Ser Estar Gonzalez Remberger

8/12/2019 Ser Estar Gonzalez Remberger

1/25

To appear in: Maienborn, Claudia & Angelika Wllstein: Event Arguments in Syntax,

Semantics, and Discourse. Tbingen: Niemeyer. 89-114.

Kay-Eduardo Gonzlez-Vilbazo and Eva-Maria Remberger

Serand estar: The syntax of stage level and individual level predicates inSpanish*

Studying the relevant works concerning the distinction between stage level and individual level

predicates (SLP/ILP) in linguistics, one often encounters references to the Spanish copular verbs

serand estar(e.g. Diesing 1992, Demirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria 2000, Maienborn 2001). In these

copular verbs, the SLP/ILP-distinction seems to find its overt realization. The use of the verbseris

usually connected to ILP-characteristics, the use of estar to the SLP-phenomenon. We propose a

minimalist account for the differences in semantic and syntactic behaviour ofser/estar(following

Chomsky 1995). Contrary to Kratzer (1995), we assume an implicitly realized event argument for

both SLPs and ILPs, which characterizes the spatiotemporal reference of the situation or

eventuality expressed by the predicate (cf. Davidson 1967). This event position is localized in the

predication phrase PrP as proposed by Bowers (1993, 2001). The PrP represents an extension of

the VP-shell analysis (s. Larson 1988) to non-verbal predication, as found in copulativeconstructions. We assume that complex interactions between the features of the Pr-head and the

features of the minimalist T (I) (and probably also the C) will result in either the SLP or the ILP

interpretation. The Spanish data concerning ser and estar allow us to analyse the syntactical

conditions which lead to the SLP/ILP-distinction, making the correlation between syntactic and

semantic behaviour evident. We propose that bothserand estarare syntactical default strategies

(last resort). If the predicate is a SLP and no verb is available in the numeration, then estarwill be

introduced into the derivation under Pr. If the predicate is an ILP and no verb is available in the

numeration, then serwill be merged under T. Quantificational approaches to times, especially

reference time (Reichenbach 1947, Vikner 1985, Giorgi & Pianesi 1997) are also taken into

consideration. Where the SLP/ILP-distinction is not expressed syntactically (by seror estar) we

assume that the chosen interpretation results from spatiotemporal knowledge of the world, i.e. it is

conditioned by pragmatics (s. Maienborn 2001, 2003, 2005).

1. Introduction

Spanish is one language among others (e.g. Portuguese, Catalan, but also Gaelic) which

uses two copula verbs. One of these (the common copula ser, from the Latin copula

esse(re) to be) is used in the context of individual level predicates (ILP), the other one

(the copula estar, from the Latin verb stareto stand) is used in the context of stage level

predicates (SLP). Ser and estar also show different behaviours in other syntactic

constructions; e.g. the passive, ECM constructions, or the progressive.

* We want to thank the participants of the Linguistische Arbeitskreis at the Institute of German

Philology at the University of Cologne for the valuable discussion and helpful proposals at the first

presentation of this paper. We also want to thank Volker Struckmeier and two anonymous

reviewers for further comments.


2/25


3/25

Serand estar: The syntax of stage level and individual level predicates in Spanish 91

local restriction of the individual property of Heidi is at least strongly marked if not

ungrammatical. On the other side predicates like betrunken(drunk) or mde(tired) are

restrictable with respect to time or space, as shown by (3) and (4). Theyencode qualities of

a state (or better, a specific moment on stage)4of an individual, not of the individual as

such. They commonly encode temporary qualities and can therefore be anchored in aspecific time and space by adverbial expressions.

2. The Spanish copula: Serand estar

In German, the interpretation of an adjective seems to depend on the prototypical use of this

adjective and additional semantic and pragmatic readjustment processes in case there are

space-time relations which contradict the prototypical use. In German, there is just one

copula and therefore there are no means to control the SLP/ILP-distinction syntactically,

i.e. before pragmatics comes into play.In Spanish, the situation is different. Spanish usesserwhen the intended interpretation is

ILP and estar if the interpretation is SLP; the prototypical meaning of the corresponding

adjectives5can be overridden when there is an overt copula

6and no pragmatic readjustment

is possible in cases of overt time-space relations which contradict the selection of the

copula; s. (5b). The relevance of the two Spanish copulas ser and estar for the SLP/ILP

distinction can be shown by the following examples:

(5) a. Ana es / *est inteligente. [ILP / ser]

Ana is intelligent.

b. * Ana es inteligente en este momento. *[SLP / ser]

Ana is-SERintelligent right now.

space (as in the Disco) an ILP-interpretation is not possible anymore and the meaning of blondis

adapted to a temporary quality or episodic impression. In (3) and (4), on the contrary, it is easily

possible to give a specific time or space location without altering the prototypical meaning of the

adjectives.4 It has been noted that states (following the systematisation of verb classes by Vendler 1967) and

SLP do not coincide; for the distinction of states in K-states (which comprise the copulative

constructions withserand estar) and D-states, see Maienborn (2001:91-2, 2005:168): K-states are

temporally bound exemplifications of properties which might rely to a specific discourse

situation or not; D-states are static spatiotemporal entities with functionally involved participants

[tr. by E.R:].5 In Demonte (1999:142) the prototypical adjectives which go with estar are classified as

episodical adjectives (adjectivos episdicos), the prototypical ones which go with ser as

individual adjectives (adjectivos individuales).6 This means thatAna est inteligenteis also a possible grammatical sentence in Spanish (at least as

grammatical as what has been said about Heidi ist gerade intelligent in (1). It is just not very

common to use inteligenteas a predicate encoding a temporary quality.


4/25

92 Kay-Eduardo Gonzlez-Vilbazo and Eva-Maria Remberger



(6) Ana *es / est borracha. [SLP / estar]

Ana is drunk.

(7) Mara es lista. [ILP / ser / clever]]

Mara is smart.

(8) Mara est lista. [SLP / estar / ready]

Mara is ready.

In (5a), inteligente is used as an ILP; therefore, the copula ser must be used. In (6),

borrachois intended to refer to a temporary property; therefore, the copula estaris used.

