Strawson's "Individuals" is being misrepresented here. He clearly understood that 'shallow levels' of cognitive processing were abstract and deep levels concrete. Similarly for Chomsky in his surface and deep levels. What can be replicated and agreed to are the surface parsings as hieirarchies of unary propositions. (Every school child learns this in grammar.) If you look at the computation of human cognition such propositions have clear meaning as the unit of truth where single words without context do not. This is fundamental in logic and the computational nature of human language.
This is how our and all animals' brains compute:
Unary propositions (shallow or deep) are fundamental and are the fundamental objective of all such computation.
But using natural language words to argue about natural language expressions is a lost cause, precisely because of the fundamental computational nature of natural language, and how it was evolved for neural communications between human brains.