Cover not available
Part of
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. 85–116

Sentences as predicates

the Spanish construction ser <muy de + infinitive>

| Universidad Complutense de Madrid
| Universidad Complutense de Madrid
The construction <muy de + infinitive> is interpreted as a gradable individuallevel predicate (IL-predicate), compatible with the copula ser but not with the copula estar. This supports the idea that the ser and estar distinction is a particular manifestation of Carlson’s (1977) distinction between individuallevel and stage-level predicates (SL-predicates). We propose that the habitual reading of the imperfective aspect of the infinitive in this construction is crucial to interpret the non-finite sentence as a characterizing property. Specifically, we distinguish two cases: animate subjects admit copular predicates containing infinitive sentences with an actualized habitual aspect; inanimate subjects are admitted in constructions with imperfective predicates interpreted as gnomic or deontic habituals. We propose two different syntactic structures for each of these cases and explain the contribution of the preposition de ‘of ’ to the licensing of the non-finite clause as a characterizing predicate.
Keywords: aspect, attitudinal, characterizing property, gradable property, habitual, imperfective, individual-level predicate, preposition de
Published online: 28 October 2015
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/ihll.5.04fer
References (58)
References
Amritavalli, R., & Jayaseelan, K.A. (2003). The genesis of syntactic categories and parametric variation. In H.J. Yoon (Ed.), Generative Grammar in a Broader Perspective: Proceedings of the 4th GLOW in Asia 2003 (pp. 19–41). Seoul, South Korea: Hankook.Google Scholar
Arche, M.J. (2006). Individuals in time: Tense, aspect and the individual/stage distinction. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bertinetto, P.M. (1994). Statives, progressives, habituals. Linguistics, 32, 391–423. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (1997). Il dominio tempo aspettuale. Demarcazioni, intersezioni, contrasti. Turin, Italy: Rosenberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Bhatt, R. (2000). Covert modality in non-finite context. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania, IRCS Technical Reports Series.Google Scholar
Boneh, N., & Doron, E. (2008). Habituality and the habitual aspect. In S. Rothstein (Ed.), Theoretical and crosslinguistic approaches to the semantics of aspect (pp. 321–347). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Borer, H. (2005). Structuring sense. II The normal course of events. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bosque, I., & Gallego, A. (2011). Spanish double passives and related structures. Revista de Estudios Linguisticos da Universidade do Porto, 1(6), 9–50.Google Scholar
Bowers, J. (1993). The syntax of predication. Linguistic Inquiry, 24, 591–656.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Camus Bergareche, B. (2004). Perífrasis verbales y expresión del aspecto en español. In L. García Fernández & B. Camus Bergareche (Eds.), El pretérito imperfecto (pp. 511–572). Madrid, Spain: Gredos.Google Scholar
Carlson, G. (1977). Reference to kinds in English (Doctoral Dissertation). Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts Amherst.Google Scholar
. (1995). Truth conditions on generic sentences: Two constraining views. In G.N. Carlson & F.J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book, (pp. 224–237). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chierchia, G. (1995). Individual level predicates as inherent generics. In G.N. Carlson & F.J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book, (pp. 176–223). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Chomsky, N. (2013). Problems of Projection. Lingua, 130, 33–49. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (2007). Approaching UG from bellow. In U. Sauerland & H-M. Gärtner (Eds.), Interfaces+recursion=language? (pp. 1–29). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.Google Scholar
. (2001). Derivation by phase. In M. Kenstowicz (Ed.), Ken Hale: A life in language (pp. 1–52). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
. (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 (pp. 89–155). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Costa, J. (2004). A multifactorial approach to adverb placement: assumptions, facts, and problems. Lingua, 114, 711–753. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
CREA. Corpus de referencia del español actual. Calls September-October 2012. Retrieved from <[URL]>
Dahl, Ö. (1975). On generics. In E.L. Keenan (Ed.), Formal semantics of natural language (pp. 99–111). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Delfitto, D. (2002). Genericity in language: Issues of syntax logical form and interpretation. Alessandria, Italy: Edizioni dell’Orso.Google Scholar
den Dikken, M. (2006). Relator and linkers: The syntax of predication, predicate inversion, and copulas (Linguistic Inquiry Monograph 47) . Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
. (2003). On the syntax of locative and directional adpositional phrases (Unpublished manuscript). New York, NY: CUNY Graduate Center.Google Scholar
Ernst, T. (2004). Principles of adverbial distribution in the lower clause. Lingua, 114, 755–777. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Fernández Leborans, M.J. (2007). Sobre la oposición Individuo/Estadio en los predicados nominales. In A. Puigvert & I. Delgado (Coord.), Ex admiratione et amicitia. Homenaje a Ramón Santiago (pp. 377–394). Madrid, Spain: Ediciones del Orto.Google Scholar
. (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.Google Scholar