Having an overt specific anchoring in time as en este momentoin (5b), the insertion of ser

becomes impossible or would result in an ungrammatical (contradictory) expression. There

are several polysemic adjectives which can have quite different interpretations (and

translations to other languages) depending on which copula is used in their context: One of

these is listowhich means smart when used in an ILP-context (i.e. with ser) and ready

when used in an SLP-context (i.e. with estar). Other adjectives with the same behaviour areaburridobored (SLP) or boring (ILP), molestoannoyed (SLP) or bothersome (ILP).

7

3. Selectional restrictions ofserand estar

The correlation betweenserand ILP on one side and estarand SLP on the other is partially

a semantic question. We would like to abstract away from the problems concerning the

semantic aspects and the prototypical uses of the predicative elements used with Spanish

copulas. We will not attempt to define clear semantic selectional restrictions for these

copulas. Instead, we focus on syntax, and give a syntactic analysis of the Spanish copula

construction which, in the end, will bear some implications for its semantics.

The (syntactic) selectional restrictions of ser and estar are quite similar, but not

identical. As (9) and (12) show, both copula forms can select an AP. The examples in (11)

and (14) show that they can select a PP. With respect to the selection of DPs they behave

differently. Whereassercan select a DP, estarcannot, as can be seen in (10) and (13).

7 Fernndez Leborans (1999:2430): Algunos adjectivos perfectivos o ciertos participios son

bismicos, esto es, poseen dos accepciones claramente diferenciadas en el lxico o constituyen

dos entradas lexicales. In this case, we should call these adjectives homonymic but not polysemic.

Since we claim that the semantic interpretation of these adjectives is conditioned by the syntactic

contextseror estar, we prefer to assume just one single polysemic entry for them.


5/25


ser:

(9) Ana es inteligente. [AP]

Ana is intelligent.

(10) Ana es mdico / una diosa. [DP]

Ana is a doctor / a goddess.

(11) Su reloj es de oro.8 [PP]

Her/his watch is made of gold.

Estarseems to be restricted to adjectival (see (12)) and prepositional (see (14)) predicates.

A combination with a true DP seems to be impossible (see (13) and fn. 9).

estar:

(12) Ana est borracha. [AP]Ana is drunk.

(13) * Ana est mdico / una diosa.9 [*DP]

Ana is a doctor / a goddess.

(14) Ana est en Paris. [PP]

Ana is in Paris.

This selectional restriction might stem from the origin of the verb estar which has its

historical roots in Latinstare, a true locative full verb, which could never be combined with

a DP10(for further explanations see also 6.3).

8 In principleseris not possible with a locative PP:

(i) * Ana es en Paris.

Ana is in Paris.

Constructions with subjects which encode events may be handled as exceptions:

(i) El open de Australia es en Sydney.

The Australian Open will take place in Sydney.

(ii) El prximo mundial es en Alemania.

The next world championship will take place in Germany.9 There are lexicalized exceptions like e.g. estar pezto swim/to have lost orientation (literally: be

fish). Examples like ests hecha una reina / ests hecha una salvajedont show predicative DPs

of estarbut of the periphrastic expression estar hechoto look like (you look like a queen / you

look like a savage). The only alternative to use a DP like mdicoin a copulative construction with

estaris to change it into a PP using de, like inJuan estde mdico (Juan works as a doctor, cf.

Fernndez Leborans 1999:2429).10 Latinstareeither takes a locative (mostly PP) complement (see ii and iii) or expresses a manner of

being, i.e. staying in an upright position.

(i) lat. Hi stant ambo, non sedent. (Plautus, Capt. prol. 1 sq.)


6/25




4. The predication phrase (cf. Bowers 1993, 2001)

Larson (1988) proposes a complex VP-shell for verbal predication. This complex VP-shell

originally was assumed to be present in transitive and unergative intransitive constructions,but missing in unaccusative constructions (see also Chomsky 1995). More recent work

generalizes the VP-shell to all verbal predications (see e.g. Collins 1996, but also later work

by Chomsky). We suppose that every predication, not just a verbal one, hasa complex shell

structure since we base our analysis on the so-called predication phrase, following a

proposal by Bowers (1993, 2001).

This predication phrase PrP represents a generalized form of the little vP of the VP-shell.

The PrP is a functional category which abstracts away from the common phrasal categories.

The marking of a PrP as verbal, adjectival, prepositional or nominal now appears as a

minimalist feature on Pr, see the following representation in (15) from Bowers (1993:

595):

(15)

Pr'

Pr

PrP

DP

XP

X = {V,A,N,P}

Pr subcategorizes a phrase, whose category is specified by the categorial feature in Pr: In

case of a verbal predication Pr has a V-feature, so that it can take only a verbalcomplement, i.e. a VP, see figure (16):

Both of them stand-STARE upright, they dont sit.

(ii) lat. ..., quorum statuae steterunt in rostris. (Cicero; de or., 2, 86, 353)

...whose statues stood on the tribune.

(iii) lat. ... qui domi stare non poterant. (Cicero; Fl., 6, 13)

... who couldnt stay at home.

(all examples are taken from Pountain 1982:144 following Lewis, Charlton T. and Charles Short,

1879.A Latin Dictionary.Oxford: Clarendon).


7/25


(16)

Pr

Vstrong

V

YPV

V'Spec

VPPr

Pr'DP

PrP

John

ate an apple

In the Minimalist Program, categorial features can be strong or weak.11

In our English

example (as also in Spanish) the verbal categorial feature in Pr is strong. This causes the

verbal predicative head to move overtly to Pr and left-adjoin to it to check the strong V-

feature and thereby form the predication. As far as the categorial complement feature of Pr

is concerned, only a V-feature in Pr can be strong, not an A-, D- or P-feature (at least in

English and Spanish). This means that in the case of an adjectival, prepositional or nominal

predication, there is no overt movement of the predicative head to Pr, as shown in figure

(17):12

(17)

X

YPX

X'Spec

XPPr

Pr'DP

PrP

X = {A,D,P}XP = {insane, a fool, in the know}

John

I consider John

insane. a fool.

in the know.

11 Our analysis, as said before, is cast in the minimalist framework of Chomsky (1995). In current

minimalism (Chomsky 2000, 2001a/b) strong features are formally expressed by probing

processes and the EPP ( head raising, according to Chomsky 2001a/b might be even part of the

phonological component). In a recent minimalist approach proposed by Pesetsky & Torrego (in

print) what we call a strong feature on a functional category is interpreted as a -interpretable

feature in combination with EPP (seen as a subfeature of a feature by Pesetsky & Torrego).12 The English examples are taken from Bowers (2000:304).


