Subject: grammatical relations and derived notions

about two months ago i posted a query which , somewhat abbreviated , ran as follows : " for some time , i have been puzzled by a claim that i come across frequently in the formal grammatical literature , namely that since grammatical relations are derived , therefore they cannot be referred to by the grammar . more specifically , my puzzlement is not concerned with why some people believe both that grammatical relations are derived and that grammatical relations cannot be referred to by the grammar , but rather with why they think the second belief follows necessarily from the first . i would be grateful for any enlightenment on this issue . " my query did n't elicit a vast number of responses , so maybe i should conclude that people are n't really interested in this issue , but for those who might be interested i will summarize the responses . first , no one defended the position that i criticized . indeed , the general tenor , explicit or implicit , of the responses is that the position is erroneous . i am thus inclined to continue believing that it is an error that has unfortunately crept into the literature , one which i hope will disappear . some people pointed to other specific examples in linguistics and other sciences where derived notions play a crucial role , making it meaningful to argue about what are the correct derived notions . second , some people suggested that those who appear to make the claim in question might really be trying to say something different ( e . g . simply that the grammar should not refer directly to grammatical relations ) . but examination of the two most recent instances that i encountered , and which prompted me to post the query , shows that they only make sense if the claim is interpreted literally as i suggested . third , some people asked me to cite references to where the claim is made . i prefer not to do so . ( 1 ) it is n't my aim to embarrass anyone in front of the whole list ; there are others who are much better at that than i am . ( 2 ) it would be unfair to the authors of the two instances that i encountered most recently and which i remember - - i do n't see why i should cite them , especially as they are linguists whose work i respect - - while those i happen not to remember go uncited . i will be happy if the erroneous claim does n't appear in future . i am grateful to the following for their responses : dan finer , f . lehman , adam meyers , fritz newmeyer , sebastian shaumyan , jean - roger vergnaud . bernard comrie ( comrie @ bcf . usc . edu ) bernard comrie dept of linguistics gfs-301 tel + 1 213 740 2986 university of southern california fax + 1 213 740 9306 los angeles , ca 90089-1693 , usa e-mail comrie @ bcf . usc . edu
