theory, therefore, does not adequately account for the direct and in-
direct objects in Japanese.

3. SUBORDINATION OF DIRECT AND INDIRECT OBJECT TO THE
SUBJECT. Consider the sentences John preceded Mary and Mary fol-
lowed John. In Chomsky's analysis, the direct object NP is placed in a
subordinate position (being dominated by VP) with respect to the sub-
ject NP (being dominated by S). But, is it justified to say that there is
such a constituent as preceded Mary or followed John? Why should pre-
ceded Mary form a unit, the VP, but not John preceded? Why should
not the subject NP and the direct object NP (and the indirect object
NP) be given equal status? Chomsky has not provided a justification
for placing the direct (and indirect) object in a subordinate position
under the domination of VP.

Conclusion. The above discussion indicates that Chomsky has not pro-
vided a syntactic specification of basic sentence relations and that his
thesis that syntax is 'autonomous' is not supported.

The essential issue dividing Chomsky's type of grammatical theorizing
and those of his opponents concerns the relationship and primacy of
syntax and semantics. Chomsky and his proponents believe that basic
syntactic structures can be specified independently of semantic consid-
erations. His opponents, such as the Generative Semanticists and the
Semantic Case theorists, disagree, holding that only semantic structure
can be specified independently and that the selection of syntactic struc-
ture is governed by semantic determinations.

While over the years, support for the Chomskyan position has
waned somewhat, that viewpoint continues to remain dominant.
Chomsky's supporters are more disciplined and devoted to developing
and working within the essential paradigm that has been set. Their
publication output has been prodigious. Most of the books and articles
which are available today in linguistics have been written by these indi-
viduals.

In contrast, the semantic based grammar view has been inadequately
developed. While one might argue that this is because it is a more dif-
ficult task to specify underlying semantic representations than it is to
specify Chomskyan Deep Structures (and it undoubtedly is), this does
not provide a sufficient explanation. Semantic based theorists seem to
have been less devoted to developing their paradigm. Books which ar-
ticulate their type of theory are rare. Nevertheless, I believe that in
time their ideas will prevail, for, as the next chapter shows, those ideas
are more in accord with psychological reality than those of Chomsky.

-62-