8/25




With a non-verbal Pr, the predicative head remains in situ. This property of non verbal Pr

might be related to the more stative and less dynamic situation which is expressed by non-

verbal predication. Verbs, which can be inherently classified by their Aktionsart (s.

Vendler 1967), seem to need a stronger predicational head.

Not only these mechanisms of movement, but also the name of Pr implies that this headestablishes the predication. Following this basic view of Bowers13we assume further that

the PrP is also responsible for the aspectual-situative contour of the predication, i.e. that it

contains an implicit event position in relation to its complement (s. also figure 24 in 5.2.1).

Following a broader interpretation of Reichenbach (1947), cf. Giorgi & Pianesi (1997),

we may assume that the PrP also encodes the relation between the event situation and the

reference situation.14

The E/R-relation can be in part expressed by a T-feature of Pr

(according to our view, the T feature also contains a temporal relation), which is of

particular interest in present perfect and past perfect constructions (s. figure 18):15

(18)

XPPr'T: E/R'

Pr'Spec

PrPT'T: S/R'

T'Spec

TP resent perfect:in T there is a T-feature with the value S=Rin Pr there is a T-feature with the value E_R

past perfect:in T there is a T-feature with the value S_R

in Pr there is a T-feature with the value E_R

13 S. Bowers (1993:595): Pr is a functional category that has the following basic properties: (a) the

canonical D-structure position for external arguments is [Spec, Pr] [...]; (b) Pr F-selects the

maximal projection YP of any lexical category Y; (c) either PrP is F-selected by I, or it can be

subcategorised as a complement by V; (d) the semantic function of Pr is predication.14 Reichenbachs time-reference system consists in the relative combination of the three elements

speech time (S), reference time (R) and event time (E); Giorgi & Pianesi (1997), following Vikner

(1985), suppose a system which is a combination of (at least) two independent relations, the

relation between S and R and the relation between R and E. We prefer to speak of situations

referring to the entities encoded by S, R, and E (instead of times or, even more misleading, time

points). The notation X_Y expresses the relation "X before Y", the notation X=Y expresses the

relation "X simultaneous to Y"; we do not distinguish between coextension and inclusion in the

latter case although this might be necessary, at least for the English tense system. Also, the terms

"present perfect" and "present past" are used here in a language neutral sense (i.e. in no direct

relationship to the particular characteristics of the English composed tenses).15 This is an important fact for languages which show auxiliary selection, like e.g. Italian: We

assume, following Remberger (2002), that in the case of auxiliary selection there is a strong T-

feature in Pr, which has to be checked overtly by the insertion of a compatible auxiliary verb, i.e.

BE or HAVE.


9/25


After the introduction of the PrP we can now go on to analyze the structural position of the

copulasserand estar in section 5.

5. The structural position of the copula

5.1. Ser

In the previous paragraph, we have introduced Pr and the structure of non-verbal

predication, as exemplified in the Small Clause(SC) examples in (17) above. Also copula

constructions can be considered to contain typical non verbal SCs. In the context of Pr we

now need to explain the nature and structural position of the copula, beginning with the

common copula BE.

A current assumption (cf. e.g. Ouhalla 1991) is that the copula BE is inserted in the

derivation by Merge under T. As for the Romance languages, it is further commonlyassumed (cf. Mensching 2003) that T contains a strong V-feature. Therefore, the copula,

serin Spanish, can be understood as a default verb which deletes the strong V-feature to

rescue the derivation, if there is no other (purely16

) verbal element in the derivation which

could do the checking. The data following under 5.1.1 can be taken as a confirmation for

the assumption thatseris merged directly under T.

5.1.1 Ser/BE under T

One argumentwhich supports the hypothesis that BE is inserted by Merge under T comes

from Spanish itself: Spanish Small Clauses, like the ones selected by the verb considerar

to consider, are assumed to lack a T-projection.17Therefore they can never appear with

the copula:

(19) Juan considera inteligente a Ana.18 [ILP]

John considers Ana intelligent.

(20) * Juan considera ser inteligente a Ana. [ILP]

John considers BEAna intelligent.

16 Participles, for examples, are not purely verbal, but have an additional [+N]-feature (especially in

Romance, they can show nominal agreement) which brings them in a closer relation to adjectives

which also have [+V,+N,-F] (F for functional, see Radford 1997: 66).17 As it is well-known, facts are different in English.18 Inteligentecant be a secondary predicate here since it is not optional in this sentence, i.e. it cant

be omitted:

(i) *Juan considera a Ana.


10/25




The second argument comes from languages which can leave the copula unexpressed, i.e.

which are allowed to generate full sentences without obligatorily completing it with a

verbal form. These languages (e.g. Arabic, Russian, Latin) have a copula which appears

obligatorily in dependency of the value of T. For the sake of readability, we have chosen

the following examples from Maltese19 (which stands close to the Arabic dialectstypologically but is considered a language on its own from a sociocultural view20):

(21) din it-tuffiea amra. [T: PRESENT]

this the-apple red

This apple is red.

(22) il-biera it-tuffiea kienet adra. [T: PAST]

yesterday the-apple was green

Yesterday the apple was green.

In (21), the derivation does not contain a verb. This is possible, since Maltese disposes of a

T without a V-feature, namely the T, which encodes the unmarked tense S=R (& R=E),i.e. the present tense.

21As for (22), it is not possible to have a verbless derivation since this

T is not unmarked, but has the marked meaning PAST, i.e. R_S (& R=E). A T with this

marked content is required to have a V-feature in Maltese, too, and this feature needs to be

checked by a verbal element, i.e. the copula. In the case of Maltese, it is clear that the

presence or absence of a copula depends on the properties of T; therefore, the copula can

be assumed to be inserted by Merge only after a T with a particular feature composition is

introduced into the derivation.

