S structures

S structures DEFAULT


Portable Storage & Custom Steel



Need Room for your stuffcall us

Located in Middleburg and Keystone Heights, FL 

Serving Jacksonville to Gainesville, FL

Mention Our Advertisement and Enjoy $100 OFF any Lark Building

Make the Right Building Choice

About R & S Structures and More

R & S Structures and More is a family-owned and operated company based in Middleburg, FL. Our company is owned and operated by Sandy Nichols. We serve the Jacksonville area. Call us at 904-606-2125 if you need to buy a durable, portable building or rent to own a storage building!

Choose from a full range of design options and custom-built structures. Visit us at 4151 County Road 218, Middleburg, FL 32068. We neither encourage returns nor have a return policy. 

A Compassionate Company

Besides building customized portable structures for the general population, We have the desire to contribute to the local community. We support and work with multiple Veteran Organizations. Contact us now for more details.

Let Us Help Customize Your Portable Building

We offer the best built portable storage building in the industry  that's versatile, durable, and lasts long? Get in touch with R & S Structures and More, an authorized dealer of Lark builders.com   Choose from a large selection of steel frame structures that come in a variety of design options. Visit us at 4151 County Road 218 W Middleburg Fl!

Lark Builders offers a 36 month material and workmanship warranty, as well as a 20 year pro-rated warranty against damage from decay and termites.  Additionally, all aluminum sheet and trim parts have a pro-rated 30 year warranty

Read more

Our Steel Structures come with a 10 year Sheet Metal & 20 year Steel Framing Warranty!

Let us help you designe the perfect carport, garage or barn today!

Read more
Sours: https://www.rsstructures.com/

3.2.2 D-structure and S-structure

An immediate consequence of accepting movements as a part of grammatical description is that there are at least two levels that we can describe the structure of any sentence: a level before movement takes place and a level after movement has taken place.


The difference between the two levels of structural description will simply be the positions that the moved elements occupy, given the above assumption that movements do not actually alter the structure. For example, consider the following two sentences:

(60)aMary met Mark in the park
bin the park, Mary met Mark

In (60a) the PPin the park is an adjunct to the VP, modifying the VP by adding information about where the meeting took place. In (60b) the PP has moved to the front of the sentence, in a similar way to that in which topics are moved to the front. We can call this movement preposing. Before the preposing takes place, the PP is in its VP adjoined position:

After the movement, the structure will look like this:

We call the structure before movement takes place, a D-structure and the post-movement structure an S-structure. The ‘D’ and the ‘S’ originally stood for deep and surface, reflecting the fact that S-structures represent an ordering of the elements which is closer to that which holds in the externalisation of the sentence (its pronunciation, or whatever) while D-structures represent an abstract level of description more deeply embedded in the analysis. However, the words deep and surface have unfortunate connotations which may lead to misunderstanding. Deep, for example, can be taken to mean ‘meaningful’ or ‘ponderous’, while surface can mean ‘superficial’ or ‘apparent’. It would be wrong however to come to the conclusion that deep-structure is somehow more important or that surface-structure is irrelevant. These terms should be taken simply as referring to the two levels of the description of a sentence and neither one nor the other is any more important than the other. This is why the more neutral terms D-structure and S-structure are used and we will follow this tradition.



        D-structure and Theta Theory

        S-structure and Case Theory

Sours: http://primus.arts.u-szeged.hu/bese/Chapter3/3.2.2.htm
  1. Beyond limits clothing
  2. Jasper dentist
  3. Aimbot simulator


Arrangement and organization of interrelated elements in an object or system, or the object or system so organized

For other uses, see Structure (disambiguation).

The structure of a DNAmolecule is essential to its function.

A structure is an arrangement and organization of interrelated elements in a material object or system, or the object or system so organized.[1] Material structures include man-made objects such as buildings and machines and natural objects such as biological organisms, minerals and chemicals. Abstract structures include data structures in computer science and musical form. Types of structure include a hierarchy (a cascade of one-to-many relationships), a network featuring many-to-many links, or a lattice featuring connections between components that are neighbors in space.


