In:New Perspectives on the Study of Ser and Estar
Edited by Isabel Pérez-Jiménez, Manuel Leonetti and Silvia Gumiel-Molina
[Issues in Hispanic and Lusophone Linguistics 5] 2015
► pp. 203–236
On word order in Spanish copular sentences
Published online: 28 October 2015
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.5.08leo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.5.08leo
This paper deals with the interaction between the ser/estar distinction and word
order. In Spanish the VSX order imposes a thetic, wide focus interpretation
(Leonetti, 2014a). This word order pattern is compatible with estar predication.
In contrast, ser predication is typically excluded with VSX in spoken Spanish,
with the only exception of a small set of cases that share an exclamative/mirative/
emphatic interpretation. The well-formedness of estar VSX sentences
can be explained assuming that thetic constructions always include a stage
topic: as estar requires the predication to be dependent on a topical situation
(Maienborn, 2005), and such situation is identified as a possible stage topic, the
conditions for a thetic interpretation are easily met. With ser, in contrast, the
predication is not connected to a topical situation, and thus cannot be linked to
a stage topic. Exceptions are accounted for by invoking a strategy of mismatch
resolution that leads the hearer to interpret the utterance as a manifestation of
an exclamative/mirative attitude.
Keywords: individual-level, information structure, stage-level, thetic, word order
References (48)
Alexiadou, A. (2000). Some remarks on word order and information structure in Romance and Greek. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 20, 119–136.
Arche, M.J. (2006). Individuals in time: Tense, aspect and the individual/stage distinction. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
Brucart, J.M. (2010). La alternancia ser y estar y las construcciones atributivas de localización. In A. Avellana (Ed.), Actas del V Encuentro de Gramática Generativa (pp. 115–152). Neuquén, Argentina: Editorial Universitaria del Comahue.
Calabrese, A. (1992). Some remarks on focus and logical structures in Italian. Harvard Working Papers in Linguistics, I, 91–127.
Camacho, J. (2012).
Ser and estar: Individual/stage level predicates or aspect? In J.I. Hualde, A. Olarrea & E. O’Rourke (Eds.), The handbook of hispanic linguistics (Blackwell Handbooks in Linguistics) (pp. 453–476). Oxford, England: Wiley-Blackwell.
Clements, J.C. (1988). The semantics and pragmatics of Spanish <COPULA+ADJECTIVE> construction. Linguistics, 26, 779–822.
Costa, J. (2004). Subject positions and interfaces: The case of European Portuguese. Berlin, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter.
Erteschik-Shir, N. (1997). The dynamics of focus structure. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Escandell-Vidal, M.V. (2015). Evidentiality effects and the ser/estar distinction. Journal of Pragmatics (submitted).
Escandell-Vidal, M.V., & Leonetti, M. (2014). Fronting and irony in Spanish. In A. Dufter & Á Octavio de Toledo (Eds.), Left sentence peripheries in Spanish: Diachronic, variationist and typological perspectives (pp. 309–342). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
. (2002). Coercion and the stage/individual distinction. In J. Gutierrez-Rexach (Ed.), From words to discourse: Trends in Spanish semantics and pragmatics (pp. 159–179). Oxford, England: Elsevier Science.
Fábregas, A. (2012). A guide to IL and SL in Spanish: Properties, problems and proposals. Borealis. An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 1(2), 1–71.
Fernández Leborans, M.J. (1999). La predicación: las oraciones copulativas. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (Dir.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (pp. 2357–2460). Madrid, Spain: RAE/Espasa.
Floricic, F. (2013). Les énoncés événementiels et l’ordre verbe-sujet en italien. In D. Budor (Ed.), L’ événement à l’èpreuve des arts (pp. 101–122). Paris, France: PSN.
Gallego, Á., & Uriagereka, J. (2011). The lexical syntax of ser and estar
(Unpublished manuscript). Barcelona, Spain: Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona and College Park, MD: University of Maryland.