5.1.2 Ser: Syntactic derivation

So far we have established the syntactic status of the common copula BE as a mere verbal

auxiliary. The syntactic structure of a derivation containing the common copula ser in

Spanish following the framework outlined above is shown in figure (23):

19 Thanks to Gustav Vella for his help with the Maltese examples.20 See Fabri (2001:47): It has often been a matter of discussion whether Maltese should be

considered a language of its own right or whether it is better seen as a dialect of Arabic. There are

at least two reasons why Maltese should be given the status [of] a language in its own right rather

than a dialect. First, there is a rich variety of literary works written in Maltese, which, by the way,

to my knowledge is the only Arabic language that uses a Latin script. Second, the diglossic

situation that is typical of Arabic on the mainland, where Standard Arabic co-exists with the local

variety (Egyptian, Libyan, Moroccan, etc.), does not exist in Malta. This implies that Maltese has

acquired a significantly different status from other Arabic dialects.21 Unlike Giorgi & Pianesi (1997), we assume that a TP is always projected in a tensed sentence,

even in the unmarked (= default) cases.


11/25


12/25




This property is expected to be realized inside the predication phrase PrP (see the

representation (24), which will be further explained in the following section 5.2.1).

5.2.1 Event situation and reference situation in syntax

The logico-semantic content23of Pr in correlation to T was described in section 4 and

especially figure (18). In figure (24), we will now give an overview to the logical meaning

of the functional categories of the derivation in relation to their complements:

(24)

YPX

predicative

X'Spec

XPPr'R/E'

Pr'Spec

PrPT'S/R'

T'Spec

TPC

CP

event situation

speech situation

proposition

predication

reference situation

illocution

The predicative XP fills the event position made available by Pr; the predication formed

by the PrP makes it possible to link the event situation E to a reference situation. If there is

a T in the enumeration, it can take the predicational PrP as its complement, creating the

linkage between the two temporal relations E/R and S/R. At last, it is necessary to anchor

distinction. If an ILP is interpreted as encoding a generic reference situation it can enclose an SLP

interpretation, i.e. a specific reference situation for the predication, s. (i). But it does not

necessarily need to enclose it, see (ii) and (iii) (the examples are given by Lujn herself):

(i) Ana est hermosa porque es hermosa. (Lujn 1981:173)

(ii) Juan esta muy alegre, pero no ES alegre. (Lujn 1981:174)

(iii) No est loco, ES loco.(Lujn 1981:180)23 As opposed to the lexical semantic content of lexical categories.


13/25


the proposition in the speech context (S), either directly via the own clauses C (if there is

one) or indirectly via the CP of a matrix clause (cf. Stowell 1982, En 1987). The CP

encodes the illocution, i.e. the various possibilities of embedding a proposition in a

particular speech situation (s. Rizzi 1997 among others).

The following enumeration may serve as a legend to (24):

Event situation (E):event time (Reichenbach 1947) / event argument (Davidson 1967) / eventuality

(Parsons 1995)/ situation; lexically specified by theAktionsarten=> processes,events, (stative and situative) states (s. Maienborn 2001) and syntactically specifiedby aspect;

Reference situation (R):reference time (Reichenbach 1947) / assertion time (Demirdache & Uribe-Etxebarria

2000) / topic time (cf. Klein 1994) / topic situation / discourse situation (Maienborn2001);

Speech situation (S):

Speech time (Reichenbach 1947) / Speech context / deixis;

Predicative:specifies the structural qualities of the event situation by its inherent lexical meaning

(e.g. by argument selection,Aktionsarten, cf. Vendler 1967);

Predication:introduces R in the derivation, specifies the relation between E and R; anchors the

relations between qualities and object or circumstances respectively in the discoursesituation R;

Proposition:

results in the meaning of the derivation in its neutral sense, i.e. which is valuable byits truth values; specifies the relation between R and S;

Illocution:specifies the performative meaning of the proposition in the pragmatic context of

speech;

The exact semantic structure of a state z (cf. Maienborn 2001)24

or of a Davidsonian event e

(Parsons 1995, 2000)25

are not particularly relevant to our analysis of the marked copula

estar. Contrary to Kratzer (1995), we proceed from the assumption that an event situation

may enclose both, states and events: Although states may have other relational structures

than events or even processes, we will ascribe to them an argumenthood since their

qualities belong to the event situation of a predication.

Estar, then, is the visible grammatical reflection of a particular kind of E/R relation,

namely a relation which focuses on a specific reference situation in which the event

situation is anchored. This is the reason why a semantic excursion was necessary to locate

24 According to Maienborn (2001:132), the logical form ofserand estar is:

ser: P x z [z [P(x)]]

estar: P x z [z [P(x] / [si| R(z, si)] ]25 According to Parsons (2000:85), the logical form of BE is:

BE: P x e (P(e) & IN(x,e))


14/25




the particular meaning of copula estar in the logical context of the relevant functional

categories.

5.2.2 Estar: Syntactic derivation

If a speaker intends to produce an utterance which encodes a specific reference situation, he

will chose a particular Pr-head: This Pr has a feature which establishes that the predication

of the event situation expressed is focused at a specific reference situation, giving an SLP

interpretation. Apriori, such a feature in Pr could be available to speakers of German and

English, too. But neither German nor English need to indicate the presence of such a feature

by the insertion of a special copula, like Spanish estar. In German and English, the SLP

interpretation is achieved by the semantic composition of the derivation or by semantic

readjustment in particular pragmatic contexts (see 1). In Spanish on the other hand, we have

a syntactic mechanism, the insertion of estar: This means that the Spanish Pr, which

encodes a specific reference situation, must have a particular feature composition which

triggers this insertion. Therefore, we will assume that Pr [R/E specific] has an additionalstrong V-feature so that we obtain the following syntactic derivation:

(25)

PrV

'est'

TPr

PrV YPA

'borracha'

APPr

Pr'Spec

PrPT

T'Spec

'Ana'

TP

Pr

AVstrongR/E specific

...

TDstrong

Vstrong...

We assume that a Spanish Pr-head which encodes the information of a specific reference

situation (SLP-properties) always carries a strong V-feature. To check this strong V-feature,

the insertion of a compatible copulative verb (estar) is required in those cases when there is


15/25


no other verb in the derivation at this point.26Later movement of estarto T is obligatory

because of the commonly assumed strong V-feature of Spanish finite T.

6. The systematisation

Starting from the Pr with a specific reference situation we will now have a look at the

feature composition of the other possible lexical entries for Pr in Spanish in order to attain

a more systematic description.

6.1. Strong V-feature in Pr

To sum up our characterization of Spanish Pr with regard to the topic of this paper: In

Spanish, there are two reasons for a strong V-feature in Pr:

A The complement of Pr is a VP (see figure 16); this means, that Vstrongis containedin Pr as a categorial feature for selectional reasons.