A traditional Samifood storage structure
Gothic quadripartite cross-ribbed vaults of the Saint-Séverinchurch in Paris

Buildings, aircraft, skeletons, anthills, beaver dams, bridges and salt domes are all examples of load-bearing structures. The results of construction are divided into buildings and non-building structures, and make up the infrastructure of a human society. Built structures are broadly divided by their varying design approaches and standards, into categories including building structures, architectural structures, civil engineering structures and mechanical structures.

The effects of loads on physical structures are determined through structural analysis, which is one of the tasks of structural engineering. The structural elements can be classified as one-dimensional (ropes, struts, beams, arches), two-dimensional (membranes, plates, slab, shells, vaults), or three-dimensional (solid masses).[2]: 2  Three-dimensional elements were the main option available to early structures such as Chichen Itza. A one-dimensional element has one dimension much larger than the other two, so the other dimensions can be neglected in calculations; however, the ratio of the smaller dimensions and the composition can determine the flexural and compressive stiffness of the element. Two-dimensional elements with a thin third dimension have little of either but can resist biaxial traction.[2]: 2–3 

The structure elements are combined in structural systems. The majority of everyday load-bearing structures are section-active structures like frames, which are primarily composed of one-dimensional (bending) structures. Other types are Vector-active structures such as trusses, surface-active structures such as shells and folded plates, form-active structures such as cable or membrane structures, and hybrid structures.[3]: 134–136 

Load-bearing biological structures such as bones, teeth, shells, and tendons derive their strength from a multilevel hierarchy of structures employing biominerals and proteins, at the bottom of which are collagen fibrils.[4]


In biology, one of the properties of life is its highly ordered structure,[5] which can be observed at multiple levels such as in cells, tissues, organs, and organisms.

In another context, structure can also observed in macromolecules, particularly proteins and nucleic acids.[6] The function of these molecules is determined by their shape as well as their composition, and their structure has multiple levels. Protein structure has a four-level hierarchy. The primary structure is the sequence of amino acids that make it up. It has a peptide backbone made up of a repeated sequence of a nitrogen and two carbon atoms. The secondary structure consists of repeated patterns determined by hydrogen bonding. The two basic types are the α-helix and the β-pleated sheet. The tertiary structure is a back and forth bending of the polypeptide chain, and the quaternary structure is the way that tertiary units come together and interact.[7]Structural biology is concerned with biomolecular structure of macromolecules.[6]


Main article: Chemical structure

Chemical structure refers to both molecular geometry and electronic structure. The structure can be represented by a variety of diagrams called structural formulas. Lewis structures use a dot notation to represent the valence electrons for an atom; these are the electrons that determine the role of the atom in chemical reactions.[8]: 71–72  Bonds between atoms can be represented by lines with one line for each pair of electrons that is shared. In a simplified version of such a diagram, called a skeletal formula, only carbon-carbon bonds and functional groups are shown.[9]

Atoms in a crystal have a structure that involves repetition of a basic unit called a unit cell. The atoms can be modeled as points on a lattice, and one can explore the effect of symmetry operations that include rotations about a point, reflections about a symmetry planes, and translations (movements of all the points by the same amount). Each crystal has a finite group, called the space group, of such operations that map it onto itself; there are 230 possible space groups.[10]: 125–126  By Neumann's law, the symmetry of a crystal determines what physical properties, including piezoelectricity and ferromagnetism, the crystal can have.[11]: 34–36, 91–92, 168–169 


Main article: Mathematical structure


See also: Musical form

A large part of numerical analysis involves identifying and interpreting the structure of musical works. Structure can be found at the level of part of a work, the entire work, or a group of works.[12] Elements of music such as pitch, duration and timbre combine into small elements like motifs and phrases, and these in turn combine in larger structures. Not all music (for example, that of John Cage) has a hierarchical organization, but hierarchy makes it easier for a listener to understand and remember the music.[13]: 80 

