明治大学教養論集 通巻255号 外国語・外国文学(1993)pp.15-31 DEEP STRUCTURE A SYNTACTIC THEO James R. Bower DEEP STRUCTURE AND SYNTACTIC THEORY……… 1NTRODUCTION・…・……………・……………・・……………………・16 PRECURSORS TO CONTEMPORARY NO STRUCTURE……………・…・…………・・………………・…・・…・…・…17 The Port Royal Grammarians・………・……・………… Wilhelm von Humbolt and innere Sprach Ferdinand de Saussure…………・……・……………………・… GENERATIVE SYNTAX AND THE NOT STRUCTURE・………………・………・…………………………・・……・20 The助π航’ゴ6 Structures Model………………・…・………・…2 Underlying Trigger Morphemes…………・……・…… The Katz-Postal Hypothesis…・…・…・………・………・・… The AsPects Model・…・………・…・…一………・…・・………・…24 Abstractness ………・……………・…・・…・・……………・・……・25 Generative Semantics and Deep Structure…… The Lexicalist Hypothesis……・…・・…………・・……・…… Contemporary Theories…………・…………………・・…… REFERENCES ………………・…・……………・・…・…………・………30 一15一
17
Embed
DEEP STRUCTURE AND SYNTACTIC THEORY · PDF fileGenerate is a mathematical term ... was a direct continuation of Zellig Harris’s concept of kernel ... of natural languages
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
明治大学教養論集 通巻255号 外国語・外国文学(1993)pp.15-31
DEEP STRUCTURE AND
SYNTACTIC THEORY
James R. Bowers
DEEP STRUCTURE AND SYNTACTIC THEORY………・………・…・15
1NTRODUCTION・…・……………・……………・・……………………・16
PRECURSORS TO CONTEMPORARY NOTIONS OF DEEP
STRUCTURE……………・…・…………・・………………・…・・…・…・…17
The Port Royal Grammarians・………・……・………………17
Wilhelm von Humbolt and innere Sprachform………・-18
Ferdinand de Saussure…………・……・……………………・…19
GENERATIVE SYNTAX AND THE NOTION OF DEEP
STRUCTURE・………………・………・…………………………・・……・20
The助π航’ゴ6 Structures Model………………・…・………・…20
Underlying Trigger Morphemes…………・……・……・………22
The Katz-Postal Hypothesis…・…・…・………・………・・……23
The AsPects Model・…・………・…・…一………・…・・………・…24
Abstractness ………・……………・…・・…・・……………・・……・25
Generative Semantics and Deep Structure………・………・・26
The Lexicalist Hypothesis……・…・・…………・・……・………28
Contemporary Theories…………・…………………・・………29
REFERENCES ………………・…・……………・・…・…………・………30
一15一
INTRODUCTION
Crystal (1991; 94-95) asserts that deep structure is a ‘‘central
theoretical term in transformationql grammar.” @(Crystal uses the term
transformational grammar as synonymous with generative grammar・I
will use the latter term in this paper because of the controversy concern-
ing the transformational notion that characterizes some of the discussion
of deep structure.)He goes on to define deep structure as “...the
abstract syntactic representation of a sentence--an underlying level of
structural organization which specifies all the factors governing the way
the sentence should be interpreted.” @ 一
Crystal’s definition captures some commonalities of the idea of deep
structure which can be traced from the Port Royal grammarians, through
Wilhelm von Humbolt and Ferdinand de Saussure to the generative
syntactics of the latter half of the twentieth century. His definition also
refers to the two key controversies concerning deep structure that have
characterized the evolution of syntactic theory since Chomsky’s 1957
1andmark work:Syntactic Structures. They are the question of degree of
abstractness and the question of whether deep structure ‘‘specifies all the
factors governing the way the sentence should be interpreted。” @This
paper will look briefly at the history of the notion of modern precursors
to deep structure。 It will then examine the evolution of that concept from
the Syntactic Structures model through contemporary models of genera-
t1Ve grammar・
一16一
PRECURSORS TO CONTEMPORARY NOTIONS OF DEEP STRUCTURE
The Port Royal Grammarians
Robins(1990:137-138)points out that the structural interpretations
that the Port Royal grammarians gave to the functions of certain classes
of words was “the positing, in modern terms, at a deeper structural
level, of elements that in actual sentences were represented conjointly
with other elements.”This notion is similar to the generative semanticist
concept of lexical decomposition that will be discussed below. Specifi-
cally, Robins reports the Port Royal grammarians considered adverbs to
be abbreviations for a prepositional phrase, an analysis that can be found
in Syntactic Structures.
