Sunteți pe pagina 1din 20

The semantic characterization of predicate adjectives C.

Enrique Ibarra

I. Introduction

Until recently, the semanticity of adjectives in Spanish had previously been relatively unexplored. The range and scope of adjectival categories is a lot more intricate and varied than a preliminary overview might reveal. The importance of studying the adjective is its dynamic nature since it is the grammatical constituent that brings the most complexity to any utterance. In rescinding an adjective from any given utterance, the meaning is not always substantially affected (Demonte 453), but the utterance stands to lose some of its intricacy and definition. The objective of this text is to present the way the copulative verbs ser and estar work with adjectives, and to introduce some of the most important issues related to that function. First, the notion of predicate complements is discussed, and then the specific . case of predicate adjectives is explained. Then, the role of copulative verbs and more specifically how they affect the semantic nature of the predicate adjective is covered, along with the syntactic and semantic features needed in order to characterize the use of the two copulative verbs in Spanish. Finally, the semantics of the adjective position is briefly discussed, and then a few conclusions are drawn, as the directions in which a future research in the subject could point are indicated.

II. Predicate Complements and Predicate Adjectives.

Most adjectives are derived from predicate adjectives. A sharp difference has been traditionally considered between the predicate complements which use copulative

verbs and the complements of non-copulative verbs. Semantically, predicate complements are deemed as being related very closely to the subject of the sentence (see section III.3), much more than a verbal complement. Predicate complements modify the subject noun phrase, whereas a noun phrase working as a verb complement relates directly to that verb, rather than to the subject. From the syntactic point of view, there are five features (Lujn 1980) that differentiate predicate attributes from verbal complements: i) the nucleus of a predicate attribute must agree in gender and number with the sentence's subject:

(1)

Las clases son muy caras

*Las clases son muy caro

ii) a predicate complement can never be preceded by a preposition, whereas verbal complements are, in the majority of cases, preceded by the preposition a.

(2)

*El vecino era a inoportuno

Le hablamos a la vecina

iii) predicate complements can become pronouns by means of the impersonal pronoun lo, and verbal complements can't.

(3)

Mi novio es rubio y el suyo no lo es

iv) sentences with predicate attributes cannot be expressed in passive voice or detached, or appear in a so-called pseudo-split construction.

(4) (5) (6)

A mi hermana la quiere su novio Las vacunas son administradas diario La que escoge la ropa es ella

*Aburridas las son estas clases *Secretaria es sido por Mirna *Lo que l est es enojado

v) noun phrases in relation to predicate attributes cannot precede the copulative verb to form a relative clause.

(7)

Le hablamos al nio que saltaba

*Bebimos con el amigo que es Mario

Adjectives can be classified in three groups: those whose use is restricted to constructions with ser, those whose use is restricted to constructions with estar, and those which can be used with both copulative verbs. Those which fall into the latter category present certain syntactic features, such as the need of incoative verbs, whereas adjectives that can be used only with ser require volverse and hacerse, but not the ones restricted to estar, which can be used only with ponerse. A similar feature applies to their use with quedarse. There are several other characteristics that distinguish one category from the other, which won't be discussed in detail here in order to remain focused on our topic. Franco and Steinmetz (1983) propose a way to decide whether ser or estar should be used with a predicate adjective based on the idea of comparisons, and in using the subjective / objective point of view to help decide whether the subject of the sentence is

being compared to him or herself (ser), or whether it is being compared to others (estar). This analysis leaves many questions unanswered, mainly because it disregards the widely used syntactic analysis and features discussed in the following sections.

III. Syntactic and Semantic Characterization of Adjectives.

The copulative verbs ser and estar are traditionally defined and contrasted as indicators of permanent versus temporary properties respectively, in spite of the existence of examples that easily contradict such a contrast (e. g. the use of estar in Juan est muerto, where the aforementioned definition loses its meaning for muerto is clearly a permanent state). The use of ser with the adjective muerto yields unacceptable constructions, such as *Juan es

muerto. In addition to these obvious complications, traditional definitions are of little use, especially when it comes to the nominal predicate, to which one should be able to apply them, given that nouns constructed along with copulative verbs are traditionally considered to be functionally adjectives.