In analogy to linguistic terminology, motifs and phrases can be combined to make complete musical ideas such as sentences and phrases.[14][15] A larger form is known as the period. One such form that was widely used between 1600 and 1900 has two phrases, an antecedent and a consequent, with a half cadence in the middle and a full cadence at the end providing punctuation.[16]: 38–39  On a larger scale are single-movement forms such as the sonata form and the contrapuntal form, and multi-movement forms such as the symphony.[13]


Main article: Social structure

A social structure is a pattern of relationships. They are social organizations of individuals in various life situations. Structures are applicable to people in how a society is as a system organized by a characteristic pattern of relationships. This is known as the social organization of the group.[17]: 3  Sociologists have studied the changing structure of these groups. Structure and agency are two confronted theories about human behaviour. The debate surrounding the influence of structure and agency on human thought is one of the central issues in sociology. In this context, agency refers to the individual human capacity to act independently and make free choices. Structure here refers to factors such as social class, religion, gender, ethnicity, customs, etc. that seem to limit or influence individual opportunities.


Main article: Data structure

In a singly linked list, each element has a data value and a pointer to the next element.

In computer science, a data structure is a way of organizing information in a computer so that it can be used efficiently.[18] Data structures are built out of two basic types: An array has an index that can be used for immediate access to any data item, but depending on the programming language used, its size must be specified when it is initialized. A linked list can be reorganized, grown or shrunk, but its elements must be accessed with a pointer that links them together in a particular order.[19]: 156  Out of these any number of other data structures can be created such as stacks, queues, trees and hash tables.[20][21]

In solving a problem, a data structure is generally an integral part of the algorithm.[22]: 5  In modern programming style, algorithms and data structures are encapsulated together in an abstract data type.[22]: ix 


Main article: Software architecture

In software architecture, the structure of software is the way in which it is partitioned into interrelated components. A key structural issue is minimizing dependencies between these components. This makes it possible to change one component without requiring changes in others.[23]: 3  The structure can be represented in diagrams such as the Control Structure Diagram and the Nassi–Shneiderman diagram.[24] Structural elements reflect the requirements of the application: for example, if the system requires a high fault tolerance, then a redundant structure is needed so that if a component fails it has backups.[25] A high redundancy is an essential part of the design of several systems in the Space Shuttle.[26]


As a branch of philosophy, logic is concerned with distinguishing good arguments from poor ones. A chief concern is with the structure of arguments.[27] An argument consists of one or more premises from which a conclusion is inferred.[28] The steps in this inference can be expressed in a formal way and their structure analyzed. Two basic types of inference are deduction and induction. In a valid deduction, the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises, regardless of whether they are true or not. An invalid deduction contains some error in the analysis. An inductive argument claims that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely.[28]

See also[edit]