The abstract analysis of verbs received much attention as well.
Reviving an analysis that originated with Aristotle, the Port Royal
grammarians viewed all verbs other than the copula as consisting of a
verb and a particle. Robins’example is, Peter lives viewed as structurally
equivalent to Peter is living, another analysis similar to early Chomsky
and, later, the Generative Semanticists. Finally, the Port Royal gram-
marians saw such aspect features as passive and transitive as associated
with the adjectival nature of verbs rather than as a property of verbs
themselves.
一17一
In Cartesinn LinguiStics, Chomsky explicitly attributes the idea of
deep structure to the Port Royal grammarians.“ln short language has
an inner and outer aspect. A sentence can be studied from the point of
view of how it expresses a thought or from the point of view of its
physical shape, that is from the point of view of either semantic interpre-
tation or phonetic interpretation.” @(1966:32-33) ‘‘Using some recent
terminology we can distinguish the‘deep structure’ of a sentence from its
‘surface structure.’(1966:33) “This point is brought out with particular
clarity in the Port Royal Grammar, in which a Cartesian approach to
language is developed, for the first time, with considerable insight and
subtlety.”@ (1966:33)
●
Wilhelm von Humbolt and innere Sprachform
As we will see below, one of the facts of human language that led
Chomsky to postulate a level of deep structure in syntax in his Syntactic
Stractures was the‘creative’ability of human beings to generate an
infinite set of sentences from a necessarily finite syntactic system. Such
amodel needed to account for ambiguous sentences on the one hand and
synonymous sentences on the othe士. Assuming a level of abstract struc-
ture independent of surface representation accounted for these facts
handily at the time. However, Chomsky was not the first to suggest that
this fact of human linguistic creativity was central to a theory of lan-
guage・
Wilhelm von Humbolt(1767-1835)is reported by Robins to have
asserted that,“A language is to be identified with the living capability
by which speakers produce and understand utterances...” @(1990:193)
一18一
This living capability was, in von Humbolt’s theory of language, for-
mally constituted as “the semantic and grammatical structure of a
Ianguage, embodying elements, patterns and rules imposed on the raw
material of speech.” @(Robins,1990二193)Von Humbolt’s term for this
formal structure was innere Sprachform.In that it postulates an abstract
level of language separate from the physical representation of the ele-
ments of language, it can be said to anticipate the contemporary concept
of deep structure. In particular, note the parallel with Chomsky’s state・
ment regarding the inner and outer aspect of language quoted from
Cartesinn Linguistics above.
Ferdinand de Saussure
The view that“...language can be studied from the point of view
of how it expresses a thought or from the point of view of its physicaI
shape...” @quoted from Cartesian Linguistics was also stated by
Ferdinand de Saussure. As Robins reports, de Saussure expressed this as
langue空.forme, non subsinnce.(Robins,1990:221)Language is form
without substance. Form on the content plane deals with semantics and
grammar. As Anderson points out,“De Saussure, himself, apparently
held that the domain of the sign relation(the minimal scope within which
phonological form is consistently associated with its semantic content)
was the word or complex form, not the morpheme or simple form.”
(1988:152)This view of the word seems to presage the lexical de・
composition position of the generative semanticists as well as Chomsky’s
own early stand in Syntactic Structures. The distinctions of form from
substance and complex structure separate from phonological form
require the postulation of an abstract layer of representation, which is
our definition of deep structure.
