From: Clayton Bartholomew (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sat May 24 1997 - 16:12:11 EDT
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.
Three Tree Point
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:16 EDT