  1. ^"structure, n.". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Retrieved 1 October 2015.
  2. ^ abCarpinteri, Alberto (2002). Structural Mechanics: A unified approach. CRC Press. ISBN .
  3. ^Knippers, Jan; Cremers, Jan; Gabler, Markus; Lienhard, Julian (2011). Construction manual for polymers + membranes : materials, semi-finished products, form-finding design (Engl. transl. of the 1. German ed.). München: Institut für internationale Architektur-Dokumentation. ISBN .
  4. ^Zhang, Z.; Zhang, Y.-W.; Gao, H. (1 September 2010). "On optimal hierarchy of load-bearing biological materials". Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 278 (1705): 519–525. doi:10.1098/rspb.2010.1093. PMC 3025673. PMID 20810437.
  5. ^ abUrry, Lisa; Cain, Michael; Wasserman, Steven; Minorsky, Peter; Reece, Jane (2017). "Evolution, the themes of biology, and scientific inquiry". Campbell Biology (11th ed.). New York: Pearson. pp. 2–26. ISBN .
  6. ^ abBanaszak, Leonard J. (2000). Foundations of Structural Biology. Burlington: Elsevier. ISBN .
  7. ^Purves, William K.; Sadava, David E.; Orians, Gordon H.; H. Craig, Heller (2003). Life, the science of biology (7th ed.). Sunderland, Mass.: Sinauer Associates. pp. 41–44. ISBN .
  8. ^DeKock, Roger L.; Gray, Harry B. (1989). Chemical structure and bonding (2nd ed.). Mill Valley, Calif.: University Science Books. ISBN .
  9. ^Hill, Graham C.; Holman, John S. (2000). Chemistry in context (5th ed.). Walton-on-Thames: Nelson. p. 391. ISBN .
  10. ^Ashcroft, Neil W.; Mermin, N. David (1977). Solid state physics (27. repr. ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston. ISBN .
  11. ^Newnham, Robert E. (2005). Properties of materials anisotropy, symmetry, structure. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN .
  12. ^Bent, Ian D.; Pople, Anthony. "Analysis". Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press. Retrieved October 5, 2015.
  13. ^ abMeyer, Leonard B. (1973). Explaining music : essays and explorations. Berkeley: Univ. of California Press. ISBN .
  14. ^"Sentence". Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press. Retrieved October 5, 2015.
  15. ^"Phrase". Grove Music Online. Oxford Music Online. Oxford University Press. Retrieved October 5, 2015.
  16. ^Stein, Leon (1979). Anthology of Musical Forms: Structure & Style (Expanded Edition): The Study and Analysis of Musical Forms. Alfred Music. ISBN .
  17. ^Lopez, J.; Scott, J. (2000). Social Structure. Buckingham and Philadelphia: Open University Press. ISBN . OCLC 43708597.
  18. ^Black, Paul E. (15 December 2004). "data structure". In Pieterse, Vreda; Black, Paul E. (eds.). Dictionary of Algorithms and Data Structures (Online ed.). National Institute of Standards and Technology. Retrieved 1 October 2015.
  19. ^Sedgewick, Robert; Wayne, Kevin (2011). Algorithms (4th ed.). Addison-Wesley Professional. ISBN .
  20. ^Cormen, Thomas H.; Leiserson, Charles E.; Rivest, Ronald L.; Stein, Clifford (2009). "Data structures". Introduction to algorithms (3rd ed.). Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press. pp. 229–339. ISBN .
  21. ^Mehta, Dinesh P. (2005). "Basic structures". In Mehta, Dinesh P.; Sahni, Sartaj (eds.). Handbook of data structures and applications. Boca Raton, Fla.: Chapman & Hall/CRC Computer and Information Science Series. ISBN .
  22. ^ abSkiena, Steven S. (2008). "Data structures". The algorithm design manual (2nd ed.). London: Springer. pp. 366–392. ISBN .
  23. ^Gorton, Ian (2011). Essential software architecture (2nd ed.). Berlin: Springer. ISBN .
  24. ^Diehl, Stephan (2007). Software visualization : visualizing the structure, behaviour, and evolution of software ; with 5 tables. Berlin: Springer. pp. 38–47. ISBN .
  25. ^Bernardi, Simona; Merseguer, José; Petriu, Dorina Corina (2013). Model-Driven Dependability Assessment of Software Systems. Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer Berlin Heidelberg. pp. 46–47. ISBN .
  26. ^"Computers in the Space Shuttle Avionics System". Computers in Spaceflight: The NASA Experience. Retrieved 2 October 2015.
  27. ^"The Structure of Arguments". Philosophy 103: Introduction to Logic. philosophy.lander.edu. Retrieved 4 October 2015.
  28. ^ abKemerling, Garth. "Arguments and Inference". The Philosophy Pages. Retrieved 4 October 2015.