一19一
GENERATIVE SYNTAX AND THE NOTION OF DEEP STRUCTURE
The Syntactic Stntctzares Model
De Saussure’s theorizing concerning the langue/parole distinction is
not exactly equivalent to Chomsky’s competence/performance distinc・
tion. Much of what generative grammarians would today call syntax was
assigned by de Saussure to parole. Chomsky’s contribution was to place
syntax at the core of theorizing about human language, a step necessary
to account for the creativity that is its distinctive feature.
Chomsky viewed syntax in formal terms and established as criteria
for an adequate grammar that it be able to generate all and only the
sentences of a natural language, and be able to assign structural descrip-
tions to them. Generate is a mathematical term. It is used in a technical
sense of mapping;not in the everyday notion of actually making sen-
tences.
In Syntactic Structures, Chomsky postulated three levels to generate
sentences that would meet his criteria of obse】rvational adequacy. The
levels were a phrase structure level, a transformational level, and a
morphophonemic level.
The phrase structure level was a direct continuation of Zellig
Harris’s concept of kernel sentences. This component generated a finite
-20 一
set of strings with structural interpretations. The phrase structure com-
ponent was finite in the sense that it contained no rules for handling the
recursiveness of natural languages.
It was the transformational level of the theory of grammar proposed
by S.・ソntactic Strzactures that introduced the concept of an abstract‘deep
structure.’Transformational rules operated on the strings generated by
the phrase structure Ievel to account for such properties as infinite
recursiveness, embedding, ambiguity, synonymy, and the intuitive
relatedness of such surface structures as statements and yes/no questions
and the active/passive voice distinction.
The morphophonemic level assigned a phon610gical representation to
the output of the transformational leve1. As an example, in a sentence
such as John十take十PAST十a十cookie the rules of this level would
operate to yield the surface string:John took a cookie.
From Roberts(1964)we have the following examples of rules from each
level:
S-一一>NP十VP
T-do;tense >do十tense
T-conji insert:X(1)+A(2)+Y(3)
matrix;X(4)十B(5)十Y(6)
result:4十2十Conj十5十6
take十(PAST)一一一>took
(Phrase structure level)
(Single base transformation)
(Double base transformation)
(Morphophonemic level)
一21一
In the Syn tactic Structures model, the role of the transformational
level is to link the relatively abstract phrase structure level to the much
less abstract morphophonemic level. Transformations allow generaliza・
tions to be made about a number of relationships that obtain among
strings generated by the phrase structure level. The model does not deal
directly with the relationship between meaning and structure. In fact,
Chomsky argues vigorously for an autonomous syntax.
Underlying Trigger Morphemes
One development of the Syntactic Structu.res model of syntax was a
belief that deep structure, the undβrlying levels of phrase structure and
transformational structure, could account for “..,all the factors
governing the way the sentence should be interpreted.” @(Crystal 1990:
94)However, if transformations such as the passive or yes/no question
formation were considered optional as in the original conceptualization,
this was clearly not the case, In the early’60’s investigation of co・
リ コ ロ
occurrence restrlctlons on negatlves led to the conclusion that such
transformations had to be obligatory. If they were obligatory and if the
deep structure contained all the faごtors governing how a sentence was to
be interpreted, then there had to be some element in the deep structure
representing such necessary meanings as questioning, passive voice,
negat10n, etC・
The solution was to postulate abstract triggering morphemes such as
Q(Question)or N EG(negation).This was an initial step toward a more
abstract conception of deep structure. It also was a commitment to the
idea that transformations were meaning preserving.
