Cover not available
Part of
Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 13: Selected papers from ‘Going Romance’ 29, Nijmegen
Edited by Janine Berns, Haike Jacobs and Dominique Nouveau
[Romance Languages and Linguistic Theory 13] 2018
► pp. 209–224

Spanish estarse is not only agentive, but also inchoative

| Université Lille 3 – CNRS
| University of Tromsø
This article explores the properties of constructions involving the stage level copula estar with the pronominal form se, which has been argued to encode an agentive component lacking from the non se-marked form. While several previous studies have argued that estarse constructions involve a dynamic and telic component similar to an achievement, the goal of this contribution is to show that estarse is essentially stative, lacking all kinds of dynamicity and telicity, and should be analysed as an inchoative state, that is, a state that encodes its onset, but not the culmination of the transition preceding it. We show that this analysis overcomes the problems of previous proposals with respect to the temporal and aspectual behaviour of estarse constructions.
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Bringing aspect under control
    • 2.1The stative denotation of estarse
      • 2.1.1Tests examined in Gómez & García (2013)
      • 2.1.2Additional tests on the stativity of estarse
    • 2.2 Estarse does not entail telicity
    • 2.3 Estarse is not so punctual
    • 2.4The inchoative denotation of estarse
  • 3.Analysis: estarse denotes an inchoative state
    • 3.1Previous analyses
    • 3.2Inchoative states
      • 3.2.1 Bar-el (2005)
      • 3.2.2Right and left boundaries
  • 4.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgments
  • Notes
  • References
Published online: 13 July 2018
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/rllt.13.13mar
References (23)
References
Bar-el, Leora. 2005. Aspectual Distinctions in SKWXWU7MESH. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Choi, Jiyoung. 2015. “On the Universality of Aspectual Classes: Inchoative States in Korean”. In Cahiers Chronos 27, ed. by Emmanuelle Labeau and Qiaochao Zhang, 123–135.Google Scholar
Chung, Kyung-Sook. 2005. Space in Tense: The Interpretation of Tense, Aspect, Evidentiality, and Speech Act in Korean. Ph.D. Dissertation, Simon Fraser University.Google Scholar
De Miguel, Elena. 1999. “El aspecto léxico”. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, 2971–3060. Madrid: Espasa Calpe.Google Scholar
De Miguel, Elena, and Marina Fernández Lagunilla. 2000. “El operador aspectual se.” Revista Española de Lingüística 30 (1): 13–43.Google Scholar
García, Luis, and Diana Gómez. 2015. “More than a Copula: Complex Predicates with estar and the Clitic se ”. In New Perspectives on the Study of Ser & Estar, ed. by Isabel Pérez Jiménez, Manuel Leonetti and Silvia Gumiel, 23–50. Amsterdam, John Benjamins.Google Scholar
Gómez, Diana, and Luis García. 2013. “Estados controlados” In Actas del X Congreso de Lingüística General, ed. by J.F. Val Álvaro et al., 335–346. Universidad de Zaragoza.Google Scholar
Jiménez Fernández, Ángel, and Mercedes Tubino. 2014. “Variación sintáctica en la causativización léxica”. Revista española de lingüística, 44 (1): 7–37.Google Scholar
Kiyota, Masaru. 2008. Situation Aspect and Viewpoint Aspect: From Salish to Japanese. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of British Columbia.Google Scholar
Kratzer, Angelika. 2000. “Building Statives”. Berkeley Linguistic Society 26: 385–399.DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lee, Eun Hee. 2006. “Stative Progressives in Korean and English”. Journal of Pragmatics 38: 695–717. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Maienborn, Claudia. 2005. On the Limits of the Davidsonian Approach: The Case of Copula Sentences. Theoretical Linguistics 31 (3): 275–316. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Marín, Rafael. 2016. “Ser y estar”. In Enciclopedia de lingüística hispánica vol. II, ed. by Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach, 13–24. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Marín, Rafael, and Louise McNally. 2005. “The Aktionsart of Spanish Reflexive Psychological Verbs”. Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 9: 212–225.Google Scholar
. 2011. Inchoativity, Change of State and Telicity. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 29 (2): 467–502. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Moens, Marc, and Mark Steedman. 1988. “Temporal Ontology and Temporal Reference”. Computational Linguistics 14: 15–28.Google Scholar
Morimoto, Yuko. 2008. “Me estuve quieto: el concepto de estado y el llamado se aspectual”. In Actas del XXXVII Simposio Internacional de la Sociedad Española de Lingüística, ed. by Inés Olza Moreno, Manuel Casado Velarde and Ramón González Ruiz, 591–599. Pamplona: Servicio de Publicaciones de la Universidad de Navarra.Google Scholar
. 2011. “El control en los predicados estativos”. In Estados y estatividad, ed. by Ángeles Carrasco Gutiérrez, 122–141. Muenchen: LINCOM.Google Scholar
Piñón, Christopher. 1997. “Achievements in an Event Semantics”. In Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory 7, ed. by A. Lawson, and E. Cho, 273–296. Ithaca (NY): CLC Publications.Google Scholar
Pustejovsky, James. 1991. “The Syntax of Event Structure”. Cognition 21: 47–81. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rothstein, Susan. 2004. Structuring Events. Oxford: Blackwell. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Rozwadowska, Bozena. 2012. “On the Onset of Psych Eventualities”. In Sound, Structure and Sense. Studies in Memory of Edmund Gussmann, ed. by Eugeniusz Cyran, Henryk Kardela and Bogdan Szymanek, 533–553. Lublin, Wydawnictwo KUL.Google Scholar
Sánchez López, Cristina. 2002. “Las construcciones con se. Estado de la cuestión”. In Las construcciones con se, ed. by Cristina Sánchez López, 18–163. Madrid: Visor Libros.Google Scholar
Cited by (1)

Cited by one other publication

Fábregas, Antonio
2021. SE in Spanish. Borealis – An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics 10:2 ► pp. 1 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 27 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.