THE RELATIONSHIP OP UNDERLYING AND SURPAOE STRUCTURE 
IN GENERATIVE DESORIPTION OF LANGUAGE 
Ol~ Ml~eska Tomi~ 
Universitet "Kiril i MetodiJ", SkopJe, Yugoslavia 
The distinction between u~uderlying and surface structure 
is more or less well established in contemporary ~ammatical 
analysis. The form and depth of the underlyiD E structure and 
its relationship to observable language reality are, however, 
permanently in the focus of linguistic disputes. 
In the standard generative ~ranaformationsl model 
(Ohc~sky, 1965) underlyinE structure was moderately deep. I% 
reflected the surface structure of English and catered for 
semantic distinctions mainly through the inherent senuantic 
features of the lexicon. The semantic component, to which the 
derived sentences were being sent for semantic processing, was 
not well defined. 
The generative semantics models deepened the underlying 
structure and imposed a considerable gap between the latter 
and the surface structure. This gap was to be bridged by 
transformations, which with McCawley included very extensive 
lexical changes. 
The functions of the underlying participants in the act- 
ion or state came to differ signifficantly from those of the 
surface nominal constituents. In Fillmore's model (Fillmore, 
1969) the subject of the surface structure correlated not only 
subject" or "actor" but also with an with the N ~de~lyi~ 
underlying patient, experienc'er, locative... To provide for 
this correlation, Fillmore set up rules for systhematic sub- 
Jectivization of non-agentive "underlying cases". What "s more, 
- 291 - 
he assigned to each verb a specific "case frame" which often 
lead to proposing features of conditional obltgatoriness (re- 
presented in hie notation by embedded and intersecting brack- 
ets). Similar endeavoars for correlating underlying functions 
with divergent surface constituents lead Gruber (1967) to 
vague characterizations, often in different terms for differ- 
ent classes of verbs. Anderson (1971), in his turn, opposing 
the characterization of sub, sot/verb relations in terms like 
"actor/action", offered a great variety of case functions to 
be assigned to his noun phrases, depending on the nature of 
their participation in the "process" or "state" represented 
by the predicate. 
More recently, generative linguists have been becoming 
increasingly aware of the necessity to distinguish meaning, 
taken as the linguistic counterpart of ~mCensional structure 
of sense, from cognitive content, i.e. from the language inde- 
pendent patternings of factual knowledge. Thus, Fillmore (1977) 
reexamines his underlying cases, places them outside the lan- 
guage system in a strict sense - in the realm of conceptual- 
ization, and assumes that the underlying structure of language 
proper is set up by "creating conditions under which a speaker 
cheese to draw. certain case roles into perspective". Sgall 
(1980), in his turn, olalms that hle multi-level generative 
model permits to set up semantic, underlying, tectogrammatical 
units, which are set off from the cognitive level "case-roles" 
but relate to them through Panevov~°s regular system of shift- 
Ing (Panevov~, 1980). Thls shifting can, of course, be accom- 
modated in the realm of conceptualization without the system 
of levels of functional generative 5Tammar. Recent transfers 
of selection of "case-roles" into conceptualization has not 
made linguistic description perspicuously simpler. The analyst 
has the choice of (a) introducing a set of rules that would 
"shift" the conceptual case roles so that they may naturally 
take their appropriate places in underlying structure or else 
(b) making provisions for adjustment rules between the levels 
- 292 - 
.I 
of underlyin8 and surface structure. 
Tn the belief that the constituents of the underlying 
structure of a model~ for automatic generation of the sentences 
of a natural language should be defined in terms that associa- 
te them closely to respective surface structure constituents, 
ou~ initial efforts for the construction of a g~-.-.ar for 
autoamtio generation of Serbo-Croatian have lead us to a pre- 
dicate-centered underlying structure whose nominals fall with- 
in two general types: nuclear and extranuclear or adverbial. 
mile the latter are optional, the former ave obligator7 for 
a given predicate| they can be abstent from the surface 
structure but are always recoverable. The n,~ber and type of 
nucles~ nominals that relate to each given predicate can be. 
stated in a predicate dictionary. When the underlying struct- 
ure of individual sentences are being generated, these dict- 
ionaries can serve as guides for the selection of the nuclear 
nominals for each predicate, which can be defined as the 
first, second, third ,.. nominal of a given predicate (~he 
exact nomber should be detez'mtned with tests for obligatori- 
nasa). The first nominal (or nominal one) is the nominal from 
Qhich the action or state denoted by the predicate cz~lginates, 
the second nominal (or nominal two) is the nominal towards 
which the action or state of the predicate is directed, where- 
as the third nmninsl (or nominal three) is the nominal funct- 
ioning as an intoz~nedtary between nominal 1 and nominal 20 
The linear ordering of the surface structure constituents 
does not always correspond to the ordering of the underlying 
nominals; however, in the cc=municatively "nmarked sentences 
the CorTespondenoe between the type of surface structure 
f~u~otion and type of underlying structure nominal is stable. 
In these sentences, nominal one is realized as subject, nomi- 
nal two as direct object or any other type of direct comple- 
ment (i.e. complement which relates to the verb directly), 
while nominal three is realized as indirect ob.lect or any 
other cemplement that is contingent on the presence of another 
oemploment. 
- 297 - 
In the inflective languages (and Serbo-Croatian Is one 
of them) the surface structure constituents are marked by 
specific suffixes. The morphonolcgioal changes incurred by 
sufftxation are usually being attributed to ,the operations of 
some morphonologica ! component or strata. We, however, main- 
tain that the assigxnent of the suffix and the morphonological 
changes accompanying it can be done by the rules that trans- 
form (or translate) the ~derlying structure into surface 
structure. Vitae (1980) has constructed a pro~ -m for auto- 
marie generation of the nominal paradi~a. We s~e now devising 
signals which, when attached to the argu:ents and ad~erbial 
n"minsls of the underlying structure, would trigger the gener- 
ation of Inflected nominal surface structure constituents 
along with their respective prepositions, if any. At the same 
time, work on the automatic generation of the predicate phrase 
constituents is under way. 
In the first generative (English language based) models 
morphology was assigned an anscillary role. Work with inflect- 
ed languages has shown that it should be dealt with indepen- 
dent of, though in coordination with, syntax. By developing 
programs for automatic generation of the morphonsloglcal 
fo~s, while working on the syntactic and semantic camponent(s) 
of the grs~mar, we hope to be able to build a model which is 
fox, sally s4mple and in which the u~mderlying struct~e will 
not be excessively remote t~cea the surface one. 
References 

