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，

ka，　ki，　ku，　ke，　ko；pa，　pi，　pu，　pe，　po；ba，　bi、　bu，　be，　bo，　etc．

　　　　The　downside　of　abstractness　is　that　it　may　only　be　a　convenient

fiction　with　no　correspondence　to　reality．　At　its　worst　it　may　obscure　the

very　generalizations　and　facts　about　language　that　we　wish　to　investi－

gate．　Halle’s（1957）dissertation　on　Russian，　for　example，　demonstrated

that　the　classic　structuralist　formulation　of　the　phoneme　obscured　the

．generalization　that　obstruents　are　voiced　uniformly　in　that　language．　The

intermediate　level　of　abstractness　required　by　the　phonemic　level’s　inter・

vention　between　surface　represelltations　and　underlying　forms　forced　an

arbitrary　split　of　that　process　intO　two　iden声ical　rules：one　describing

allophonic　variation，　and　the　other　describing　morphophonemic　varia－

tion．（adapted　from　Durand，1990：23－24）This　issue　of　levels　of　represen－

tation　and　abstractness　in　syntax　was　to　become　the　driving　force　in　the

dispute　between　Chomsky　and　those　linguists　who　subscribed　to　the　tenets

of　generative　semantics　during　the　decade　of　the　1970s．

Generative　Semantics　and　Deep　Structure

　　　For　Chomsky　in　the　AspectS　model，　deep　structure　was　a　kind　of

cover　term　for　the　interlocking　set　of　rules　necessary　to　produce　a

一26一

grammar　that　was　both　observationally　and　descriptively　adequate．　The

latter　criteria　was　new　to　the．AspectS　model，　and　was　used　to　distinguish

among　rival　grammars　that　met　the　criteria　of　observational　adequacy．

Halle’s　argument　with　regard　to　the　level　of　phonemic　representation　is

one　that　revolves　on　explanatory　adequacy・

　　　However，　in　the　mid－60s，　other　syntacticians　influenced　by　the

Katz－Postal　hypothesis　began　to　look　on　deep　structure　as　a　way　of

linking　semantics　to　syntax，　something　Chomsky　has　dealt　with　only

lightly．　They　began　to　posit　deep　structures　that　represented　every　aspect

of　the　meaning　of　a　sentence　under　investigation，　and　this　led　to　abstract

descriptions．　One　element　of　this　process　was　the　decomposition　of

lexical　items　into　highly　abstract　semantic　notions　such　as‘kill’＝CAUSE

TO　D　l　E，　and　embedding　of　sentences　to　a　very　great　depth．　For　example，

in　McCawley（1988：241），the　sentence：“Tom　hasn’t　been　watching

television　recently，”is　analyzed　with　a　deep　structure　composed　of　five

embedded　sentences，　the　four　topmost　of　which　serve　only　to　represent

negation　and　aspect．

　　　The　most　extreme　form　of　the　generative　semanticist’s　view　of　deep

structure　is　set　forth　by　Lakoff　and　Ross（1976）．Deep　structure（quoting

from　Newmeyer　1986：92）was：

12

3．

the　base　of　the　simplest　syntactic　component

the　place　where　subcategorization　and　selectional

restrictions　were　defined

the　place　where　basic　grammatical　relations　were　defined

一27一

4．the　place　where　lexical　items　were　inserted　from　the

　　Iexicon

　　　However，　observations　1－3　c6uld　be　argued　to　be　properties　of

semantic　representation，　and，　therefore，　no　independent　level　of　deep

structure　was　needed．　The　concept　of　an　independent　level　of　deep

structure　was　abandoned　altogether．

The　Lexicalist　Hypothesis

　　　On　the　basis　of　his　work　on　nominalization，　Chomsky　challenged

abstract　syntax　by　means　of　a　concept　called　the　lexicalist　hypothesis．

The　hypothesis　eliminates　category　changing　transformational　rules　from

the　grammar．　A　category　changing　transformation　would　be　one　that

turned　a　verb　into　a　noun，　for　example．　The　three　arguments　Chomsky

presented　in　favor　of　the　lexicalist　hypothesis　argued　for　a‘shallow’deep

structure．　The　first　argument　asserted　that　derived　nominals　occurred　in

sentences　corresponding　to　base　structures，　but　never　transformationally

to　derive　structures．　This　challenged　the　generative　analysis　of　such

nominals．（Newmeyer　，1986：107）The　second　argument　was　that　a

transformational　rule　should　capture　a　regular　productive　relationship．

