Talk:Deep structure and surface structure

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Theoretical Linguistics Task Force.

Opening[edit]

the sentences "Pat loves Chris" and "Chris is loved by Pat" do not have the same meaning. the first sentence is an action. It just denotes that there is an action and the input of that object is Chris. it doesnt expose the concrete function or from an Observers perspective Pat can accept Chris as an input to the concept. The second sentence denotes Chris as an output. the action gave an output of Chris. this exposes a concrete function or from the Observers perspective, by observing the concrete function it can be noted that Chris is an output of the function. I would argue that this example should be re-written. Trivnew (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry, but passivization is the standard example. Replacing it wih something else suggests you disagree with the whole idea, which is not the right thing to do in an encyclopedia. It would probably be best to use the original examples and add references to them in the original article(s). Rp (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[Untitled][edit]

This page is terribly confusing. Could we just stick to the facts?

This page is really a load of garbage. I like Chomsky's views politically, but this is really just a lot of unverifiable bollocks. I am sorry if my language is wrong but it needs a warning to say watch out ORIGINAL RESEARCH HERE or am I just crazy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.233.42 (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if you are crazy, but the original research here is by Chomsky, published, widely cited, followed, and taught, and the basic idea is not really very original anyway. So certainly it doesn't qualify as original research in the sense in which Wikipedia uses this term. Rp (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Inter-cultural communication[edit]

I'm pretty sure that the stuff about inter-cultural communication is complete bunk, if anyone else could look into this that would be great, but I'm pretty sure that cultural differences do not affect the deep nor surface structure. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daemonax (talk • contribs) 09:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The whole section about inter-cultural communication is OR. Moreover it has nothing to do with the deep structure in the sense of Noam Chomsky. I am deleting the whole section. --Georgius (talk) 09:56, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you did the right thing. While you and I only know Chomsky's notion of deep structure, the deleted text was apparently about a notion in anthropology, and judging by my first try with Google it is indeed an established notion there. So we may need two content pages and a disambiguation page. Rp (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the present form the article mentions the use of the term "deep structure" in fields other than grammar. However the deleted section does not cite any sources and is OR. That was the main reason for deletion. Anyone can recover the section from the history and edit it to conform to Wikipedia standards.--Georgius (talk) 13:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Linguists or academics who are still using deep structure in their theory.[edit]

I think it would be pertinent to list some notable academics who still use or support deep structure in their work and/or theories. If nobody is then I think that fact should be noted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.59.138 (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Biology verifies that we are all the same human beings, regardless of our appearance. Likewise, if linguistics is to be science, we should verify that all human languages are one in their essence, even though vocabulary and grammar differ. In other words, linguistics cannot be scientific without explaining the deep structure to restrict various surface structures. The mere description of the linguistic phenomenon, which is called “descriptive linguistics”, is no more than the child's insect collection in the method.

The purpose of this scientific inquiry tends to be lost in the language, whose practical value is enormous in our daily life. Chomsky's argument was exactly revolutionary to be linguistics a science.

Unfortunately, more than half a century since his proposal, we cannot find the universal deep structure in Chomsky’s work. Even though, we should not give up the investigation. For further discussion, please refer to the Yuko Sakai’s works which propose the universal deep structure based on the structure of four-dimensional cognition; (2017a) Universal Sentence Structure: Syntax Tree Diagram in Spanish. ISBN: 978-1545576724, (2017b) English Syntax Tree Diagram: Based on Universal Sentence Structure. ISBN: 978-1547232208 etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.76.155.184 (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Title/redirect issues[edit]

We have this article on deep structure (which inevitably touches on surface structure as well), whereas Surface structure redirects to Transformational grammar. For symmetry, what about: (A) redirecting surface structure to this article instead, and possibly also (B) renaming this article Deep structure and surface structure (with necessary adjustments to the text)? W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How about making this article a redirect to transformational grammar?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rp (talk • contribs) 07:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]