components that interact through interface rules. Argument structure provides a rich illustration of this
decomposition: it can be accounted for only in a system that discriminates syntactic formation rules, conceptual
formation rules, and rich syntax–semantics interface principles. Thus, on one hand, it constitutes an argument against
Chomsky's syntactocentricarchitectures. On theotherhand, it also constitutesan argumentagainst purelysemantically
based theories that deny an independent role to syntax, of the sort often advocated by opponents of the generative
approach. We conclude that the detailed facts of argument structure provide important evidence for the parallel
architecture.
5.10 A tier for grammatical functions?
An important question lurks around the corners ofAspects concerning the status of the traditional grammatical
functions: subject, object, and indirect object. Aspects suggests that these functions can be defined implicitly, as
structural positions in the sentence. The subject in English, for instance, is the daughter of S and the sister of VP; the
direct object is the daughter of VP and the sister of V. Hence, Chomsky says, thegrammar does notneed to make any
explicit mention of these roles.
However, Relational Grammar (Perlmutter 1983; Perlmutter and Rosen 1984), Lexical-Functional Grammar (Bresnan
1982a; 2001), and Role and Reference Grammar (Van Valin and LaPolla 1997) stress the fact that grammatical
functionscannotalways beidentified withparticular positions in a sentence.Many languages havefar freer wordorder
than English, but the grammatical functions are still detectable through patterns of agreement and case marking.
Grammatical functions so marked still undergo passive and the like in the usual way—but only if one can define
grammatical function in a fashion that abstracts away from its particular realization in the language as position,
agreement, and/or case.
Nor,as demonstrated intheprevioussections, cangrammaticalfunctions bedefinedinterms ofsemanticroles;rather,
there is a many-to-many relation between the two systems (see especially (33)). Many grammatical principles make
reference to grammatical functions rather than thematic roles. For instance, verb agreement pertains to subjects (and,
in some languages, objects) irrespective of their thematic roles. With a few semantically motivated exceptions, passive
promotes the argument normally in objectposition to subjectposition,irrespectiveof its thematic role.^76 The so-called
“structural cases,”nominative and accusative, are default
THE PARALLEL ARCHITECTURE 149
(^76) The exceptionsincludetheobjects ofverbslikeweighandcost (Jackendoff1972). (Itbegsthequestiontosay thatbecause oftheir semantics theyare notobjects!)Another
exceptional case is the way English passive applies to certain prepositional objects, as inBill is being talked about. These cases present stronger semantic constraints: the
surface subject must beconstrued as somehow beingaffectedbytheevent(i.e.as a Patient).Theclassiccontrast isThis house has been slept in by George Washington/*my brother,
where having been slept in by George Washington somehow confers status on the house.