B The predication phrase encodes a specific reference situation; the information [R/Especific] in Pr is always combined with Vstrong.

26 It is an open question whether estaris already present in the numeration or if it is just a reflex of a

certain feature configuration on PF. Since this is a question concerning all auxiliary and expletive

elements, we cant discuss it in the context of this article.


16/25




6.2. Feature composition of Pr in Spanish

Table (26) sums up the feature composition of verbal and non-verbal Pr in the Spanish

lexicon:27

(26)

complement of Pr ILP SLP

VP [Pr, Vstrong, ] [Pr, Vstrong, RefSitspecific, ]

AP [Pr, A, ] [Pr, A, Vstrong, RefSitspecific, ]

DP [Pr, D, ] *[Pr, D, Vstrong, RefSitspecific, ]

PP [Pr, P, ] [Pr, P, Vstrong, RefSitspecific, ]

The analysis of estarand its strict correspondence to a SLP interpretation can now be trans-

ferred to other possible complements of Pr.

6.3. Transfer of the result to other complements of Pr

Figure (27) illustrates how our analysis can be transferred to other complements of Pr. For

each complement, the feature composition of Pr and the available readings are given,

along with an example. Not surprisingly, the RefSitspecfeature appears in Pr whenever we

have an SLP. This feature in Pr is basically the translation of the concept of an SLP into a

feature. So, stating that Pr bears an RefSitspec is not different from saying that the

predication is a stage level one. Its absence indicates the ILP-reading.

The strong V-feature is also associated with Pr if the predication is an SLP. In ILPs we

do not have a strong V-feature in Pr. This ensures that estaris inserted by Merge under Pr

in SLP, whereas in ILPs no auxiliary, copula or other verb form has to be present. In this

latter case, a verb will only be necessary when the derivation reaches T because only there

do we have a strong V-feature in Spanish. As no verb moves to T to check the strong

feature in a non-verbal predication, the default ser will have to be introduced into the

derivation as a last resort.

As an illustration consider (27c) and (27d): In (27c), we have an AP as the complement

phrase of Pr. There is no verb, because there is no VP. As the predication in this case is

specific for the reference situation we have a strong V-feature in Pr. This forces a V to

move into Pr. As there is no verb in the PrP, a verb will have to be introduced in order to

prevent the derivation from crashing. In Spanish, there is exactly one verb which is suitable

27 This overview resembles Pesetsky & Torregos proposal of a generalized lower To, which also has

a time relating function, in combination with a general category PR, which can take the

morphological shape of the syntactic categories V, N or A, depending on the properties of T o(see

Pesetsky & Torrego in print: 40-44). They also consider the possibility (in fn. 30) that To (both

verbal and nominal) is not a distinct head at all, but [...] a set of features of PR. Their approach,

which offers a new interpretation of the theory of Case in the light of the syntax of tense, might be

partially integrated in our work in future research.


17/25


in this case: copula estar, which is a verb and relates to a specific reference situation. Once

we introduce estarinto the derivation, it will check the mentioned features in Pr and raise

to T to check the strong V-feature. Thus, we getAna est borrachawith an SLP reading.

In (27d), the complement of Pr is an AP again. This time, however, there is no strong

V-feature in Pr: it is neither required by a VP-complement of Pr, nor by a specificreference situation. There is no verb that can move to Pr, but neither is there any need to

introduce estar at this point. It is only when we get to the T that a verb has to be

introduced in the derivation in order to check the strong V-feature of T. In this case, ser

will be introduced as the default. As a resultAna es inteligenteis derived with the expected

ILP reading.

(27)

d) Ana es inteligente.Ana is-SER intelligent.

Vstrong RefSitspecific c) Ana est borracha. Ana is-ESTAR drunk.

SLP

ILP

AP

Pr

Vstrong b) Juan sabe ingls. Juan knows English.

Vstrong RefSitspecific a) Jan comi una manzana.Juan ate an apple.

SLP

ILPVP

(f) Ana es mdico.Ana is-SER a doctor.

Vstrong RefSitspecific e) *Ana est mdico.Ana is-ESTAR a doctor.

*SLP

ILP

DP

(h) El reloj es de oro.The watch is-SER made of gold.

Vstrong RefSitspecific g) Juan est del lado de los pobres.

Juan is-ESTAR on the part of the poor.

SLP

ILPPP

Vstrong? RefSitspecific? examplesSLP/ILPcomplement of Pr

Still, there are two interesting cases, namely (27b) and (27e). Why do we have a Vstrongin

Pr in (27b)? Speaking English is an individual level predicate about Juan. So why

should there be any strong V-feature in Pr? The reason is quite simply that in (27a) and

(27b), the complement of Pr is a VP. In both cases we have a verb V which has to move

to Pr because of its strong V-feature. Recall that this categorial feature is needed for

selectional reasons (i.e. in order to select a VP as complement).

The second interesting case is (27e). Why should it be ungrammatical? Due to the

presence of a RefSitspec-feature in Pr, there also is a strong V-feature and a SLP

interpretation. So what is wrong with the structure? At first sight, it seems surprising thatthere are no DP-complements of Pr which show SLP-properties. But this gap in our

system is motivated semantically: DPs and APs both designate properties of sets of

individuals. However, predications of DPs furthermore only designate properties of sets of


18/25




individuals which are temporally stable. Therefore they cant display SLP-properties, see

the following examples from German:

(28) Der Schwiegersohn ist Angestellter. [ILP]

The son-in-law is employee.

(29) Der Schwiegersohn ist angestellt. [SLP]

The son-in-law is employed.

One would expect the characteristics of APs and DPs to be in complementary distribution,

i.e., we expect APs only to show SLP-properties and DPs to show ILP-properties. It is a

moot point whether there are in fact languages in which this complementary distribution is

strictly realized.28

7. Other phenomena

In this section we will present some phenomena which are related to estarand the SLP/ILP

distinction but cannot be analysed thoroughly in this article.

7.1. Estar+ PP: The syntactic difference between main verb and copula

In the present analysis, we deal with estaras a copula. There is also a main verb estarbut it

has to be distinguished from the former (cf. the distinction of estarpredicativo vs. estar

atributivo, i.e. the copula, in Fernndez Leborans 1999: 2421-5).

