Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-kv2lp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-06T04:04:40.273Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rivalry among deep structures

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

W. Haas
W. Haas*
Affiliation:
University of Manchester
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Choice between different but equally informative proposals of ‘deep’ (or ‘underlying‘) structures appears to be arbitrary as well as undesirable. The appearance of rivalry among them is due to misrepresenting, in terms of alternative rules (constraints), what are in fact compatible tendencies. Realization of these tendencies, unlike the operation of rules, depends on specific lexical choice and context. Semantic tendencies operate within the framework of grammatical rules, but are no part of it. It is the freedom of ad-hoc choice among them, rather than any generative mechanism, that constitutes the truly creative aspect of language.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 49 , Issue 2 , June 1973 , pp. 282 - 293
Copyright
Copyright © Linguistic Society of America 1973

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

Bazell, C. E. 1964. Three misconceptions of grammaticalness. Monograph series in languages and linguistics, Georgetown University, 17.3–9.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. 1961. Syntactic blends and other matters. Lg. 37.366–381.Google Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. 1967. Apparent constituents in surface structure. Word 23.47–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. 1968. Judgments of grammaticality. Lingua 21.34–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bolinger, D. L. 1969. Categories, features, attributes. Brno Studies in English 8.37–41.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. 1965. Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Cruse, D. A. 1972. A note on English causatives. Linguistic Inquiry 3.520–528.Google Scholar
Fillmore, C. 1968. The case for case. Universals in linguistic theory, ed. by Bach, E. and Harms, R. T., 1–90. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. 1951. Papers in linguistics 1934-1951. London: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Fodor, J. A. 1970. Three reasons for not deriving ‘kill’ from ‘cause to die’. Linguistic Inquiry 1.429–438.Google Scholar
Haas, W. 1972. What is surface structure? Contributions to the XIth International Congress of Linguists, Bologna.Google Scholar
Haas, W. 1973. Review article on J. Lyons, Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Journal of Linguistics 9.71–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. 1970. Language structure and language function. New horizons in linguistics, ed by Lyons, J., 140–165. Harmondsworth: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
Harris, Z. S. 1957. Co-occurrence and transformation in linguistic structure. Lg. 33.283–340. (Reprinted in The structure of language, ed. by Fodor, J. A. and Katz, J. J., 155-210. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1964.).Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1965. Irregularity in syntax. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.Google Scholar
Lakoff, G. 1971. On generative semantics. Semantics, ed. by Steinberg, D. & Jakobovits, L., 232–296. Cambridge: University Press.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. 1968. Introduction to theoretical linguistics. Cambridge: University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, P. H. 1965. Problems of selection in transformational grammar. Journal of Linguistics 1.35–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar