Hostname: page-component-75d7c8f48-9kl9f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-15T03:59:27.789Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The arguments about deep structure

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

George Bedell
George Bedell*
Affiliation:
University of California, Los Angeles
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The notion of deep structure has served to crystallize a number of recent controversies in syntactic theory. This paper examines several arguments which have appeared in the literature, chiefly in Chomsky's ‘Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar’, in support of the notion. It concludes that these arguments are not compelling, and that the issue of the existence of deep structure is not an empirical one at present.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 50 , Issue 3 , September 1974 , pp. 423 - 445
Copyright
Copyright © 1974 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Bedell, George. 1969. Thoughts on autonomous syntax. Mimeo, UCLA.Google Scholar
Bedell, George. 1972. On three notions in Chomsky's Logical structure of linguistic theory. UCLA Papers in Syntax 1. 1–16.Google Scholar
Bedell, George. 1973. The arguments for deep structure. UCLA Papers in Syntax 4. 1–33.Google Scholar
Bresnan, Joan. 1970. On complementizers: toward a syntactic theory of complement types. Foundations of Language 6. 297–391.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1967. Remarks on nominalization. (Citations as published in Chomsky 1972.)Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1968. Deep structure, surface structure and semantic interpretation. (Citations as published in Chomsky 1972.)Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1969. Some empirical issues in the theory of transformational grammar. (Citations as published in Chomsky 1972.)Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1971. Conditions on transformations. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club. (Published in A Festschrift for Morris Halle, ed. by S. R. Anderson & P. Kiparsky, 232–86; New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1973.)Google Scholar
Chomsky, Noam. 1972. Studies on semantics in generative grammar. The Hague: Mouton.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Emonds, Joseph. 1969. Root and structure preserving transformations. MIT dissertation, reproduced by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1966. Toward a modern theory of case. (POLA report 13. 1–24.) Columbus: Ohio State University. (Reprinted in Modern Studies in English, ed. by D. Reibel & S. Schane, 361–76. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1969.)Google Scholar
Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The case for case. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, E. & Harms, R., 1–90. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Fodor, Jerry. 1970. Three reasons for not deriving ‘kill’ from ‘cause to die’. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 429–38.Google Scholar
Harman, Gilbert. 1970. Deep structure as logical form. Synthese 21. 275–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackendoff, Ray. 1969. Some rules of semantic interpretation for English. (Published as Semantic interpretation in generative grammar; Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1972.)Google Scholar
Keenan, Edward. 1970. A logical base for a transformational grammar of English. Philadelphia: U. of Penn. Transformations and Discourse Analysis Papers, 82.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1965. On the nature of syntactic irregularity. (Published as Irregularity in syntax; New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1970.)Google Scholar
Lakoff, George. 1969. On generative semantics. Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Lakoff, George, and Ross, John. 1967. Is deep structure necessary? Bloomington: Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
McCawley, James. 1968. Lexical insertion in a transformational grammar without deep structure. Papers from the 4th Regional Meeting, Chicago Linguistic Society, 71–80.Google Scholar
McCawley, James. 1970. English as a VSO language. Lg. 46. 286–99.Google Scholar
McCawley, James. 1972. Kac and Shibatani on the grammar of killing. Syntax and semantics, I, ed. by Kimball, John P., 139–50. New York: Seminar Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, Jerry. 1969. On arguing about semantics. Papers in Linguistics 1. 49–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perlmutter, David. 1968. Deep and surface structure constraints in syntax. (Published in 1971 by Holt, Rinehart & Winston.)Google Scholar
Postal, Paul. 1969. On the surface verb ‘remind’. Linguistic Inquiry 1. 37–120.Google Scholar
Peters, Stanley, and Ritchie, Robert. 1969. A note on the universal base hypothesis. Journal of Linguistics 5. 151–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, J. O. 1973. Syntactic constraints I have known. UCLA Papers in Syntax 4. 110–37.Google Scholar
Ross, John. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. MIT dissertation, reproduced by Indiana University Linguistics Club.Google Scholar
Schachter, Paul. 1973. Focus and relativization. Lg. 49. 19–46.Google Scholar