The aim of this paper is to compare the treatment of syntactic functions, and more particularly those traditionally labelled as Subject and Object, in Functional Discourse Grammar and Role and Reference Grammar. Relevant aspects of the overall structure of the two theories are briefly described. The concept of alignment between levels of the grammar in Functional Discourse Grammar is introduced and the role of syntactic functions in the morphosyntactic type of alignment is explained. The arguments put forward in Role and Reference Grammar against the adoption of Subject and Object and in favour of a single language-specific and construction-specific privileged syntactic argument are then discussed. The arguments against Subject are found to be persuasive, those against the need for any secondary syntactic function (in place of the traditional Object) rather less so. It is therefore proposed that Functional Discourse Grammar should abandon the notions of Subject and Object as valid categories in those languages which can be demonstrated to need syntactic functions, and should make it explicit that grammatical relations are specific to particular languages and even to constructions within those languages, while making appropriate generalisations wherever possible. The role played by syntactic functions in the two theories is then discussed in rather more detail, and it is concluded that while the Role and Reference Grammar system makes stronger predictions about the relationships between syntax and semantics, the Functional Discourse Grammar concept of alignment has greater overall scope and generality. (Contains 3 figures.)