Fernández Leborans, M.J., & Sánchez López, C. (2011). La interpretación de mucho y cuantificadores afines. In M.V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti & C. Sánchez López (Eds.), 60 problemas de gramática (pp. 77–82). Madrid, Spain: Akal.Google Scholar
Gallego, Á., & Uriagereka, J. (2009). Estar=Ser+P. Paper presented at the XIX Colloquium on Generative Grammar. Universidad del País Vasco, Vitoria-Gasteiz, Spain: April 1–3, 2009.
García Fernández, L. (2006). Diccionario de perífrasis verbales. Madrid, Spain: Gredos.Google Scholar
Gómez Torrego, L. (1999). Los verbos auxiliares. Las perífrasis verbales de infinitivo. In I. Bosque & V. Demonte (Dir.), Gramática descriptiva de la lengua española (pp. 3321–3390). Madrid, Spain: RAE/Espasa.Google Scholar
Hengeveld, K. (1992). Non verbal predication. Berlín, Germany: Mouton De Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hernanz, M.L. (2011). Sobre la periferia de los infinitivos. In M.V. Escandell-Vidal, M. Leonetti & C. Sánchez López (Eds.), 60 problemas de gramática (pp. 263–270). Madrid, Spain: Akal.Google Scholar
Hornstein, N. (2001). Move! A minimalist theory of construal. Oxford, England: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Krifka, M., Pelletier, F.J., Carlson, G.N., ter Meulen, A., Chierchia, G., & Link, G. (1995). Genericity: An introduction. In G.N. Carlson & F.J. Pelletier (Eds.), The generic book (pp. 1–124). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Kuroda, S.Y. (1972). Categorical and thetic judgments: Evidence from Japanese syntax. Foundations of Language, 9, 153–185.Google Scholar
Laca, B. (1990). Generic objects: Some more pieces to the puzzle. Lingua, 81, 25–46. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lenci, A. (1995). The semantics representation of non-quantificational habituals. In P.M. Bertinetto, V. Bianchi, J. Higginbotham & M. Squartini (Eds.), Temporal reference, aspect and actionality. Vol 2, Typological perspectives (pp. 143–158). Turin, Italy: Rosemberg & Sellier.Google Scholar
Lenci, A., & Bertinetto, P.M. (2000). Aspects, adverbs and events. Habituality vs. perfectivity . In P. Bertinetto, V. Bianchi, J. Higginbotham, F. Pianesi & A.C. Varzi (Eds.), Speaking of events (pp. 245–287). Nueva York, NY and Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Leonetti, M. (1998). A relevance-theoretic approach to the property predication restriction. In A. Jucker & V. Rouchota (Eds.), Current issues in relevance theory (pp. 143–169). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins.Google Scholar
. (1994). Ser y estar: estado de la cuestión. Barataria, 1, 182–205.Google Scholar
Marantz, A. (2001). Words. Handout of West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics XX. University of Southern California, Los Ángeles, CA: February 23–25, 2001.
Mateu, J. (2002). Argument structure: relational construal at the syntax-semantics interface (Doctoral Dissertation). Barcelona, Spain: Universidad Autónoma de Barcelona.Google Scholar
Milsark, G. (1977). Toward an explanation of certain peculiarities of the existential construction in English. Linguistic Analysis, 3, 1–29.Google Scholar
Obata, M. (2010). Root, successive-cyclic and feature-splitting internal merge: Implications for feature-inheritance and transfer (Doctoral Dissertation). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.Google Scholar
RAE-ASALE (2009). Nueva gramática de la lengua española. Madrid, Spain: RAE/Espasa.Google Scholar
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.Google Scholar
van Riemsdijk, H. (1990). Functional preposition. In H. Pinkster & I. Genée (Eds.), Unity in diversity. Papers presented to Simon Dik on his 50th birthday (pp. 229–241). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Foris.Google Scholar
Romeu, J. (this volume). Ser, estar and two different modifiers.
Smith, C.S. (1991). The parameter of aspect. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Kluwer. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Svenonius, P. (2007). Adpositions, particles and the arguments they introduce. In E. Reuland, T. Bhattacharya & G. Spathas (eds.), Argument structure (pp. 63–103). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Torrego, E. (2006). Predication with characterizing sentences in Spanish. In B. Fernández & I. Laka (Coord.), Andolin gogoan. Essays in honor of professor Eguzkitza (pp. 835–853). Bilbao, Spain: Publicaciones de la Universidad del País Vasco-EHU.Google Scholar
Tortora, C.M. (2008). Aspect inside PLACE PPs. In A. Asbury, J. Dotlačil, B. Gehrke, Ø. Nilsen & R. Nouwen (Eds.), The syntax and semantics of spatial P (pp. 273–301). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review, 66, 143–160. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zagona, K. (2012). Ser and estar: Phrase structure and aspect. In C. Nishida & C. Russi (Eds.), Building a bridge between linguistic communities of the Old and the New World, Cahiers Chronos, 25 (pp. 303–327). Amsterdam, The Netherlands and New York, NY: Rodopi.Google Scholar
Ziegeler, D. (2008). Propositional aspect and the development of modal inferences in English. In W. Abraham & E. Leiss (Eds.), Modality-aspect interfaces. Implications and typological solutions (pp. 43–80). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Gonzálvez-García, Francisco
2024. Capturing meaningful generalizations at varying degrees of resolution. Review of Cognitive Linguistics 22:1 ► pp. 151 ff. DOI logo
Portero-Muñoz, Carmen
2022. “It’s way too intriguing!” The fuzzy status of emergent intensifiers: A Functional Discourse Grammar account. Open Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 618 ff. DOI logo
Silvagni, Federico
2022. Whenestaris not there: A cross-linguistic analysis of individual/stage-level copular sentences in Romance. Open Linguistics 8:1 ► pp. 108 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 24 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.