I'm kind of confused by all this. Is the author trying to say that classifying something is dependent on previous classification? Like what is already 'out there' influences how something is classified? Or am I completely off, I admit, I find this text a bit challenging.

I would love to know if classifying texts in a similar way to mental processes makes retrieval of said text easier? Is that the typical manner/goal?

I wonder if the author might get into this later, but what about double entendres (a word that means two things). Or maybe something that seemingly seems about one thing but is actually about something else. Like if we use the ball example. The majority of the text could be on the surface about someone throwing a ball and all the ways that that is done/received/the description of the event/etc. but really the text is primarily about sharing. Would both of these not complicate the deep and surface structures?

Kassandra Brunet-McColeman: I think this part is a little confusing because I think that I really have to urge to pick apart the notion of permanence. To say a 'permanent aboutness' feels a little ambitious. Who is to say that someone classifies a text as having a fundamental aboutness but years ahead that changes according to new findings, linguistic changes, societial shifts, etc. that could alter the significance of the document. I understand what they're saying but I can't help but question this part.