The expression of (abstract) location/situation: the case of estar. Capturing new challenging data.

MANGIALAVORI RASIA, MARÍA EUGENIA

Madrid

Conferencia; Permanent Colloquium on Theoretical Linguistics; 2013

Linguistic and Cognitive Science Group - National Scientific Research Council?

Perhaps one of the most widely accepted descriptions of ser and estar is that the former is used to describe the inherent properties of an entity, while the latter is used to describe a current state or temporary situation; thus encouraging, among other options, their analysis in terms of IL vs. SL predicates, respectively (Bosque 1989, Demonte 1999; Fernandez Leborans 1999, Arche 2006 among many others). Of course this interpretation seems descriptively adequate with respect to a substantial number of instances. Still, there are also sets of data challenging this classification . In this presentation we will address a set of estar constructions which do not necessarily convey temporally bounded states or current conditions holding for short time gaps, but properties probably holding through the entire lifespan of the entity ?i.e., not holding true only in a specific situation or stage, showing a behavior associated to IL rather than to SL predicates in several respects , contrary to what would be expected for estar. This divergence leads to two further observations. On the one hand, even if these cases could be argued to mirror the aspectual implications usually ascribed to ser (e.g., IL predication), this does not imply a trivial copular alternation, as the semantic implications of the alternates differ significantly. On the other hand, those semantic properties setting estar constructions apart from those delivered by ser could be shown to conform to the same core predicative semantics and lexical syntax proposed for regular instances of estar (Mangialavori 2013) , by virtue of the abstract use of spatial relations. In order to address this question, we will depart from Franco & Steinmetz? (1983,1986) model of of (implied) comparisons in order to put forward the idea that these occurrences can also be accommodated within the expression of a relative (abstract) location/situation, along with regular estar occurrences. From our perspective, the difference would lie in the kind of comparison (what this location is relative to); in other words, these situations yielded by estar could either (i)apply to the individual, in which case the situation is be relative to the position/location occupied by other (comparable) entities (thus rendering IL predicates), or (ii)apply to a stage, in this cases being relative to former states/conditions in which the same entity was found (i.e., the usual case for estar, associated to SL predicates). Accordingly, a pair of two cognitive-semantic construals (involving syntactically relevant facets) would be delivered from a single (perspectival) event of location, i.e., one considered to signify one physical object or entity located in a position ?which can be relative either to the position of other objects/entities, or to other positions in which the same object was found at other stage (i.e., setting an individual norm, in the sense of Falk (1979))?. Furthermore, the proposed semantic and (lexical)syntax, as well as the conceptual structure (in the sense of Talmy 2000), proposed here would accurately capture (i)estar?s selectional restrictions on both the adjectival head projecting the coda and the NP, (ii) the additional flavor inviting a subjective reading of the property ascribed to the subject (i.e., entailing the speaker?s point of view) through estar (described in F. Leborans 1999:2428 i.a.), and (iii)the contrast rendered by the use of ser in the same context.