[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: Deconstructing Deep Structure

RE: Deconstructing Deep Structure

Thanks to Professor Conrad for helping me see the obvious. I reread 
the section in Richard Young on the Objective Genitive (p 31) and I 
think I see how he is using *deep structure* in that context. I am not 
saying that I agree with his use of the term or it's implications. 

In my first post I tried to find out if *deep structure* is just a 
synonym for what I call the functional level of the language. If I 
read Professor Conrad correctly I think his answer is yes. I am 
willing to accept (provisionally) that Richard Young is using the term 
in that sense but is everyone using it that way?  

Let's look at a different example. The following is an snip from a 
post by Jim Beal (b-greek digest #773) :

Jim Beal Wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>
Language is deeper than speech!!! Surface irregularities do not negate 
the existence of a perfectly orderly, rational, deep structure. It 
just makes it more difficult to understand. In a flowing stream, a 
surface irregularity is an indication of the presence of a rock in the 
depth. If one looks intently past the surface irregularity, one can 
see the outlines of the rock. >>>>>>>>>>

How is *deep structure* being used in this context?

The more I here this term used the more I think there is something 
deeply mystical about this concept. Does invoking the name of *deep 
structure* involve accepting a whole set of prepositions about the 
relationship between language and metaphysics, something very profound 
like the Augustinian Logos Doctrine? (I should probably send this 
question to Ronald Nash.)

Now I am not afraid of metaphysics, but I don't understand all the 
baggage that is included with this term *deep structure.*  For that 
reason it makes me nervous. 



Clay Bartholomew
Three Tree Point