Further reading[edit]

  • Carpi, A.; Brebbia, C.A. (2010). Design & nature V : comparing design in nature with science and engineering. Southampton: WIT. ISBN .
  • Pullan, Wendy (2000). Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN .
  • Rottenberg, Annette T.; Winchell, Donna Haisty (2012). The structure of argument (7th ed.). Boston: Bedford/St. Martins. ISBN .
  • Schlesinger, Izchak M.; Keren-Portnoy, Tamar; Parush, Tamar (2001). The structure of arguments. Amsterdam: J. Benjamins. ISBN .

External links[edit]

Sours: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Structure
Tricks to learn 11 oxo acid structures of sulphur and finding of no.of S-S bonds, -O-O- bonds, S-o-S
This item has been removed from the community because it violates Steam Community & Content Guidelines. It is only visible to you. If you believe your item has been removed by mistake, please contact Steam Support.
This item is incompatible with ARK: Survival Evolved. Please see the instructions page for reasons why this item might not work within ARK: Survival Evolved.
Current visibility: Hidden
This item will only be visible to you, admins, and anyone marked as a creator.
Current visibility: Friends-only
This item will only be visible in searches to you, your friends, and admins.
This item has been added to your Subscriptions. Some games will require you to relaunch them before the item will be downloaded.
Sours: https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=731604991

Structures s

Deep structure and surface structure

Deep structure and surface structure (also D-structure and S-structure, although these abbreviated forms are sometimes used with distinct meanings) concepts are used in linguistics, specifically in the study of syntax in the Chomskyan tradition of transformational generative grammar.

The deep structure of a linguistic expression is a theoretical construct that seeks to unify several related structures. For example, the sentences "Pat loves Chris" and "Chris is loved by Pat" mean roughly the same thing and use similar words. Some linguists, Chomsky in particular, have tried to account for this similarity by positing that these two sentences are distinct surface forms that derive from a common (or very similar[1]) deep structure.


Chomsky coined and popularized the terms "deep structure" and "surface structure" in the early 1960s. American linguist Sydney Lamb wrote in 1975 that Chomsky "probably [borrowed] the term from Hockett".[3] American linguist Charles Hockett first used the dichotomous pair "deep grammar" vs "surface grammar" in his 1958 book titled A Course in Modern Linguistics. Chomsky first referred to these Hockettian concepts in his 1962 paper The Logical Basis of Linguistic Theory (later published as Current Issues in Linguistic Theory in 1964). In it Chomsky noted that "the difference between observational and descriptive adequacy is related to the distinction drawn by Hockett (1958) between 'surface grammar' and 'deep grammar', and he is unquestionably correct in noting that modern linguistics is largely confined in scope to the former."[4]

In Chomskyan linguistics[edit]

In early transformational syntax, deep structures are derivation trees of a context free language. These trees are then transformed by a sequence of tree rewriting operations ("transformations") into surface structures. The terminal yield of a surface structure tree, the surface form, is then predicted to be a grammatical sentence of the language being studied. The role and significance of deep structure changed a great deal as Chomsky developed his theories, and since the mid-1990s deep structure no longer features at all[5] (see minimalist program).

It is tempting to regard deep structures as representing meanings and surface structures as representing sentences that express those meanings, but this is not the concept of deep structure favoured by Chomsky. Rather, a sentence more closely corresponds to a deep structure paired with the surface structure derived from it, with an additional phonetic form obtained from processing of the surface structure. It has been variously suggested that the interpretation of a sentence is determined by its deep structure alone, by a combination of its deep and surface structures, or by some other level of representation altogether (logical form), as argued in 1977 by Chomsky's student Robert May. Chomsky may have tentatively entertained the first of these ideas in the early 1960s, but quickly moved away from it to the second, and finally to the third. Throughout the 1960s and 1970s, the generative semantics movement put up a vigorous defence of the first option, sparking an acrimonious debate, the "Linguistics Wars".[6]

