In
transformational and generative grammar, deep structure (also
known as deep grammar or D-structure) is
the underlying syntactic structure—or level—of a sentence. In contrast to surface
structure (the outward form of a sentence), deep structure is an abstract
representation that identifies the ways a sentence can be analyzed and
interpreted. Deep structures are generated by phrase-structure rules, and surface
structures are derived from deep structures by a series of transformations.
In The Oxford Dictionary of English Grammar (2014),
Aarts, Chalker, and Weiner point out that, in a looser sense:
"deep and surface structure are
often used as terms in a simple binary opposition, with the deep structure
representing meaning, and the surface structure being
the actual sentence we see."
The
terms deep structure and surface structure were popularized in
the 1960s and '70s by American linguist Noam Chomsky, who eventually discarded the
concepts in his minimalist program in the 1990s.
Properties
of Deep Structure
"Deep structure is a level of syntactic
representation with a number of properties that need not necessarily go
together. Four important properties of deep structure are:
2.
All lexical insertion occurs at deep
structure.
3.
All transformations occur after deep
structure.
4.
Semantic interpretation occurs at deep
structure.
The
question of whether there is a single level of representation with these
properties was the most debated question in generative grammar following the
publication of Aspects [of the Theory of Syntax, 1965]. One part of the debate
focused on whether transformations preserve meaning."
(Alan Garnham, Psycholinguistics: Central Topics. Psychology Press, 1985)
(Alan Garnham, Psycholinguistics: Central Topics. Psychology Press, 1985)
Examples
and Observations
- "[Noam]
Chomsky had identified a basic grammatical structure in Syntactic Structures [1957] that he referred
to as kernel sentences. Reflecting
mentalese, kernel sentences were where words and meaning first appeared in
the complex cognitive process that resulted in an utterance. In [Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, 1965], Chomsky
abandoned the notion of kernel sentences and identified the underlying
constituents of sentences as deep structure.
The deep structure was versatile insofar as it accounted for meaning and provided the basis
for transformations that turned deep structure into surface structure, which represented what we
actually hear or read. Transformation rules, therefore, connected deep
structure and surface structure, meaning and syntax."
(James D. Williams, The Teacher's Grammar Book. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1999) - "[Deep
structure is a] representation of the syntax of a sentence distinguished
by varying criteria from its surface structure. E.g. in the surface
structure of Children are hard to please,
the subject is children and the infinitive to please is the complement of hard. But in its deep structure, as it was
understood especially in the early 1970s, is
hard would have as its subject a subordinate sentence in
which children is the object of please: thus, in outline [please children] is hard."
(P.H. Matthews, The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Linguistics. Oxford University Press, 2007)
Evolving
Perspectives on Deep Structure
"The
remarkable first chapter of Noam Chomsky's Aspects 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, and acquisition...
"A
fourth major point of Aspects, and the one
that attracted most attention from the wider public, concerned the notion
of Deep 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, a passivesentence like (1a) was claimed to
have a Deep Structure in which the noun phrases are in the order of the
corresponding active (1b):
(1a) The bear was chased by the lion.
(1b) The lion chased the bear.
(1b) The lion chased the bear.
Similarly,
a question such as (2a) was claimed to have a Deep Structure closely resembling
that of the corresponding declarative (2b):
(2a) Which martini did Harry drink?
(2b) Harry drank that martini.
(2b) Harry drank that martini.
...Following
a hypothesis first proposed by Katz and Postal (1964), Aspects made 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
Structure is meaning, 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)
(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 experience outside the self, in a way that has innumerable
counterparts elsewhere. How does scrutiny of the deep structure support this intuition? First,
notice a matter of emphasis, of rhetoric. The matrix sentence, which lends a surface form
to the whole, is '# S # I was in time # S #' (repeated
twice). The embedded sentences that complete it
are 'I walked to the taffrail,' 'I made out + NP,' and 'I caught + NP.' The point of
departure, then, is the narrator himself: 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 grammatical subjects; in another three the subject is
a noun linked to 'sharer' by the copula; in two 'sharer' is direct object; and in two more 'share' is
the verb. 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 abbreviated rhetorical 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. in Essays in Stylistic Analysis, ed. by Howard S. Babb. Harcourt, 1972)
(Richard M. Ohmann, "Literature as Sentences." College English, 1966. Rpt. in Essays in Stylistic Analysis, ed. by Howard S. Babb. Harcourt, 1972)
