Yeah - so the claim was that the deep structure of the grammar would be persistent - is that right? And this deep structure is something akin to that which is

Yeah - so the claim was that the deep structure of the grammar would be persistent - is that right? And this deep structure is something akin to that which is revealed through logical analysis. Is that the gist? I understand the related language of thought arguments better... and have for a long time thought that their empirical credentials were dubious. A straightforward syntactic analysis (as it seems to be described in the article) - isn't going to settle dog meat.