Estar+ILP
Testing the experiential commitment
A sentence like María está muy guapa (‘María looks very pretty’) attributes the property of being
pretty to María but also conveys the assumption that the state-of-affairs described is based on direct experience. Several
explanatory hypotheses are found in the literature to account for this fact: (i) experientiality is a property of the copula
estar; (ii) experientiality is an effect of contextual factors; and (iii) experientiality is the result of
resolving the aspectual mismatch produced by combining estar with an Individual-Level Predicate (ILP). To test
the predictions of these hypotheses, a comprehension-based survey was carried out. Participants were given isolated copular
sentences with estar followed by either an ILP or an SLP (Stage-Level Predicate). Using a 5-point Likert scale,
they had to rate how likely it was that the utterer had direct experience about the quality s/he was asserting. The results show a
significant preference for the experiential interpretation in estar+ILP, an outcome that is consistent only with
the hypothesis that the linguistic mismatch found in estar+ILP is enough to induce the accommodation of a direct
experience presupposition.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 1.1Literature review
- 1.2Study overview
- 2.Methods
- 2.1Participants
- 2.2Materials
- 2.3Procedure
- 3.Results
- 4.Discussion
- 4.1General considerations
- 4.2Specific comments
- 5.Concluding remarks
- Acknowledgements
- Notes
-
References
References (61)
References
Bott, Lewis, and Ira A. Noveck. 2004. “Some
utterances are underinformative: The onset and time course of scalar inferences.” Journal of
Memory and
Language 51 (3): 437–457. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Brucart, José María. 2012. “Copular alternation in
Spanish and Catalan attributive sentences.” Revista de Estudos Linguisticos da Universidade do
Porto 71: 9–43![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Bylinina, Lisa. 2017. “Judge-dependence
in degree constructions”. Journal of
Semantics 341: 291–331. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Camacho, José. 2012. “
Ser
and estar: the individual/stage level distinction and aspectual
predication.” In The Handbook of Spanish
Linguistics, ed. by José Ignacio Hualde, Antxon Olarrea, and Erin O’rourke, 453–476. Oxford: Blackwell. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Carlson, Greg N. 1977. Reference to kinds in
English (PhD). UMass, Amherst.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clark, Billy. 2018. “Cognitive
pragmatics: Relevance-theoretic methodology.” In Methods in
pragmatics, ed. by Andreas Jucker, Klaus Schneider, and Wolfram Bublitz, 185–201. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Clements, Clancy. 1988. “The
semantics and pragmatics of the Spanish copula+adjective
construction.” Linguistics 261: 779–882. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Demonte, Violeta, and Pascual José Masullo. 1999. “Los
complementos predicativos”. In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua
española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque and Violeta Demonte, Vol. 21, 2461–2524, Madrid: Espasa.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Deo, Ashwini, Sarah Sánchez-Alonso, and María Mercedes Piñango. 2018. “Alternative
circumstances of evaluation and the ser/estar distinction in
Spanish.” (lingbuzz/003543) Preprint. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria, and Manuel Leonetti. 2002. “Coercion
and the stage/individual distinction.” In From words to
discourse, ed. by Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach, 159–179. Amsterdam: Elsevier. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 2018a. “Evidential
commitment and feature mismatch in Spanish estar constructions.” Journal of
Pragmatics 1281: 102–115. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 2018b. “
Ser
y estar con adjetivos. Afinidad y desajustes de rasgos.” Revista Española de
Lingüística 481: 57–114. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Escandell-Vidal, Victoria. 2019. “Evidential
explicatures and mismatch resolution.” In Relevance, pragmatics and
interpretation, ed. by Kate Scott, Billy Clark, and Robin Carston, 66–79. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fábregas, Antonio. 2012. “A
guide to IL and SL in Spanish: properties, problems and
proposals.” Borealis 1 (2): 1–71. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fernald, Ted. 1999. “Evidential
Coercion: Using Individual-Level Predicates in Stage-Level Environments.” Studies in the
Linguistic
Sciences 291: 43–63.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fernández Leborans, María Jesús. 1995. “Sobre construcciones
absolutas.” Revista Española de