Chomsky noted in his early years that by dividing deep structures from surface structures, one could understand "slip of the tongue" moments (where someone says something that he did not intend) as instances where deep structures do not translate into the intended surface structure.[7]

Extension to other fields[edit]

The "surface" appeal of the deep structure concept soon led people from unrelated fields (architecture, music, politics, and even ritual studies) to use the term to express various concepts in their own work. In common usage, the term is often used as a synonym for universal grammar—the constraints which Chomsky claims govern the overall forms of linguistic expression available to the human species. This is probably due to the importance of deep structure in Chomsky's earlier work on universal grammar, though his concept of universal grammar is logically independent of any particular theoretical construct, including deep structure.

According to Middleton (1990), Schenkerian analysis of music corresponds to the Chomskyan notion of deep structure, applying to a two-level generative structure for melody, harmony, and rhythm, of which the analysis by Lee (1985) of rhythmical structure is an instance. (See also: Chord progression § Blues changes.)

See also[edit]


  1. ^In the first formulations of transformational grammar, active and passive pairs had identical deep structures. As the theory developed, it became necessary to mark whether a sentence was active or passive in the deep structure itself, with the result that active/passive pairs had almost-but-not-quite identical deep structures.
  2. ^Lamb 2006, p. 179
  3. ^Chomsky 1964, p. 30
  4. ^Cipriani, Enrico. "Semantics in Generative Grammar: A Critical Survey". Lingvisticae Investigationes.
  5. ^Harris, Randy Allen (1995). The Linguistics Wars. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-509834-X.
  6. ^Carlson [et al.], Neil R. (2005). Psychology: The Science of Behaviour 3rd Canadian Edition. Pearson. pp. 310–311. ISBN 0-205-45769-X.


  • Chomsky, Noam (1957), Syntactic Structures, The Hague/Paris: Mouton, ISBN 
  • Chomsky, Noam (1964), Current Issues in Linguistic Theory, The Hague: Mouton, ISBN 
  • Chomsky, Noam (1965), Aspects of the Theory of Syntax, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press
  • Chomsky, Noam (1981), Lectures on Government and Binding, The Hague: Mouton, ISBN 
  • Chomsky, Noam (1986), Barriers, Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press
  • Kordić, Snježana (1991). "Transformacijsko-generativni pristup jeziku u Sintaktičkim strukturama i Aspektima teorije sintakse Noama Chomskog" [Transformational-generative approach to language in Syntactic structures and Aspects of the theory of syntax of Noam Chomsky] (PDF). SOL: Lingvistički časopis (in Serbo-Croatian). 6 (12–13): 103–112. ISSN 0352-8715. SSRN 3445224. CROSBI 446914. ZDB-ID 1080348-8. (CROLIB). Archived(PDF) from the original on January 16, 2013. Retrieved 11 September 2019.
  • Lamb, Sydney (2006), "Mutations and Relations", Language and Reality: Selected Writings of Sydney Lamb, London and New York: Continuum
  • C. S. Lee (1985). "The rhythmic interpretation of simple musical sequences: towards a perceptual model", in P. Howell, I. Cross and R. West (eds.), Musical Structure and Cognition (Academic Press), pp. 53–69.
  • Richard Middleton (1990). Studying Popular Music. Open University Press.
  • Sakai, Yuko (2017a). Sentence Generation: Syntax Tree Diagram in English, Spanish, Chinese, Japanese, Ainu. Createspace. ISBN 978-1545429006
  • Sakai, Yuko (2017b). English Syntax Tree Diagram: Based on Universal Sentence Structure. Createspace. ISBN 978-1547232208
  • L. Samovar & R. Porter (2003). Communication between Cultures. Wadsworth Publishing.
Sours: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_structure_and_surface_structure
Structures of Operating System


Now discussing:


686 687 688 689 690