一22一
The Katz・Postal Hypothesis
Syntactic Stntctures in promoting an autonomous syntax ignored the
question of the relationship between syntax and semantics. However,
semantics became a concern with the postulation of underlying trigger
morphemes. Katz and Postal in their 1964 book,An。lntegrated 7劾oη(ゾ
Linguistic Descn’垂狽奄盾獅刀C carried the process a step further by explicitly
stating that transformations did not affect meaning. They argued that
the concept of abstract, meaning-bearing morphemes allowed nominal-
izations to be analyzed as structures with abstract noun heads represent-
ing each nominal’s abstract qualities. One way of discovering such
abstract heads was to employ a heuristic. This heuristic is known as the
Katz-Postal hypothesis, and its effect was to increase the abstractness of
the deep structure level by requiring additional levels of derivation before
the output of deep structure became available to the morphophonemic
level. The Katz-Postal hypothesis also paved the way for the advent of
generative semantics. Newmeyer(1986:71)summarized the hypothesis
as follows:
Given a sentence for which a syntactic derivation is needed;look
for simple paraphrases of the sentence which are not paraphrases by
virtue of synonymous expressions;on finding them, construct gram-
matic41 rules that relate the original sentence and its paraphrases in
such a way that each of these sentences has the same sequence of
underlying P-markers. Of course, having constructed such rules, it is
still necessary to find INDEPENDENT SYNTACTIC JUSTIFICATION for
them.(Katz and Postal 1964:157, emphasis in original.)
一23一
、
Although the motivation for the Katz-Postal hypothesis is based on
an analysis of English nominals, there is a clear parallel with the Port
Royal Grammar’s analysis of verbs.
The AsPects ModeI
It has been noted that the phrase structure level of the model of
grammar proposed by Chomsky in Syntactic Structures had no provision
for recursion. That was handled by the transformational level. In 1965,
Chomsky introduced an essentially, completely new model in、AspectS on
the Theory of Syntczx . The new-model postulated three sets of rules that
comprised deep structure:phrase.structure rules, subcategorization
rules, and rules of lexical insertion.(Newmeyer,1986:75)Recursion
was now handled by the phrase structure rules, Subcategorization rules
and lexical insertion rules were completely new.
The phrase structure rules and the subcategorization rules
constituted base rules. The former generated phrase markers that pro・
vided information on categories such as noun phrase, verb phrase, etc.
and defined grammatical relationships such as subject of sentence, direct
object of verb, etc. The subcategorization rules were composed of
context free subcategorization rules such as those that distinguish proper
nouns from common nouns in English, context sensitive subcategoriza-
tion rules which defined lexical categories in terms of syntactic frames
such as whether a verb required an object or not, and selectional restric-
tions which subcategorized verbs on the basis of such criteria as whether
they required a human subject or not. The lexical insertion rule inserted
一24 一
lexical items into the phrase structure generated by the base rules on the
basis of whether their structural descriptions matched those on the nodes
of the phrase structure.
There was also a transformational component. It applied to the
output of the base and lexical insertion rules. Transformations were now
obligatory and applied cyclically in order from the most basic embedded
sentence to the highest. In fact, the primary role of the transformational
component was to deal with embedding. Relatedness between sentences
was handled by elements in the base rules. Idiosyncratic properties were
relegated to the lexicon・
Abstractness
Before turning to further developments of syntactic theory as related
to the notion of deep structure, it is necessary to discuss the question of
abstractness. In the AspectS model of,syntax compound or complex
sentences were the result of transformations operating on structures
generated by the base rul〔?s and the lexical insertion rules・
Generally, the more complex a sentence was, the more embedded
sentences it had in deep structure, and the more cycles of transformations
it had. to undergo to produce a surface structure. Thus, it became
possible for surface structure to be radically different from the form of
deep structures. This degree of difference as, defined by distance in
terms of applications of transformations, is the syntactic notion of
abstractness.
一25一
The merit of abstractness in linguistic theory is to enable generaliza・
tions to be made which reveal underlying regularity in apparently quite
diverse structures. For example, if we observe in Japanese that the
syllables‘ta’‘chi’‘tsu’‘te’‘to’are actually combinations of a single sound
[t]with a vowel and with accompanying phonetic modification, we not
only establish an underlying commonality, but we are able to observe a
regularity that, in fact, corresponds to a general process in the language,