Questions about Chinese grammar?

On the contrary, these expressions are highly economical and can reflect the profoundness of Chinese without sacrificing accuracy too much. Surprisingly, most people use ambiguity to say that a language is defective. By the way, speaking a certain language is not good or good, which can be said to be unscientific and imprecise. All living languages are the result of long-term historical development under certain social and natural conditions, weighing economy and accuracy, and belong to the result of repeated choices by language users.

Speaking back to these two sentences, according to Chomsky's theory, the sentence you see or hear itself belongs to the surface structure, while the meaning actually expressed by this sentence belongs to the deep structure, which means that the meaning we finally understand is determined by the deep structure.

Sentences such as "I didn't have the money to buy Huawei before, but now I don't have the money to buy Huawei" and "No one can win table tennis in China, and no one can win men's football in China", although the surface structure of the first half and the second half are similar, the subject or object is transferred by theming, which makes the sentences present similar surface structure while retaining the deep structure.

In order to avoid soft and broad haha, take the second sentence as an example:

No one can win table tennis in China. In fact, the deep structure is that no one can win table tennis in China. In the surface structure, the object of the deep structure-China table tennis has been promoted.

The deep structure of "China Men's Football Team Can't Win Who" is "China Men's Football Team Can't Win Who". In the surface structure, the "who" as the object in the deep structure is displaced to the original subject position.

Therefore, in essence, sentences with similar structures but different meanings are actually due to differences in deep structures. This kind of sentence with different meanings due to different deep structures also appears in other languages, such as "Can you see the girl with a telescope?" I can see that girl. Telescope. Can you see the girl through a telescope? I can see the girl with a telescope. Therefore, this does not mean that this kind of structure also exists in Chinese and is flawed, not to mention that these two sentences have not caused ambiguity.

God, I typed a lot of words and touched myself.