deep structure (transformational grammar)Definition:Intransformational grammar, the underlyingsyntacticstructure (orlevel) of a sentence. In contrast tosurface structure(the outward form of a sentence), deep structure is an abstract representation that identifies the ways a sentence can be analyzed and interpreted.In transformational grammar, deep structures are generated byphrase-structure rules, and surface structures are derived from deep structures by a series oftransformations.(See Examples and Observations, below.)See also: Case Grammar Chomskyan Linguistics Generative Grammar Kernel Sentence Linguistic Competence Linguistic Performance Relational Grammar Surface Structure Ten Types of Grammar Transformational GrammarExamples and Observations: "[Noam] Chomsky had identified a basic grammatical structure inSyntactic Structures[1957] that he referred to askernel sentences. Reflecting mentalese, kernel sentences were where words and meaning first appeared in the complex cognitive process that resulted in anutterance. In [Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, 1965], Chomsky abandoned the notion of kernel sentences and identified the underlying constituents of sentences asdeep structure. The deep structure was versatile insofar as it accounted for meaning and provided the basis for transformations that turned deep structure intosurface structure, which represented what we actually hear or read. Transformation rules, therefore, connected deep structure and surface structure, meaning andsyntax."(James D. Williams,The Teacher's Grammar Book. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999) Evolving Perspectives on Deep Structure"The remarkable first chapter of Noam Chomsky'sAspects of the Theory of Syntax(1965) set the agenda for everything that has happened in generative linguistics since. Three theoretical pillars support the enterprise:mentalism, combinatoriality, andacquisition. . . .

"A fourth major point ofAspects, and the one that attracted most attention from the wider public, concerned the notion ofDeep Structure. A basic claim of the 1965 version of generative grammar was that in addition to the surface form of sentences (the form we hear), there is another level of syntactic structure, called Deep Structure, which expresses underlying syntactic regularities of sentences. For instance, apassivesentence like (1a) was claimed to have a Deep Structure in which thenoun phrasesare in the order of the correspondingactive(1b):(1a) The bear was chased by the lion.(1b) The lion chased the bear.Similarly, a question such as (2a) was claimed to have a Deep Structure closely resembling that of the correspondingdeclarative(2b):(2a) Which martini did Harry drink?(2b) Harry drank that martini.. . . Following a hypothesis first proposed by Katz and Postal (1964),Aspectsmade the striking claim that the relevant level of syntax for determining meaning is Deep Structure.

"In its weakest version, this claim was only that regularities of meaning are most directly encoded in Deep Structure, and this can be seen in (1) and (2). However, the claim was sometimes taken to imply much more: that Deep Structureismeaning, an interpretation that Chomsky did not at first discourage. And this was the part of generative linguistics that got everyone really excited--for if the techniques of transformational grammar could lead us to meaning, we would be in a position to uncover the nature of human thought. . . .

"When the dust of the ensuing 'linguistic wars' cleared around 1973 . . ., Chomsky had won (as usual)--but with a twist: he no longer claimed that Deep Structure was the sole level that determines meaning (Chomsky 1972). Then, with the battle over, he turned his attention, not to meaning, but to relatively technical constraints on movement transformations (e.g. Chomsky 1973, 1977)."(Ray Jackendoff,Language, Consciousness, Culture: Essays on Mental Structure. MIT Press, 2007) Surface Structure and Deep Structure in a Sentence by Joseph Conrad"[Consider] the final sentence of [Joseph Conrad's short story] 'The Secret Sharer':Walking to the taffrail, I was in time to make out, on the very edge of a darkness thrown by a towering black mass like the very gateway of Erebus--yes, I was in time to catch an evanescent glimpse of my white hat left behind to mark the spot where the secret sharer of my cabin and of my thoughts, as though he were my second self, had lowered himself into the water to take his punishment: a free man, a proud swimmer striking out for a new destiny.I hope others will agree that the sentence justly represents its author: that it portrays a mind energetically stretching to subdue a dazzling experienceoutsidethe self, in a way that has innumerable counterparts elsewhere. How does scrutiny of thedeep structuresupport this intuition? First, notice a matter ofemphasis, ofrhetoric. Thematrix sentence, which lends a surface form to the whole, is '#S# I was in time # S #' (repeated twice). Theembeddedsentences that complete it are 'I walked to the taffrail,''I made out +NP,' and 'I caught + NP.' The point of departure, then, is thenarratorhimself: where he was, what he did, what he saw. But a glance at the deep structure will explain why one feels a quite different emphasis in the sentence as a whole: seven of the embedded sentences have 'sharer' as grammaticalsubjects; in another three the subject is anounlinked to 'sharer' by thecopula; in two 'sharer' isdirect object; and in two more 'share' is theverb. Thus thirteen sentences go to the semantic development of 'sharer' as follows:1. The secret sharer had lowered the secret sharer into the water.2. The secret sharer took his punishment.3. The secret sharer swam.4. The secret sharer was a swimmer.5. The swimmer was proud.6. The swimmer struck out for a new destiny.7. The secret sharer was a man.8. The man was free.9. The secret sharer was my secret self.10. The secret sharer had (it).11. (Someone) punished the secret sharer.12. (Someone) shared my cabin.13. (Someone) shared my thoughts.In a fundamental way, the sentence is mainly about Leggatt, although the surface structure indicates otherwise. . . .