Anderson J.M. (1971), The C~mma: of Case: Towards a \]~calist 
Theoz~, Cnmbrt~e IIntvez~ity l~:ess. 

Choasky N. (1965), Aspects of the Theo~ of Syntax, i.I.T. 
~ess. 

Fillmore C.J. (1968), "The Case for Case", Uuiverssls in 
Linguistic Theoryp E.Bach and R.Hal~as eds., Holt, Rine- 
hart and Winston, New TerM, pp. 1-8. 

Pillaore C.J. (1977), "The Case for 0aee Reopened", Kasus- 
theorie, Klaseifikation und eemantieohe Interpretation, 
K.Heger and J.Pet~fi ode., Buske, Hamburg, pp. 3-26° 

Gruber J.~. (1967), Functions of the Lexicon in Formal 
Descriptive Grmmaar, Santa Monioa System DevelopBent 
Co.potation, ~-3770/000/00. 

PaneTowd J. (1977), "Inner Partleipants and Free Adverbials", 
,Prague Studies in Mathematical Linguistlee 6, pp.227-254. 

Panevovd J. (1980), Formy a funkoe ve stavb~ ~esk6 v~ts, 
Academia, Praha. 

Sgall P. (1980)t "Cue and Meaning", Journal of ~tlo. 4, 
pp. 525-536. 

Vitae D. (1980), "Generiean~e imeni~kih oblika u empeko- 
hrvatekom ~eziku", Informatioa 3, pP° 34-39, 
