Hi there,

      "Every surface structure manifests an underlying conceptual structure. However, sometimes the relationship between surface and deep structure is distant & indirect. e. g. ambiguous sentences in which a surface structure can represent two or more different conceptual structures, for example biting dogs can be bothersome: (do the dogs bite or get bitten?).The application of syntactic rules and the choice of lexical items may destroy the underlying differences so that a number of distinct structures have the same number of surface manifestations."

I quite understand the role of syntactic rules which are deletion, rearrangement and insertion rules. My question is "how could the choice of lexical items destroy the deep structure?" Could you help me with it??

I'd much appreciate an answer accompanied with an example.

Thank very much in advance.

Consider Case Theory (you using the S / D Structure distinction), given VP internal subject hypothesis.

VP[DP[He] V'[V[drive] DP[a car]]]

Case theory mandates that the Subject be assigned Nominative, and the Object Accusative. Thus, Operation Move comes into play:

AgrS P[Spec[t DP[He]] VP[ V'[V[drive] DP[a car]]]

(omitting TP operation):

AgrS P[Spec[t DP[He]] TP[Spec[3rd sing, present] T'[T[t2 drives] AgrO P [Spec [sing] AgrO' [AgrO[DP[t3 a car]] VP[t1 V'[t2 t3]]]]]

Therefore, due to the syntactic requirements that the lexicon imposes (DP singularity, Case, VP Tenses, etc.), everything originally in the VP is moved out of it, leaving only traces behind. Thus DS is altered as syntactic complexity increases.

Hope this helps.