Nevertheless, nouns are usually built with ser and not with estar. There is no reason to consider these nouns as designators of properties in a more essential way than adjectives, or that nouns of nominal predicates all describe essential properties and that none of them describe accidental properties. In a statement such as

(8)

La profesora es asesora ma

In this case, the fact of being asesora may be interpreted as being an essential characteristic of the professor, but that interpretation fails to

hold in many contexts. The same problem occurs when the preterite of ser is used, as in

(9)

El licenciado fue delegado en la pasada conferencia

mainly because being a delegado is hardly a permanent, essential feature or characteristic of anyone (in this specific case, of the licenciado). However, ser has to be used in this case. In order to characterize the syntactic differences between the kind of adjectives that can only work with ser and the kind of adjectives that are restricted to being used with estar, the existence of two semantic and syntactic features needs to be acknowledged: [ stative], as proposed by Lujn (1979) and [ perfective]. These features characterize predicative complements. All adjectives can be classified as [+ stative], but can take both values regarding [ perfective]. Adjectives used with ser take the [- perfective] feature, whereas the ones used with estar take the [+ perfective] feature. The rest of the adjectives don't need to be characterized in general with these features, because they can appear alongside both copulative verbs, with different meanings. Estar requires the [+ stative] feature in addition to the [+ perfective] one, whereas ser only

requires the [- perfective] characterization, because it can be used with stative and non stative complements.

III.1. The adjectival role of copulative verbs with nouns

Traditional grammar says that the use of estar with an adjective refers to a state or condition. Proposing a criterion for its characterization focusing exclusively in only one semantic factor, the state, would provide a link between the notion of permanent versus temporary and the aforementioned use of estar. This criterion is discussed in brief in the following sections.

III.1.1. The "state" as a semantic factor.

The feature [ perfective] allows for a correct characterization of a syntactic analysis of the difference between the two copulative verbs. As Lujn (1981) proposes, Ser is used with stative and non-stative predicates, and estar is used only with stative predicates. As it was discussed before, the majority of participles and all adjectives are stative, and attributive predicates referring to perfective states must use estar, whereas attributive predicates referring to imperfective states require ser . The same semantic factor that defines the meaning and utilization of the stative copula would also be useful to define the way that ser ought to be used. However, the definition of a state as something that is "the result of an action", as defined by Keniston (Lujn 33), is not appropriate, because it is too vague and it turns out to be inaccurate in

many cases. It is very easy to find examples that do not follow that rule, such as the past participles of active verbs that become stative when they're used in sentences such as

(10)

*El disco est tocado

which would originate from the active verb tocar (el disco). However, the past participles of inchoative (psych) verbs, which refer to mental states, can be perfectly used with estar, such as in

(11)

Memo est aburrido

Some authors have related the notion of state to that of "change" and "modification", trying to come up with a more appropriate characterization. In this case, the state is the result of a modification, and such a conception provides a better understanding of which past participles (or adjectives) related to active verbs can be used in stative sentences. For example, the active verb rayar and the example of the record. A record undergoes a modification upon being scratched, but not upon being played, as in (10). Both "to scratch" and "to play" are active verbs, but there is no modification of the record after it has been played. However, there is a real modification after it has been scratched:

(12)

El disco est rayado

The definition of state based in the existence or not of a certain modification allows for the inclusion of reflexive inchoative (psych) verbs, because they do define changes in state. For example:

(13)

precouparse

estar preocupado

The idea of modification allows to discard many of the predicates that used to be the classic counterexamples, such as the aforementioned estar muerto. This predicate describes a state that comes after a living organism experiences a change: dying. That's why it works with estar and not with ser, and why the permanency of the state of being dead becomes irrelevant. The use and meaning of ser and estar can be defined in a very clear-cut way taking into account the previously discussed points, in a simple and appropriate way: a predicate complement that describes a state needs to use estar as its copulative verb, and otherwise, it needs ser. A predicate complement that describes the result of a modification, or of something that is modifiable, needs to use estar, and otherwise, it needs ser. However, the question now may be how to know whether something is modifiable or not. There are at least a couple of instances where the stative predicates are clearly used with estar, such as in talking about location:

(14)

El libro est en la mesa

or when no modification is implied:

(15)

Mi madre nunca est contenta

The interpretation of these examples implies neither the existence of a modification which could be the cause of the described states, nor a future modification of such states. As a matter of fact, the predicates in both examples describe features that are rather intrinsic. How to determine which states are the result of modifications is not an easy, automatic task, as the following example illustrates:

(16)

La ropa es barata

La ropa est barata

In the same fashion, determining a state becomes more difficult when the possibility of future change, or of a "potential modification" is introduced, such as in:

(17)

Es usted casado?

Est usted casado?

The idea of modification should be understood in such a way that the traditional concept of state is rendered inadequate. Using the criteria that takes the possibility of future modifications leads to erroneous conclusions, and finding counterexamples is not difficult:

(18)

Est usted casado?

No, no lo estoy y nunca voy a estarlo.

10

It can be seen clearly from this example, that the idea of possibility of future change as a criteria to determine a state is not an accurate criteria. In the same way, there are cases where ser can be used in a situation where future change is unavoidable, such as in:

(19)

Rodrigo es feliz

Ser can be used in situations where a possible change is implied, and estar does not have to be related to a given or to a potential modification. The concept of modification and the characterization of state based on it are not enough to describe adequately the use and the meaning of the predicates with copulative verbs (Lujn 1979).

III.1.2. Perfective and imperfective states

The definitions that simply contrast and define the use of ser and estar as permanent versus temporary or not permanent, or state versus no state, or modification versus no modification, fail to provide an appropriate description of the semantic aspect of copulative predicates. The deficiencies present in many analysis can be overcome by adopting the concept of the description of mental or physical states by all adjectives. The difference can be understood clearly in dividing states in perfective and imperfective. Let's consider the following examples:

(20)

Yo soy delgado

Yo estoy delgado

11

There is a clear difference in semantic content in both expressions, and the way to characterize them is by using the features [ stative] and [ perfective], as previously discussed. The first sentence in (20) needs to be characterized as [+ stative], [perfective], and the second one should be characterized as [+ stative], [+ perfective]. These adjectives referring to imperfective states should be used with ser, whereas the adjectives referring to perfective states should be used with estar.

III.2. The ability of ser and estar to express temporary references in opposite ways.

The concept of perfective and imperfective actions and states opens the door to the possibility of a semantic characterization of the adjective based on an aspectual difference, produced by the use of the two copulative verbs. Along with the determination of the duration of an action, comes the concept of whether that duration has a defined beginning and end or not, and the imperfective copula ser takes into account this duration. The perfective copula estar takes into account a defined point within the duration of the event. A way to characterize this, proposed by Lujn (1980), is based on the use of the [ perfective] feature.

(21)

Perfective states: [ + stative, + perfective] x A within a tk time period

(22)

Imperfective states: [ + stative, - perfective] x A within some ti . . . ti+1 time periods

12

In other words, saying that an individual "est A" (21), means that the individual (x) belongs () to the class (A) of individuals which are characterized by such an adjective within a time period whose beginning or end are known or assumed. In (22), saying that an individual "es A" means that the individual (x) belongs () to the class (A) of individuals which are characterized by such an adjective within a time period or periods whose beginning and end are unknown or unassumed. This semantic characterization leads to the idea that the aspectual difference evidenced by the use of the two different copulative verbs denotes the ability of these predicates to make a temporal reference in two opposite ways. In using ser, the duration of the time period is taken into account, whereas in using estar, only one point of the time period is taken into consideration.

