From: Clayton Bartholomew (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun May 25 1997 - 07:04:57 EDT
RE: Deconstruction of Deep Structure and other Improbabilities
These threads have merged somewhat.
Jim Beale in his fascinating post (digest #776) unearthed one of the
issues I have been searching for:
Jim Beale Wrote:
What is necessary here is to presuppose an innate possession of
This is exactly what I was driving at when I said that invoking the
term *deep structure* involves accepting a whole set of
presuppositions. There are more presuppositions than the one stated
above, but one is enough to illustrate the point. My reference to
Augustine's Logos Doctrine was not being flippant. I think there is
some kind of rationalism lurking in the term *deep structure.* Jim
Beale has made this rationalism explicit in his statement quoted
above. I'm sure he will respond by saying I haven't used the word
If you don't accept Jim's restatement of Chomsky (early Chomsky?) then
the term *deep structure* should be avoided.
I avoid it for that reason.
Three Tree Point
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sat Apr 20 2002 - 15:38:17 EDT