(30) a. *Juan est en Pars y a m tambin me encantara estarlo.

Juan is-ESTARin Paris and I would like to be-ESTARit too.

(31) a. Juan est del lado de los pobres y a m tambin me gustara estarlo.

Juan is-ESTARon the part of the poor and I would like to be-ESTARit, too.

In (30), estarshows characteristics of a main verb. The locative PP cannot be resumed by

the neutral clitic lo, which is an invariable pro-form for predicates only.

7.2. Small Clauses

Small Clausescan be assumed to be PrPs (cf. Bowers 1993, 2001). Thus, when a SmallClause ever should have SLP-properties, then a strong V-feature in Pr triggers the

28 Thanks to Jrgen Lenerz for precious hints in this regard.


19/25


presence of estar (or a full verb). A strong V-feature is only contained in the two cases

mentioned above: Either the complement of Pr is a VP (which is impossible for Small

Clauses), or a specific R/E-feature is encoded in Pr. Since estarnever shows up in Small-

Clause-constructions, an SLP-interpretation of Small Clauses is impossible, see the

following example:

(32) Juan considera lista a Ana. [ILP]

Juan considers Ana smart/*ready.

Lista is ambiguous. It can mean smart or ready. In the first case, we have an ILP

whereas the second sentence is only interpretable as an SLP. In (32), only smart can be

the intended meaning and not ready. This is exactly predicted by our analysis.

7.3. Constructions without copula: Absolute constructions

So called absolute constructions (construcciones absolutas, cf. Hernanz Carb 1999: 2541) without a copula only have SLP-properties. In (33), there is no copula and we get an

SLP reading. If we try to do the same with inteligente(intelligent), the result turns out to

be ungrammatical, as (34) shows. It shows that the absence of a copula rules out the ILP-

interpretation.

(33) Lista ya Ana para ir a la pera, decidi asistir a la fiesta. [SLP]

Ana was ready to go to the opera, when she decided to got to the party.

(34) * Inteligente Juan, sabe muchas lenguas. [ILP]

Since Juan is intelligent, he knows many languages.

Absolute constructions are far too complex to be treated here exhaustively. Nevertheless,

their SLP property might give precious hints to the analysis of estar.29

7.4. Constructions with the gerund

The following (progressive) construction with the Spanish gerund contains a verbal

predication, which expresses a specific reference situation.

(35) Juan est comiendo manzanas. [SLP]

Juan is eating apples.

29 One of our reviewers considers the following examples to be grammatical. However, if they are

accepted at all they are considered heavily marked.

(i) rpido/vivo/precoz el nio, fingi tener tos para irse a casa.

clever/astute/precocious the child, pretended have cough to go-REFL to home

Being clever, the child pretended to have a cough in order to go home .


20/25




Although the gerund represents a verbal form which could in principle check and delete the

strong V-feature in Pr, the copula estaris used. This might be due to the morphological

form of the gerund itself 30since this form seems to be able to express imperfectivity, but

not a specific reference situation (cf. Squartini 1998, Bertinetto & Delfitto 1996). This isthe reason for the insertion of the marked copula estar,31 while the strong V-feature is

irrelevant here.

7.5. Event passive vs. state passive?

It is important to distinguish the passive from the copula construction. Seris not only the

copula form used in ILPs but also the auxiliary in passive sentences.

(36) Las tesis fueron clavadas a la puerta (por Lutero).

The theses were-SER nailed on the door (by Luther).

(37) Las tesis estaban clavadas a la puerta (*por Lutero).

The theses were-ESTAR nailed on the door (*by Luther).

The example in (36) is a true passive and not a copulative structure. Here, serhas nothing

to do with the distinction between the ILP- and SLP-interpretation. The example in (37), on

the contrary, cannot be interpreted as a true passive, i.e. a passive which results in a state,

since the subject cannot be reactivated by apor-adjunct.

8. Generic interpretation vs. existential interpretation

In this context, we would like to introduce a further aspect, which seems to have some

relevance in respect to the SLP/ILP-distinction: The (im-)possibility to interpret a so-called

bare noun phrase (BNP), i.e. a plural noun phrase which lacks a determiner (in English),

intwo semantically and logically different ways: A bare noun phrase can be interpreted as

either generically or existentially quantified, depending on the LF-interpretation of its syn-

tactic position. As proposed by Diesing (1992), one can assume that an existentially quanti-

30 See also what was said in fn. 16 for participles.31 Seris never possible with the gerund in Spanish, irrespective of SLP/ILP-properties:

(i) *soy sabiendo

(ii) *soy comiendo

A gerund has to be either selected by a Pr with specific reference time, or used in an absolute

construction or secondary predication. In the latter cases, the tense structure is always controlled

by the matrix clause, i.e. Pr, T (and mostly also C) are partially underspecified or indefinite.

Apart from the Pr with specific reference time, a gerund can be combined only with these

underspecified (or defective) functional categories.


21/25


fied BNP is logically interpreted inside the VP (here PrP) whereas a generically quantified

BNP is interpreted in [Spec TP].32Diesings mapping hypothesis concerning the generic vs.

existential interpretation of BNP is illustrated in figure (38) (following Kornack 1998: 11,

Diesing 1992: 20/1):

(38)

XPPr

Pr'Spec

PrPT

T'Spec

TP

Gen

There is a correlation between the two modes of quantification and the SLP vs. ILP

properties, see the following examples. (39) shows a BNP subject with a prototypical SLP

predicate whereas in (40) the BNP subject is combined with a typical ILP predicate:

(39) Firemen are available. [SLP]

a. Gen [fireman(x)available(x)] [generic interpretation]

b. x (fireman(x) & available(x)) [existential interpretation]

(40) Firemen are intelligent. [ILP]

a. Gen [fireman(x)intelligent(x)] [generic interpretation]b. *x (fireman(x) & intelligent(x)) [existential interpretation]

These examples illustrate that both SLP and ILP allow a generic interpretation. The

difference lies in the existential interpretation: BNPs can only be interpreted as existential

(i.e. as located in [Spec PrP] on LF), if the derivation contains a SLP-predication as in (39).