This　led　to　the　presentation　of　the　X－bar　convention　which　is　now　stan－

dard　with　all　current　theories　of　syntax．（Newmeyer，1986：108）The

third　argument　asserted　that　the　structures　in　which　derived　nominals

occur　resemble　noun　phrases　in　every　way　．　This　would　follow　automati－

cally　from　the　postulation　that　derived　nouns　are　nouns　in　the　lexicon　and

are　inserted　as　such　in　deep　structure．　This　argues　against　the　abandon－

ment　of　an　independent　deep　structure．（Newmeyer，1986：109）

一28一

　　　　Eventually，　the　very　arguments　generative　semanticists　used　to

support　the　abandonment　of　deep　structure　resulted　in　its　rehabilitation．

Lexical　decomposition　was　attacked　on　two　grounds．　The　first　was　that

there　were　many　instances　where　the　semantic　and　syntactic　behavior　of

lexical　items　was　at　variance　with　the　behavior　of　their　supposed　sources．

The　second　was　that　lexical　decomposition　predicted　more　ambiguities

than　actually　occurred．

　　　　The　strongest　argument　in　favor　of　rehabilitating　deep　structure　was

that　semantic　specification　could　not　deal　with　specifying　morpheme

order．　Ordering　relationships　for　most　classes　of　morphemes　are　simply

not　predictable　on　semantic　criteria　alone・

Contemporary　Theories

　　　　In　the　end，　the　most　telling　argument　against　generative　semantics

was　that　its　constructs　had　become　too　powerful．　They　were　so　abstract

that　anything　could　be　potentially　explained　by　their　theory．　Unfortunate－

ly，　such　a　strong　theory　might　have　very　little　insight　to　offer　into　the

actual　working　of　natural　languages．　In　the　1980s　a　movement　was　made

toward　strongly　constrained　theories．　All　retain　the　concept　of　deep

structure　but　it　is　generally　a　modest　concept．　In　Chomsky’s　government

and　binding　theory　deep　structure　is　where　movement　alpha，　the　only

remnant　of　a‘transformation’takes　place．　In　generalized　phrase　struc－

ture　grammar，　deep　structure　is　the　locus　of　the　phrase　structure　compo－

nent．　In　lexical－functional　grammar，　deep　structure　is　where　the　lexicon

projects　structure・

一29一

　　　Deep　structure　is　no　longer　the　complex　region　where　transforma－

tions　operated　under　th6∠AspectS　and　generative　semantic　models．　Yet，　it

has　a　role　to　play　in　accounting　for　a　sufficient　level　of　abstractness　to

reveal　actual　regularities　in　language　rather　than　the　artificial　constructs

of　linguists．　Just　as　the　phoneme　has　again　found　a　role　as　a　psychological

construct　in　natural　phonology　as　oPPosed　to　the　structuralists’analytical

role，　so　too　has　deep　structure　returned　to　the　fold　as　a　central　tenet　of

generat1Ve　grammar・

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　REFERENCES

Anderson，　S．（1988）Morphologi¢al　theory．　in　Newmeyer（1988）．146－

191．

Andrews，　A．（1988）Lexical　structure．　in　Newmeyer（1988）．60－88．

Botha，　R．（1989）Challenging　Chomskγ．　Oxford：Basil　Blackwel1．

Chomsky，　N．（1957）Syntactic　Stractures．　The　Hague：Mouton．

（1965）AspectS　of　the　Theory　Of　5吻燃．　Cambridge　，　MA：The

MIT　Press．

（1966）Carteslan　Linguistics　．（）ambn’dge，　MA：The　MIT　Press．

Crystal，　D．（1991）ノ1　Dictio　na7　y（ゾLingudStics　and、Phonetics（3rd　ed．）

Oxford：Basil　Blackwell

一30　一

Durand，　J・　（1990）　Generative　and　．〈1∂n－Linear　、Phonology．　London：

Longman．

Katz，　J・and　P・Postal（1964）An　Integrated　7物60η（ゾLingudStic

Descriptions．Cambridge，　MA：The　MIT　Press．

McCawley，　J．（1988）The　Syn　tactic　Phenomena（ゾEnglish　Vol．1．

Chicago：The　University　of　Chicago　Press．

Newmeyer，　F．（1986）LingudStic　Theo2ry勿、4　merica（2nd　ed．）．New

York：Academic　Press．

　　　　　（Ed．）（1988）LinguiStics，　The　Cambri°dge　Surveyγ∂1．1∴乙inguts－

tic　Theo7　y：　Foundations・Cambridge　University　Press．

Roberts，　P．（1964）English　Syntax．　New　York：Harcourt，　Brace＆

World．

Robins，　R．（1990）ノ1　Short、Histoiry（ゾ、乙inguiStics（3rd　ed．）．London：

Longman．

Sells，　P．（1985）Lectures　on　Contemψora7Zy　Synltzctic　Theories．Stanford，

CA： DCLSI

一31一