Hostname: page-component-cb9f654ff-qc88w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-08-13T06:42:23.699Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Some notes on ‘deep’ grammar

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

M. A. K. Halliday
M. A. K. Halliday
Affiliation:
Department of General Linguistics, University College, London W.C.1
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In the representation of syntagmatic relations in language, we may distinguish between a linear sequence of classes, such as ‘adjective followed by noun’, and a non-linear configuration of functions, such as ‘modifier-head relation’ or simply ‘modification’. Both of these have been referred to as ‘structure’, although this term has also been extended to cover paradigmatic as well as syntagmatic relations. For Hjelmslev, for whom ‘structure’ was not a technical term (see e.g. 1961: 74 (=1943: 67)), ‘the structural approach to language … [is] conceived as a purely relational approach to the language pattern’ (1948: quoted in Firth, 1951: 220); among others who have emphasized the relational aspect of such studies are Firth (1957: 17 ff., 1951: 227–8; cf. Robins, 1953; Palmer, 1964a), Tesnière (cf. Robins, 1961: 81 ff.) and Pike(cf. Longacre, 1964: 16). Chomsky's (1964: 32) distinction, using Hockett's terms, between ‘surface structure’ and ‘deep structure’, ‘structure’ here going beyond syntagmatic relations, is extremely valuable and widely accepted: the surface structure of a sentence is defined as ‘a proper bracketing of the linear, temporally given sequence of elements, with the paired brackets labelled by category names’, while the deep structure, which is ‘in general not identical with its surface structure’, is ‘a much more abstract representation of grammatical relations and syntactic organization’.

Information

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Linguistics , Volume 2 , Issue 1 , April 1966 , pp. 57 - 67
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1966

References

REFERENCES

Chomsky, N. (1964). Topics in the Theory of Generative Grammar. (To appear in Sebeok, T. A. (ed.), Current Trends in Linguistics, 3. The Hague: Mouton.) (Preliminary version, mimeographed.)Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1951). General linguistics and descriptive grammar. TPhS 69–87. (Reprinted in Papers in Linguistics 1934–1951. London: Oxford U.P., 1957. 216–228.)Google Scholar
Firth, J. R. (1957). A synopsis of linguistic theory. Studies in Linguistic Analysis. (Special volume of the Philological Society.) Oxford: Blackwell. 1–32.Google Scholar
Haas, W. (1966). Linguistic relevance. In Bazell, C. E., Catford, J. C., Halliday, M. A. K. & Robins, R. H. (eds.) In Memory of J. R. Firth. London: Longmans. 116–147.Google Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1961). Categories of the theory of grammar. Word 17. 241–292.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halliday, M. A. K. (1964). Syntax and the consumer. In Stuart, C. I. J. M. (ed.) Report of the Fifteenth Annual (First International) Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies. (Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, 17.) Washington, D.C.: Georgetown U.P. 11–24.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, L. (1947). Structural analysis of language. SL, 1. 69–78.Google Scholar
Hjelmslev, L. (1961). Prolegomena to a Theory of Language. (Translated by Whitfield, F. J.. Revised English edition.) Madison: Wisconsin U.P. (Originally published (1943) under the title Omkring Sprogteoriens Grundlaeggelse. Copenhagen: Munksgaard.)Google Scholar
Hockett, C. F. (1965). Sound change. Lg 41. 185–204.Google Scholar
Huddleston, R. D. (1965). Rank and depth. Lg 41.Google Scholar
Lamb, S. M. (1964 a). The sememic approach to structural semantics. AmA 66. 57–78.Google Scholar
Lamb, S. M. (1964 b). On alternation, transformation, realization and stratification. In Stuart, C. I. J. M. (ed.) Report of the Fifteenth Annual (First International) Round Table Meeting on Linguistics Language Studies. (Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, 17.) Washington, D.C.: Georgetown U.P. 105–122.Google Scholar
Longacre, R. E. (1964). Grammar Discovery Procedures. (Janua Linguarum, Series Minor, 33). The Hague: Mouton.Google Scholar
Lyons, J. (1963). Structural Semantics. (Philological Society Publications, 20.) Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Nida, E. (1960). A Synopsis of English Syntax. (Linguistic Series, 4.) Norman: Summer Institute of Linguistics.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1964 a). ‘Sequence’ and ‘order’. In Stuart, C. I. J. M. (ed.) Report of the Fifteenth Annual (First International) Round Table Meeting on Linguistics and Language Studies. (Monograph Series on Languages and Linguistics, 17.) Washington, D.C.: Georgetown U.P. 123–130.Google Scholar
Palmer, F. R. (1964 b). Grammatical categories and their phonetic exponents. In Lunt, H. G. (ed.) Proceedings of the Ninth International Congress of Linguists. The Hague: Mouton. 338–344.Google Scholar
Robins, R. H. (1953). Formal divisions in Sundanese. TPhS 109–142.Google Scholar
Robins, R. H. (1961). Syntactic analysis (review article). ArchL 13. 78–89.Google Scholar