However, an existential interpretation of an ILP-predication is excluded. An ILP forces a

generic quantification of the BNP (as in (40a)).33

To come back to Spanish copulative constructions, we can translate the English BNPs in

a corresponding Spanish indefinite DP (i.e. the English BNP firemenbecomes un bombero

a fireman in Spanish):

32 To be exact, Diesing assumes that the generically interpreted BNP is also base generated in

[SpecTP] whereas the existentially interpreted BNP is base generated in [SpecVP] and moved to

[SpecTP] later on.33 See also Chierchia (1995); the discussion of this phenomenon goes back to Milsark (1974), see

also Ladusaw (1994).


22/25




(41) Un bombero est disponible.34 [SLP, existential interpretation]

fireman is-ESTAR available

(42) Un bombero est (siempre) disponible. [SLP, generic interpretation]fireman is-ESTAR (always) available

(43) Un bombero es inteligente. [ILP, generic interpretation]

fireman is-SER intelligent

(44) * Un bombero es inteligente.35

[ILP, existential interpretation]

fireman is-SER intelligent

(45) Est un bombero disponible.36

[SLP, existential interpretation]

here is-ESTAR a fireman available

(46) * Es un bombero inteligente.37

[ILP, existential interpretation]here is-SER a fireman intelligent

As the examples show, in Spanish, as in English, only in SLP-predications are there both

possibilities to interpret the ambiguous DP. In ILP-predications, on the other hand, the

existential interpretation is not allowed. In fact, only with the copula estaris it possible to

have a postverbal indefinite DP, i.e. an SLP interpretation inside the PrP, in Spanish (see

(45) vs. (46)). To sum up, we offer the following generalization about the syntactic position

of estar and the existential interpretation of the noun phrase under discussion: An

interpretation of the DP in [Spec PrP] is only possible if the reference situation in Pr is

encoded as specific a fact which is visible in Spanish by the appearance of the copula

estar.

9. Summary

We proposed a syntactic analysis for the ser/estar alternation in Spanish copula

constructions that correlates with the SLP/ILP distinction. In our analysis, ser and estar

each serve a syntactic default strategy (last resort). In the case of SLP, the specific reference

situation causes a strong V-feature to be present in Pr; if there is no verb in the numeration

to check this feature, estaris introduced as a default verb under Pr. The strong V-feature in

34 In Spanish (as in German), one could interpret the indefinite article unas a cardinal number. This

would result in a third possibility of interpretation (one of more); we will not consider this third

interpretation here.35 This sentence might be acceptable in a context which interprets unas a cardinal number, s. fn. 34.36 This example is heavily marked, but not ungrammatical.37 This example should not be interpreted as [pro es[un bombero inteligente]] here.


23/25


Spanish T then forces estarto move on to T. In the case of ILP, i.e. if there is no specific

reference situation, a default verb need not be introduced under Pr as no strong V-feature

has to be checked there. In a non-verbal predication, only the strong V-feature of T needs

to be checked, and as there is no other verb in the derivation that could move there, this is

where the copulaseris introduced as a default verb.

References

Bertinetto, Pier Marco & Denis Delfitto (1996): Lespressione della progressivit / continuit: un

confronto tripolare (italiano, inglese, spagnolo). - In: P. Beninc, G. Cinque, T. De Mauro & N.

Vincent (eds.):Italiano e dialetti nel Tempo. Saggi di grammatica per Giulio C. Lepschy, 45-66.

Roma: Bulzoni.

Bosque, Ignacio & Violeta Demonte (eds.) (1999a): Gramtica Descriptiva de la Lengua Espaola.

1. Sintaxis bsica de las clases de palabras.- Madrid: Espasa.

- (1999b): Gramtica Descriptiva de la Lengua Espaola. 2. Las costrucciones sintcticas

fundamentales. Relaciones temporales, aspectuales y modales.- Madrid: Espasa.

Bowers, John (1993): The syntax of predication. - In:Linguistic Inquiry24, 591-656.

- (2001): Predication. - In: M. Baltin & C. Collins (eds.): The Handbook of Contemporary

Syntactic Theory, 299-333. Oxford: Blackwell.

Carlson, Gregory (1977): Reference to kinds in English. - Doctoral dissertation, University of

California.

Chierchia, Gennaro (1995): Individual predicates as inherent generics. - In: Gregory N. Carlson &

Francis J. Pelletier (eds.): The generic book, 176-223. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Chomsky, Noam (1995): The Minimalist Program. - Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.

- (2000): Minimalist inquiries: The framework. - In: R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka,(eds.): Step by step. Essays on Minimalist Syntax in Honor of Howard Lasnik, 89-151. Cambridge

Mass.: MIT Press.

- (2001a):Beyond Explanatory Adequacy.- Cambridge Mass.: MITWPL, Department of Linguisticsand Philosophy, MIT (MIT occasional papers in Linguistics 20).

- (2001b): Derivation by Phase. - In: Michael Kenstowicz (ed):Ken Hale: A Life in Language, 1-

52. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Clancy Clements, J. (1988): The Semantics and Pragmatics of the Spanish construction. - In:Linguistics26, 779-822.

Collins, Chris (1996):Local economy. - Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.

Davidson, Donald (1967): The logical form of action sentences. - In: Nicholas Rescher (ed.): The

logic of decision and action, 81-120.Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Demonte, Violeta (1999): El adjetivo: Clases y usos. La posicin del adjetivo en el sintagma

nominal. - In: Bosque & Demonte (1999a), 129-215.

Demirdache, Hamida & Myriam Uribe-Etxebarria (2000): The primitives of temporal relations. -

In: R. Martin, D. Michaels & J. Uriagereka (eds.): Step by step, 157-186. Cambridge Mass.: MIT

Press.

Diesing, Molly (1992): Indefinites. - Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph

20).

En, Mrvet (1987): Anchoring Conditions for Tense. - In: Linguistic Inquiry18, 633-657.

Fabri, Ray (2001): Maltese: the language of the Maltese archipelago. - In: Thomas Stolz (ed.):

Minor languages of Europe, 43-64. Bochum: Brockmeyer.


24/25




Fernndez Leborans, Mara Jess (1995): Las Construcciones con el verbo ESTAR: Aspectos

sintcticos y semnticos. - In: Verba22, 253-84.

- (1999): La predicacin: Las oraciones copulativas. - In: Bosque & Demonte (1999b), 2357-

2460.

