Plenary Speaker

Dr. Luis H. González (bio) 

Professor of Spanish and Linguistics at Wake Forest University

Abstract

From 21 centuries of form-driven grammar (subject, DO, IO) to a 21st century meaning-driven grammar (verber and verbed) 

For 21 centuries, linguistic theory and language teaching have been based on the grammatical relations subject (NOM), direct object (ACC), and indirect object (DAT) proposed by the Greeks. Gruber ([1965]1976) proposed thematic relations (theta roles), the meaning equivalent of grammatical relations. Linguists have never agreed on the number of thematic relations or whether a given grammatical relation assigns one thematic relation or another in a sentence. Chomsky (1982: 89) writes, “I never know how people are able to pick out thematic relations with such security, I can’t.” Most linguists agree, however, that each grammatical relation can assign a few theta roles. For example, the subject can “assign” the role of agent, experiencer, force, instrument, recipient, stimulus, etc. In his review of González (2021), Fábregas (2024) writes:

In essence, through this simple method, the author manages to show the reader that the grammatical function assigned to an element is sensitive to the effect of distinct syntactic operations, while the role is invariable once the predicate is defined. Therefore, the reasoning goes, the semantic role is logically previous, more basic and more central than the grammatical function. (Emphasis by LG).

González (2021) provides abundant evidence that it is the thematic relation (role) the one which assigns grammatical case (NOM, ACC), the opposite of what linguists have been doing since 1965. Furthermore, the only two thematic roles needed are verber and verbed, and by stating language rules in terms of verber and verbed, those rules are easier to state, understand, apply, and retain.

This talk will show that many children are intuitively processing verber and verbed in many sentences by age five, perhaps earlier. If it is true that this abstract surprises you, it is true that this abstract is the surpriser (the verber inference) and you are the surprised (the verbed inference). Abstracts surprise people; people do not surprise abstracts. Children or speakers do not need to know what subject is in order to know that in this sentence, abstracts is the surpriser. The verber inference and the verbed inference are two simple inferences that are part of universal grammar. Snyder & Hyams (2015) report that Italian children intuit by age 2:1 that the subject of many sentences is the verbed because they use the auxiliary essere accurately and consistently by that age. This talk will also show that:

1.  The distinction between verber and verbed is a theory of argument selection (subject and DO) understood by college students of a second language.

2. If there is a verber in a sentence, it is always the subject; if there is no verber, the verbed or the verbee is promoted to subject. This rule explains passive voice, all of the “values of ‘reflexive’ SE” with one rule, perfect auxiliary selection in several languages, gustar verbs, etc. Since the subject is often the verbed, verber and verbed are not just another label for subject and DO.

3. The same rule explains “personal a” and Spanish leísmo, both dialectal and general.

4. General leísmo explains psychological verbs in Spanish and in many other languages.

5. A sentence is not “high” or “low” in transitivity, as proposed in Hopper & Thompson (1980). Transitivity is not on a continuum; it is binary. Any given sentence is transitive, or it is not.

Attendees will be able to draw implications for language teaching and for linguistic theory.