}}
+*Sakai, Yuko (2017b). ''English Syntax Tree Diagram: Based on Universal Sentence Structure''. Createspace. {{ISBN|978-1547232208}}
+*L. Samovar & R. Porter (2003). ''Communication between Cultures''. Wadsworth Publishing.
-===General references===
-{{Refbegin}}
-#Noam Chomsky (1957). ''Syntactic Structures''. Mouton.
-#Noam Chomsky (1965). ''Aspects of the Theory of Syntax''. MIT Press.
-#Noam Chomsky (1981). ''Lectures on Government and Binding''. Mouton.
-#Noam Chomsky (1986). ''Barriers''. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. MIT Press.
-#C. S. Lee (1985). "The rhythmic interpretation of simple musical sequences: towards a perceptual model", in P. Howell, I. Cross and R. West (eds.), ''Musical Structure and Cognition'' (Academic Press), pp.&nbsp;53–69.
-#Richard Middleton (1990). ''Studying Popular Music''. Open University Press.
-#Samovar, L, & Porter, R (August 2003). Communication between Culures .Wadsworth Publishing.
-{{Refend}}
-{{DEFAULTSORT:Deep Structure}}
 [[Category:Syntactic transformation]]
-[[Category:Generative linguistics]]
+[[Category:Generative syntax]]
+[[Category:Linguistic theories and hypotheses]]
-[[de:Tiefenstruktur]]
-[[es:Estructura profunda]]
-[[ru:Глубинная структура]]
-[[zh:深层结构]]