Deep structure

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 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. ^[1]

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 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 (see Transformational grammar).

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), 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 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".^[2]

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—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#Rewrite rules.

In intercultural communication

Intercultural communication occurs when a member of one culture produces a message for consumption by another culture. The source of cultural views, such as behavior, attitudes, or customs, can be found in a culture's deep structure. Deep structure is important because they carry the messages that mean the most to people. More importantly, the "we" identity connects the individual to cultural groups and the main organizations of that culture. Since the beginning of time, people have defined themselves in terms of ancestry, religion, language, history, values, customs, and institutions. Deep Structure in the intercultural field of study generally consists of three major structures: family, history (community, state), and worldview (religion).

The family structure involves mainly nuclear and extended families. The family is a universal experience across every culture. It is also the oldest and one of the most essential human institutions. Note that governments have always changed or disappeared, yet the family unit always seems to survive; even though the dynamics and traditions of families in different cultures may be different, the family unit has always been constant across cultures. The family structure has also been influenced by old and new institutions. For example, in the United States, there is a less defined standard of what comprises a family. Noleer and Fitzpatrick regarded family as "a group of intimates who generate a sense of home and group identity, complete with strong ties of loyalty and emotion, and an experience of history and a future."

The history structure is vital to the deep structure. It gives cultures a sense of identity. It is what they want to be remembered by in the present and future. History involves formal and informal governments, a sense of community, political system, and geography. Past history has always impacted current behaviors. For example, current events in the Middle East can trace their roots back to conflict over sacred territories throughout the region. The main idea to think about with history is how the historical cultural roots have influenced the behaviors and perspectives of today’s world.

The worldview structure involves the religion of a culture. The worldview of a culture is its orientation toward gods, humanity, nature, the universe, life and death, etc. Religion is the main element through which worldview is derived in a culture. All religions are different in perspectives, yet they all have certain commonalities amongst them. They all have rituals, sacred scriptures, a high power of nature, rules and ethics. Due to religion, there has always been a belief in the existence of a reality beyond that of the human world, and this aspect has served as originator of cultures worldwide.

See also

• Transformational grammar

References

Notes

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.
2. ^ Harris, Randy Allen. (1995). The linguistics wars. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-509834-X.

General references

1. Noam Chomsky (1957). Syntactic Structures. Mouton.
2. Noam Chomsky (1965). Aspects of the Theory of Syntax. MIT Press.
3. Noam Chomsky (1981). Lectures on Government and Binding. Mouton.
4. Noam Chomsky (1986). Barriers. Linguistic Inquiry Monographs. MIT Press.
5. 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.
6. Richard Middleton (1990). Studying Popular Music. Open University Press.
7. Samovar, L, & Porter, R (August 2003). Communication between Culures .Wadsworth Publishing.