III. 3. The semantics of the adjective position

The position of the descriptive adjective with respect to the noun it describes is a current and widely discussed issue in linguistics. Mostly everyone agrees that adjectives can precede and/or follow a noun, but there is no consensus as to the circumstances and restrictions of this issue. Opinions vary, and many are contradictory in taking into account the semantic effect of one versus another alternative. There is a consensus, though, as to the preponderance of the postposition of adjectives as opposed to their anteposition. There are two prevailing positions presently amongst authors regarding the semantics of the adjective position: some support the idea of the postpositional adjective as an emphasizing factor on the quality or attribute, while the prepositional adjective

13

doesn't have the same impact; while others support the opposite notion, that adjectives are more emphatic in anteposition than in postposition. Ramsey, Sol and Sol, Espinosa and Wonder and De Mello are amongst the supporters of the first concept, and Gili Gaya, Neale-Silva and Nelson, the Real Academia Espaola, Lamb and Stockwell, Bowen and Martin are amongst those who defend the second idea (Prado 2-3). Andres Bello's idea of the prenominal adjective's function as explicative and the postnominal adjective's function as differentiating, classifying and restrictive (Demonte 459) has spread widely over the years, but this notion is more related to the noun described by the adjective than to the adjective itself. Regarding the length of the adjectives and the nouns to which they are attached, a study by Salvador Fernndez Ramrez supports the basic principle that short adjectives usually preceed the noun, but the length of the noun does not correlate with the position of the adjective (Prado 2-3). However, if the number of syllables were a real dominant factor ruling the position of the adjective, all other considerations would be of little importance. Semantic considerations are fundamental because the relationship between them and the message communicated by the language is direct. All differences, including word order, imply a difference in meaning, invariably. In an attempt to characterize the differences, grammarians and linguists agree that the dependency of the antepositional adjectives on the noun is much more significant than when the adjective is postposed. The case of maldito hombre versus hombre maldito, exemplifies the dependency of the preposed adjective, because the quality of maldito seems to form an integral part of the noun hombre when it precedes it: maldito in postposition characterizes the lack of good

14

fortune, or the act of being under a maldicin (spellbound), which are extrinsic features, whereas maldito in anteposition suggests the quality of being damned or wretched, and of being of little or no desirability in general, all them as intrinsic features. The postposed adjective modified the man as a person in general (it modifies a woman, a child or any other human being in the same extrinsic way), while the preposed adjective modifies the specific man to which the sentence is referring, as if the duo adjective-noun were a single, inseparable unit. In general, the specific lexical connotation of the adjective in preposition is equal to that contextual variant of its non-variant meaning which is determined by the presupposition of the lexical meaning of the noun. Such presupposition of the lexical meaning of the noun is not necessarily the case in postposition. The individualization of the lexical context is the differentiating factor between anteposition and postposition. This seems very clear in examples where the adjective has two apparent meanings according to its position. In other cases, the difference is not that clear, but in general the semantic solution seems to explain more than the quantitative features such as syllable, stress or rhythm. There are other works regarding the adjective position and its semantic implications, such as Demonte's (1982), where she approaches the issue classifying adjectives in qualitative, gradual and in those which, in choosing them, take into account how the subject is implied into the sentence. Her approach is in direct opposition with Lujn's (1980), but, Demonte's classification seems to be less robust than that of Lujn, because it is less exhaustive and it uses a syntactic feature proposed by Milner (Demonte 471), namely [ T], which accounts for the interrogative / exclamative use of some adjectives, where [+ T] would mean affectation, and [- T] would mean neutral. This

15

feature is not of widespread use, and it raises a cumbersome issue, because a syntactic feature cannot be invented every time a new classification is proposed. Gutirrez (1981) approaches the issue in a different way, simply suggesting that the position of adjectives is ruled by their role as nouns in certain cases (sustantivacin), without paying much attention to the semantic difference. He provides many examples to prove his point, but his proposal suffers of a lack of exhaustiveness.

