Talk:Deep structure and surface structure

message: the sentences "Pat loves Chris" and "Chris is loved by Pat" do not have the same meaning.  the first sentence is an action. It just denotes that there is an action and the input of that object is Chris. it doesnt expose the concrete function or from an Observers perspective Pat can accept Chris as an input to the concept.   The second sentence denotes Chris as an output.  the action gave an output of Chris. this exposes a concrete function or from the Observers perspective, by observing the concrete function it can be noted that Chris is an output of the function. I would argue that this example should be re-written.
Trivnew (talk) 20:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm sorry, but passivization is the standard example. Replacing it wih something else suggests you disagree with the whole idea, which is not the right thing to do in an encyclopedia. It would probably be best to use the original examples and add references to them in the original article(s). Rp (talk) 07:37, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Opening

message: This page is terribly confusing.  Could we just stick to the facts?
This page is really a load of garbage.  I like Chomsky's views politically, but this is really just a lot of unverifiable bollocks.  I am sorry if my language is wrong but it needs a warning to say watch out ORIGINAL RESEARCH HERE or am I just crazy?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.155.233.42 (talk) 00:26, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know if you are crazy, but the original research here is by Chomsky, published, widely cited, followed, and taught, and the basic idea is not really very original anyway. So certainly it doesn't qualify as original research in the sense in which Wikipedia uses this term. Rp (talk) 07:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: I'm pretty sure that the stuff about inter-cultural communication is complete bunk, if anyone else could look into this that would be great, but I'm pretty sure that cultural differences do not affect the deep nor surface structure.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daemonax (talk • contribs) 09:36, 15 May 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure you did the right thing. While you and I only know Chomsky's notion of deep structure, the deleted text was apparently about a notion in anthropology, and judging by my first try with Google it is indeed an established notion there.  So we may need two content pages and a disambiguation page. Rp (talk) 20:48, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inter-cultural communication 

message: I think it would be pertinent to list some notable academics who still use or support deep structure in their work and/or theories. If nobody is then I think that fact should be noted.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.249.59.138 (talk) 08:56, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linguists or academics who are still using deep structure in their theory. 

message: We have this article on deep structure (which inevitably touches on surface structure as well), whereas Surface structure redirects to Transformational grammar. For symmetry, what about: (A) redirecting surface structure to this article instead, and possibly also (B) renaming this article Deep structure and surface structure (with necessary adjustments to the text)? W. P. Uzer (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: How about making this article a redirect to transformational grammar?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Rp (talk • contribs) 07:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title/redirect issues