Giorgi, Alessandra & Pianesi, Fabio (1997): Tense and Aspect. From Semantics to Morphosyntax. -New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Hernanz Carb, M.aLlusa (1999): La predicacin. La predicacin no copulativa. Las construcciones

absolutas. - In: Bosque & Demonte (1999b), 2525-2560.

Heusinger, Klaus von (1999): Spezifizitt als semantische Kategorie. Habilitation lecture. -

Konstanz: University of Konstanz.

Klein, Wolfgang (1994): Time in Language.- London, New York: Routledge.

Kornack, Thomas W. (1998): On the interpretation of Bare Plurals with Individual and Stage-Level

Predicates. - http://androsace.com/tom/papers/lingthesis.pdf. Swarthmore College Department of

Linguistics.

Kratzer, Angelika (1995): Stage-level and individual-level predicates. - In: G. N. Carlson & F. J.

Pelletier (eds.): The generic book, 125-175.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ladusaw, William (1994): Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, and weak and strong. - In:

M. Harvey & L. Santelmann (eds.):Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory IV, 220-229.

Ithaka / NY: CLC publications / Cornell University.

Larson, Richard K. (1988): On the Double Object Construction. - In: Linguistic Inquiry19, 335-

391.

Lujn, Marta (1981): The Spanish copulas as aspectual indicators. - In: Lingua54, 165-210.

Maienborn, Claudia (2001): Die logische Form von Kopula-Stzen. - Habilitation thesis. Humboldt-

University Berlin.

- (2003):Die logische Form von Kopula-Stzen.- Berlin: Akademie Verlag (studia grammatica 56).

- (2005): A discourse-based account of Spanishser/estar. - In:Linguistics43, 155-180.

Mejas-Bikandi, Errapel (1993): The nature of the Stage/Individual-Level Distinction and its

Syntactic Reflex: Evidence from Spanish. - In:Proceedings of West Coast Conference on Formal

Linguistics11, 326-340.

Mensching, Guido (2003): Minimalistische Syntax der romanischen Sprachen. - In: E. Stark & U.

Wandruszka (eds.): Syntaxtheorien: Modelle, Methoden, Motive, 171-191. Tbingen: Niemeyer.

Milsark, Gary (1974): Existential sentences in English. - Doctoral dissertation, MIT.Ouhalla, Jamal (1991): Functional Categories and Parametric Variation. - London, New York:

Routledge.

Parsons, Terence (1995): Thematic Relations and Arguments. - In:Linguistic Inquiry26, 635-662.

Parsons, Terrence (2999): "Underlying States and Time Travel." In: J. Higginbotham, F. Pianesi &

A.Varzi (eds.): Speaking of Events, 81-93. New York, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Pesetsky, David & Esther Torrego (in print): Tense, Case, and the Nature of Syntactic Categories. -

In: J. Guron & J. Lecarme (eds.): The Syntax of Time. Cambridge Mass. MIT Press. [see

http://web.mit.edu/linguistics/www/pesetsky/Pesetsky-Torrego2002.pdf]

Pountain, Christopher (1982): ESSERE/STARE as a Romance Phenomenon. - In: N. Vincent & M.

Harris (eds.): Studies in the Romance Verb, 139-160.- London: Croom Helm.

Reichenbach, Hans (1947):Elements of Symbolic Logic.- New York: MacMillan.

Radford, Andrew (1997): Syntactic Theory and the Structure of English. A Minimalist Approach. -

Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Raposo, Eduardo & Juan Uriagereka (1995): Two Types of Small Clauses (toward a Syntax of

Theme/Rheme Relations). - In: A. Cardinaletti & M. T. Guasti (eds.): Small Clauses, 179-206.

San Diego, New York etc.: Academic Press (Syntax and Semantics 28).

Remberger, Eva-Maria (2002): Eigenschaften und Position von Hilfsverben. Eine minimalistische

Analyse am Beispiel des Italienischen und Sardischen. Doctoral dissertation, FU Berlin.


25/25


Rizzi, Luigi (1997): The fine structure of the left periphery. - In: Liliane Haegeman (ed.): Elements

of Grammar: Handbook in Generative Syntax, 281-337. Dordrecht: Kluwer.

Sasse, Hans-Jrgen (1987): The thetic/categorical distinction revisited. - In: Linguistics25, 511-

580.

Squartini, Mario (1998): Verbal periphrases in Romance. Aspect, Actionality andGrammaticalization. - Berlin, New York: Mouton De Gruyter.

Stowell, Tim (1982): The Tense of Infinitives.- In:Linguistic Inquiry13, 561-570.

Vendler, Zeno (1967):Linguistics in Philosophy.- Ithaka, New York: Cornell University Press.

Vikner, Sten (1985): Reichenbach revisited: One, two, or three temporal relations? - In: Acta

Linguistica Hafniensia19, 81-98.

8

Bertinetto, P.M. 108Bowers, J. 89, 94, 95, 96, 107Carlson, G. 90

Chierchia, G. 90, 110Chomsky, N. 89, 94, 95

Clancy Clements, J. 90, 100Collins, C. 94Davidson, D. 89, 102Delfitto, D. 108Demirdache, H. 89, 102Demonte, V. 92Diesing, M. 89, 90, 109

En, M. 101Fabri, R. 98Fernndez Leborans, M.J. 90, 93, 94, 107Giorgi, A. 89, 96, 99

Hernanz Carb, M.L. 108Heusinger, K.von. 100

Klein, W. 100, 102Kornack, T.W. 90, 109Kratzer, A. 89, 90, 102Ladusaw, W. 90, 110Larson, R.K. 89, 94

Lujn, M. 90, 100Maienborn, C. 89, 90, 91, 100, 102Mejas-Bikandi , E. 90, 100Mensching, G. 97Milsark, G. 90, 110

Ouhalla, J. 97Parsons, T. 102Pesetsky, D. 95, 104Pianesi, F. 89, 96, 99Pountain, Ch. 94Radford, A. 98Raposo, E. 90Reichenbach, H. 89, 96, 102

Remberger, E.-M. 97, 100Rizzi, L. 101Sasse, H.-J. 90Squartini, M. 108Stowell, T. 101

Torrego, E. 96, 104Uriagereka, J. 90Uribe-Etxebarria, M. 89, 102Vendler, Z. 91, 96, 102Vikner, S. 89, 96

Ser Estar Gonzalez Remberger

Documents

Transcript of Ser Estar Gonzalez Remberger