[This is part of some research I did years ago. Please, let's not relitigate whether Chomsky is right or not: I merely want to discuss surface and deep structure here. On-topic comments welcomed. Thank you.]
In the 1960s, Noam Chomsky discovered that "language has an outer and inner aspect" (Chomsky 32). He called the outer aspect of language "surface structure" and the inner aspect he termed "deep structure." Surface structure refers to "the particular words and phrases used to make up a sentence" (Morris 237). Yule defines surface structure as 'the syntactic form taken in actual sentences.' Conversely, deep structure is "the underlying abstract structure that determines [the] semantic interpretation" of a sentence (Chomsky 33). The deep structural component of language is what enables linguists to study the various language systems of the world: it provides the basis for a universal grammar that operates according to certain well-defined rules despite numerous variations in surface structure (Black 18). The example that psychologist Charles Morris gives demonstrates this fact:
The ocean is unusually calm tonight.
Tonight the ocean is particularly calm.
Compared to most nights, tonight the ocean is calm.
These examples indicate that language is systematic and contains not only a surface, but also an inherent or underlying grammatical structure. Every language has both a surface and underlying grammar that determines how sounds and words are combined and utilized to communicate meaning within the language. Two major components of grammar are semantics and syntax.
Sources:
Black, David A. Linguistics for Students of NT Greek: A Survey of Basic Concepts and Applications. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1995.
Chomsky, Noam. Cartesian Linguistics: A Chapter in the History of Rationalist Thought. New York: Harper and Row, 1996.
Morris, Charles, G. Understanding Psychology. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1996.
Yule, George. The Study of Language. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1996.
7 comments:
Context is king.
aservant: I agree 100%.
Thanks, Duncan, but while English is quite flexible regarding its surface structure, does that obviate it as an example of the distinction between surface and deep structure? In my original paper, I also used examples from Greek and Latin. I did not post these examples to the blog, but I still believe English can be used to illustrate Chomsky's distinction.
https://www.departments.bucknell.edu/linguistics/lectures/10lect06.html
This is a field I would love to know more about, I'll be honest I only know Chomsky's work, and it's persuasive to me, but of course given that's all I've read that's not saying much.
Linguistics is an interesting field and I think a book like George Yule's or works by John Lyons are good places to start, but there are many others. Stanley Porter, D.A. Black and Moises Silva have done interesting work too along with Mike Aubrey.
Linguistics is fun, but it gets complex like math as one moves higher up the scale.
My interest in Linguistics is basically at the same level as my interest in Greek, Hebrew, logic, , I need it to able to engage with subjects I'm actually interested in :D.
Post a Comment