Abstract

The distinction between arguments and margins is clear-cut in conceptual terms: arguments are roles required for the integrity of the process; margins are expansions whose specification is ruled by a criterion of conceptual consistency with the core of the process. If we try to keep apart the constituents with the function of arguments from those with the function of margins in linguistic expressions, by contrast, the distinction loses its clarity owing to the indirect relation between conceptual structures and forms of expression. On the one hand, the structure of the utterances one finds in texts is governed by a criterion that is not relevant for the integrity of the process ± namely, by the informative progression of the text that hosts them. On the other hand, the structure of model sentences, which contains all the arguments and those margins that are consistent with the core, is the outcome of competition between two coding regimes ± namely, relational coding, based on a network of formal grammatical relations, and punctual coding, based on the capability of the form of expression to mirror its content ± whose areas of competence cut across the distinction between arguments and margins. The hypothesis argued for in this paper is that the relevant distinction can be drawn using two different kinds of criteria, that is, formal criteria in the area of relational coding and conceptual and textual criteria in the area of punctual coding.