Geist, L. (2006). Copular sentences in Russian vs Spanish at the syntax-semantics interface. In C. Ebert & C. Endriss (Eds.), Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 10. ZAS Papers in Linguistics, 44, 99–110.
Giurgea, I., & Remberger, E.M. (2012). Left peripheral interactions in Romance and the syntactic representation of information-structural features (Unpublished manuscript). Constance, Germany: University of Constance.
Higginbotham, J., & G. Ramchand (1997). The stage-level/individual-level distinction and the mapping hypothesis. In D. Willis (Ed.), Oxford working papers in linguistics, philology, and phonetics, vol. 2, (pp. 53–83). Oxford, England: Oxford University.
Jacobs, J. (1999). Informational autonomy. In P. Bosch & R. van der Sandt (Eds.), Focus (pp. 56–81). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Jäger, G. (2001). Topic-Comment structure and the contrast between stage level and individual level predicates. Journal of Semantics, 18, 83–126.
. (1997). The stage/individual contrast revisited. In B. Agbayani & S.W. Tang (Eds.), The Proceedings of the Fifteenth West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics (pp. 225–239). Stanford, CA: Center for the Study of Language and Information, Stanford University.
Jiménez-Fernández, Á. (2012). What information structure tells us about individual/stage-level predicates. Borealis. An International Journal of Hispanic Linguistics, 1, 1–32. Retrieved from [URL]
Kratzer, A. (1995). Stage-level and individual-level predicates. In G.N. Carlson & F.J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (pp. 125–175). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Ladusaw, W. (1994). Thetic and categorical, stage and individual, weak and strong. In M. Harvey & L. Santelmann (Eds.), Proceedings of the 4th Semantics and Linguistic Theory (pp. 220–229). Ithaca, NY: Cornell University.
Leonetti, M. (2014a). Spanish VSX. In K. Lahousse & S. Marzo (Eds.), Romance languages and linguistic theory 2012 (pp. 37–64). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.
. (2014b). Variation in informational partitions in Romance (Unpublished manuscript). Alcalá de Henares, Spain: Universidad de Alcalá.
Leonetti, M., & Escandell-Vidal, M.V. (2015). Metarrepresentación y conflictos interpretativos (Unpublished manuscript). Madrid y Alcalá de Henares, Spain; Universidad de Alcalá and Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia.
Martin, F. (2006). Prédicats statifs, causatifs et résultatifs en discurs. Sémantique des adjectifs évaluatifs et des verbes psychologiques. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Bruxelles, Belgium: Université Libre de Bruxelles.
McNally, L. (1998). Stativity and theticity. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Events and grammar (pp. 293–307). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer.
Ordóñez, F. (2007). Observacions sobre la posiciò dels subjectes postverbals en català i castellà. Caplletra, 42, 251–272.
. (1998). Postverbal asymmetries in Spanish. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory, 16(2), 313–346.
Raposo, E., & Uriagereka, J. (1995). Two types of small clauses (toward a syntax of theme/rheme relations). In A. Cardinaletti & M.T. Guasti (Eds.), Small clauses (pp. 179–206). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Sæbø, K.J. (2007). Focus interpretation in thetic statements: Alternative semantics and OT pragmatics. Journal of Logic, Language and Information, 16, 15–33.
Sasse, H.J. (1996). Theticity (Arbeitspapier 27). Köln, Germany: Institut für Sprachwissenschaft, Universität Köln.
de Saussure, L. (2013). Perspectival interpretations of tenses. In K. Jaszsczolt & L. de Saussure (Eds.), Time: Language, cognition and reality (pp. 46–70). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Sthioul, B. (1998). Temps verbaux et point de vue. In J. Moeschler (Ed.), Les temps des événements (pp. 197–220). Paris, France: Kimé.
Cited by (2)
Cited by two other publications
Escandell-Vidal, M. Victoria
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 12 december 2025. 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.