Lingüística 251:365–395.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Fernández Leborans, María Jesús. 1999. “La predicación. Las
oraciones copulativas.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua
española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, vol. 21, 2357–2460. Madrid: Espasa.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gibbs, Raymond W., and Jacqueline F. Moise. 1997. “Pragmatics
in understanding what is
said.” Cognition 621: 51–74. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Gili Gaya, Samuel. 1961. Curso
superior de sintaxis
española. Barcelona: Biblograf.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hemanz, Maria Luïsa. 1988. “En torno a la sintaxis y la
semántica de los complementos predicativos en español.” Estudi
General 81: 7–27.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hernanz, Maria Luïsa. 1991. “Spanish absolute
constructions and aspect.” Catalan Working Papers in
Linguistics 11:75–128.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Hernanz, Maria Luïsa, and Avel·lina Suñer. 1999. “La
predicación: La predicación no copulativa. Las construcciones
absolutas.” In Gramática descriptiva de la lengua
española, ed. by Ignacio Bosque, and Violeta Demonte, vol 21, 2525–2560. Madrid: Espasa.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Horno-Chéliz, María del Carmen, and José Manuel Igoa. 2017. “Adjetivos
i-level y s-level. Nuevas evidencias
experimentales.” Borealis 6/21: 103–124. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Lasersohn, Peter. 2005. “Context
dependence, disagreement, and predicates of personal taste.” Linguistics and
Philosophy 281: 643–686. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leonetti, Manuel. 1994. “
Ser
y estar: estado de la
cuestión.” Barataria 11:182–205. [URL]![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leonetti, Manuel (ed.). 2018. “
Nuevas
aportaciones sobre ser y estar.” (Special issue: Revista
Española de Lingüísitica 48) ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leonetti, Manuel, and Gonzalo Escribano. 2018. “El
papel del aspecto gramatical en las construcciones con estar y adjetivos de
propiedades.” Revista Española de
Lingüísitica 481: 115–152: ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leonetti, Manuel. 2015. “On
word order in Spanish copular sentences.” In New perspectives on the
study of ser and estar, ed. by Isabel Pérez-Jiménez, Manuel Leonetti, and Silvia Gumiel, 203–235. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Leonetti-Escandell, Victoria, and Jacopo Torregrossa. 2023. “The
interpretation of null and overt subject pronouns in Spanish compared to Greek and Italian: the role of VSO and
DOM.” (under review)![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
López, Luis. 1994. “The
internal structure of absolute small clauses.” Catalan Working Papers in
Linguistics 41:45–92.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Maienborn, Claudia. 2005. “A
discourse-based account on Spanish
ser/estar
.” Linguistics 431: 155–180. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mangialavori, M. Eugenia. 2013. “Not always a stage.
Atypical patterns in Spanish copular
clauses.” Iberia 5/21: 1–37.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Marín, Rafael. 1996. “Aspectual
Properties of Spanish Absolute Small Clauses.” Catalan Working Papers in
Linguistics 51:183–212.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Marín, Rafael. 2010. “Spanish
adjectives within bounds.” In Formal analyses in syntax and
semantics, ed. by Patricia Cabredo Hofherr, and Ora Matushansky, 307–332. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Marín, Rafael. 2015. “
Ser
y estar
.” In Enciclopedia de lingüística
hispánica, ed. by Javier Gutiérrez-Rexach, 13–24. London: Routledge.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Mazzarella, Diana. 2013. “Associative
and inferential approaches to pragmatics: The state of the art of experimental
investigation.” Methode – Analytic
Perspectives 2(2): 172–194.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McNally, Louise. 1994. “Adjunct
predicates and the individual/stage distinction.” Proceedings of
WCCFL 121: 561–576.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
McNally, Louise, and Isadora Stojanovic. 2017. “Aesthetic
adjectives.” In Semantics of aesthetic
judgments, ed. by James O. Young, 17–37. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Morimoto, Yuko, and María Victoria Pavón Lucero. 2007. Los
verbos pseudo-copulativos del
español. Madrid: Arco.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Nicolle, Steve, and Billy Clark. 1999. “Experimental
pragmatics and what is said: A response to Gibbs and
Moise.” Cognition 691: 337–354.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Noveck, Ira A. 2004. “Pragmatic inferences linked to
logical terms.” In Experimental pragmatics, ed.
