Transformational Grammar - Deep Structure and Surface Structure

Deep Structure and Surface Structure

Linguistics
Theoretical linguistics
Cognitive linguistics Generative linguistics Functional theories of grammar Quantitative linguistics Phonology Morphology Morphophonology Syntax Lexis Semantics Pragmatics Graphemics Orthography Semiotics
Descriptive linguistics
Anthropological linguistics Comparative linguistics Historical linguistics Etymology Graphetics Phonetics Sociolinguistics
Applied and experimental linguistics
Computational linguistics Evolutionary linguistics Forensic linguistics Internet linguistics Language acquisition Language assessment Language development Language education Linguistic anthropology Neurolinguistics Psycholinguistics Second-language acquisition
Related articles
History of linguistics Linguistic prescription List of linguists List of unsolved problems in linguistics
Portal

In 1957, Noam Chomsky published Syntactic Structures, in which he developed the idea that each sentence in a language has two levels of representation — a deep structure and a surface structure. The deep structure represented the core semantic relations of a sentence, and was mapped on to the surface structure (which followed the phonological form of the sentence very closely) via transformations. Chomsky believed there are considerable similarities between languages' deep structures, and that these structures reveal properties, common to all languages that surface structures conceal. However, this may not have been the central motivation for introducing deep structure. Transformations had been proposed prior to the development of deep structure as a means of increasing the mathematical and descriptive power of context-free grammars. Similarly, deep structure was devised largely for technical reasons relating to early semantic theory. Chomsky emphasizes the importance of modern formal mathematical devices in the development of grammatical theory:

But the fundamental reason for inadequacy of traditional grammars is a more technical one. Although it was well understood that linguistic processes are in some sense "creative," the technical devices for expressing a system of recursive processes were simply not available until much more recently. In fact, a real understanding of how a language can (in Humboldt's words) "make infinite use of finite means" has developed only within the last thirty years, in the course of studies in the foundations of mathematics. —Aspects of the Theory of Syntax