"[The] progression in the deep structure rather precisely mirrors both the rhetorical movement of the sentence from the narrator to Leggatt via the hat that links them, and the thematic effect of the sentence, which is to transfer Leggatt's experience to the narrator via the narrator's vicarious and actual participation in it. Here I shall leave this abbreviatedrhetorical analysis, with a cautionary word: I do not mean to suggest that only an examination of deep structure reveals Conrad's skillful emphasis--on the contrary, such an examination supports and in a sense explains what any careful reader of the story notices."(Richard M. Ohmann, "Literature as Sentences."College English, 1966. Rpt. inEssays in Stylistic Analysis, ed. by Howard S. Babb. Harcourt, 1972)What is the difference between surface and deep layer in language?FacebookTweetEmailThe terms "surface layer" and "deep layer" refer to different levels that information goes through in the language production system. For example, imagine that you see a dog chasing a mailman. When you encode this information, you create a representation that includes three pieces of information: a dog, a mailman, and the actionchasing.This information exists in the mind of the speaker as a "deep" structure. If you want to express this information linguistically, you can, for example, produce a sentence like "The dog is chasing the mailman." This is the "surface" layer: it consists of the words and sounds produced by a speaker (or writer) and perceived by a listener (or reader). You can also produce a sentence like "The mailman is being chased by a dog" to describe the same event -- here, the order in which you mention the two characters (the "surface" layer) is different from the first sentence, but both sentences are derived from the same "deep" representation. Linguists propose that you can perform movement operations to transform the information encoded in the "deep" layer into the "surface" layer, and refer to these movement operations as linguisticrules.Linguistic rules are part of the grammar of a language and must be learned by speakers in order to produce grammatically correct sentences.Rules exist for different types of utterances. Other examples of rules, or movement operations between "deep" and "surface" layers, include declarative sentences (You have a dog)and their corresponding interrogative sentences (Do you have a dog?). Here, the movement operations include switching the order of the first two words of the sentence.http://babel.ucsc.edu/~hank/mrg.readings/chomsky1969.pdfD-structureandS-structureAn immediate consequence of accepting movements as a part of grammatical description is that there are at least two levels that we can describe the structure of any sentence: a level before movement takes place and a level after movement has taken place.(59)structure

movement

structure

The difference between the two levels of structural description will simply be the positions that the moved elements occupy, given the above assumption that movements do not actually alter the structure. For example, consider the following two sentences:(60)aMary met Mark in the park

bin the park, Mary met Mark

In (60a) thePPin the parkis anadjunctto theVP, modifying the VP by adding information about where the meeting took place. In (60b) the PP has moved to the front of the sentence, in a similar way to that in whichtopicsare moved to the front. We can call this movementpreposing. Before the preposing takes place, the PP is in its VPadjoinedposition:(61)

After the movement, the structure will look like this:(62)

We call the structure before movement takes place, aD-structureand the post-movement structure anS-structure. The D and the S originally stood fordeepandsurface, reflecting the fact that S-structures represent an ordering of the elements which is closer to that which holds in the externalisation of the sentence (its pronunciation, or whatever) while D-structures represent an abstract level of description more deeply embedded in the analysis. However, the wordsdeepandsurfacehave unfortunate connotations which may lead to misunderstanding.Deep, for example, can be taken to mean meaningful or ponderous, whilesurfacecan mean superficial or apparent. It would be wrong however to come to the conclusion that deep-structure is somehow more important or that surface-structure is irrelevant. These terms should be taken simply as referring to the two levels of the description of a sentence and neither one nor the other is any more important than the other. This is why the more neutral terms D-structure and S-structure are used and we will follow this tradition. 3.2.2.1D-structure and Theta Theory 3.2.2.2S-structure and Case Theory