by Ira A. Noveck and Dan Sperber, 301–321. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Noveck, Ira A. 2016. “On investigating intention in
experimental pragmatics.” In Pre-proceedings of Trends in
Experimental Pragmatics Workshop at Center for General Linguistics. Berlin, Germany; January 18–20,
2016. [URL]
Noveck, Ira A., and Anne Reboul. 2008. “Experimental
pragmatics: A Gricean turn in the study of language.” Trends in Cognitive
Sciences 12 (11): 425–431. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Noveck, Ira A., Maryse Bianco, and Alain Castry. 2001. “The
costs and benefits of metaphor.” Metaphor and
Symbol 16 (1): 109–121. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Noveck, Ira, and Dan Sperber. 2007. “The
why and how of experimental pragmatics: The case of ‘scalar
inferences’.” In Pragmatics, ed.
by Noel Burton-Roberts, 184–212. Basingstoke: Palgrave. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pearson, Hazel. 2013. “A
judge-free semantics for predicates of personal taste.” Journal of
Semantics 30 (1): 103–154. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Pérez-Jiménez, Isabel. 2008. Las
cláusulas absolutas. Madrid: Arco Libros.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Roby, David B. 2007. Aspect and the categorisation of
states. The case of ser and estar in Spanish (PhD). The University of Texas at Austin.![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sánchez-Alonso, Sara, Ashwini Deo, and María Mercedes Piñango. 2017. “Copula
distinction and constrained variability of copula use in Iberian and Mexican
Spanish,” University of Pennsylvania Working Papers in
Linguistics, 23/11. [URL]
Sánchez-Alonso, Sara. 2015. “Changes
in the distributional patterns of the Spanish copulas: the influence of contextual
modulation. Ms. [URL]
Saussure, Louis de. 2013. “Background
relevance.” Journal of
Pragmatics 591: 178–189. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Silvagni, Federico. 2018. “Sobre
la distinción entre Individuo/Estadio y su relación con ser y estar.” Revista Española de
Lingüística 481: 15–56. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Simons, Mandy. 2005. “Presuppositions
and relevance.” In Semantics vs.
pragmatics, ed. by Gendler Szabo, 329–355. New York: Oxford University Press. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Sperber, Dan, Francesco Cara, and Vittorio Girotto. 1995. “Relevance
theory explains the selection
task.” Cognition 571: 31–95. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stephenson, Tamina. 2007. “Judge
dependence, epistemic modals, and predicates of personal taste.” Linguistics and
Philosophy 301: 487–525. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Stump, Gregory T. 1985. The Semantic Variability of Absolute
Constructions. Dordrecht: Reidel. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
Van der Henst, Jean-Baptiste, and Dan Sperber. 2004. “Testing
the cognitive and the communicative principles of
relevance.” In Experimental pragmatics; ed.
by Ira A. Noveck and Dan Sperber, 141–169. London: Palgrave. ![DOI logo](https://benjamins.com/logos/doi-logo.svg)
![Google Scholar](https://benjamins.com/logos/google-scholar.svg)
von Fintel, Kai. 2000. “What
is presupposition accommodation?” Ms MIT, Cambridge. [URL]
Cited by (1)
Cited by one other publication
Gumiel-Molina, Silvia, Norberto Moreno-Quibén & Isabel Pérez-Jiménez
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 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.