IV. Conclusions

Even though this is intended to be only a short review of the basic concepts, ideas and issues behind the syntactic and semantic characterization of predicate adjectives, several interesting questions can be posed based on this discussion. One of the most important concepts to be clarified amongst academics is the notion of state and modification, as discussed in III.1.1 and III.1.2, in order to get a consensus about when ser should be used in a predicate construction with adjectives, and when estar should be. The lack of understanding and agreement on this point is evident when the explanation that authors of first-year college level textbooks of Spanish give regarding this difference. Most authors think it is enough to establish such difference as "temporary" versus "permanent", but it is clear that such an "explanation" fails to explain many cases. How could the explanation of state and modification be introduced in such textbooks in order to make the difference between ser and estar simple and easy to understand in such textbooks? It is clear that these textbooks cannot use explanations that pertain to complex semantics and syntax textbooks and research works.

16

Another interesting issue that arises from this discussion is the lack of use of the syntactic features in some of the articles that deal with the syntactic and semantic behavior of adjectives alongside the copulative verbs. Monteverde and Zierer (1970) assert that:

"No todos los adjetivos admiten los dos verbos copulativos, por lo menos no en el uso habitual del habla. As hay una clase de adjetivos que admiten solamente SER: (a) La ciudad es antigua (la ciudad todava existe) La ciudad antigua (b) La antigua ciudad (una ciudad que ya no existe) La ciudad est antigua "

These authors have a clear lack of understanding or knowledge of some of the concepts discussed in this paper, such as the notion of state and perfectiveness, and they seem to ignore the difference between predicate and verbal complements. Their explanation could be effectively summarizing in using the semantic and syntactic features explained in III.1.1 and III.1.2. However, these notions may be too recent for them to use them, if the date when their paper was published (1970) is taken into account. Zierer, in a later work written on his own (1970), suggests a criterion to classify adjectives in Spanish based on what he calls "embedding transformations", which basically take into account whether indirect objects are related to adjectives and whether certain transformations are possible. However, he doesn't mention any of the presently

17

used, well known syntactic features in his work, possibly because they had not been proposed yet back when he made his proposal. One last remark, which could constitute a pointer as to where a future research project on this topic could be directed, is the semantics of the position of elements when couplative verbs are used with predicate adjectives. For example:

(23) (24) (25) (26)

San Juan de la Cruz fue un gran poeta en el siglo XV (?) Fue un gran poeta en el siglo XV San Juan de la Cruz En el siglo XV fue un gran poeta San Juan de la Cruz En el siglo XV San Juan de la Cruz fue un gran poeta

Even though (24) may be of marginal use, how could the differences between these four examples, which apparently state the same fact, be characterized? The issues related to adjective position and to the syntactic and semantic characterization of predicate adjectives are related in ways that cannot be ignored, and they should be studied more in depth, in order to gain a better understanding about the differences in structure and content in using and analyzing expressions related to constructions using copulative verbs, adjectives and predicate adjectives.

18

References

Demonte, Violeta. "El falso problema de la posicin del adjetivo: dos anlisis semnticos." Boletn de la Real Academia Espaola, Sept. - Dec. 1982: 453-483.

Franco, Fabiola and Steinmetz, Donald. "Ser y estar + adjetivo calificativo en espaol." Hispania 66.2 (1983): 176-184.

Gutirrez, Manuel. "La posicin del adjetivo en espaol." Revista de lingstica terica y aplicada 19 (1981): 19-25.

Lujn, Marta. Prenominal Adjectives in Spanish Predicates. Campbell, R. Joe, Goldin, Mark G. and Wang, Mary Clayton, eds. Linguistic Studies in Romance Languages: Proceedings of the Third Linguistic Symposium on Romance Languages. Washington, D. C.: Georgetown University School of Languages ad Linguistics, 1979.

Lujn, Marta. Sintxis y semntica del adjetivo. Madrid: Ediciones Ctedra, S. A., 1980.

Lujn, Marta. "The Spanish Copulas as Aspectual Indicators." Lingua 54 (1981): 165209. Monteverde, Luisa y Zierer, Ernesto. "Clasificacin de algunos adjetivos del idioma espaol de acuerdo a su comportamiento sintctico y semntico frente a las cpulas SER y ESTAR." Lenguaje y ciencias 36 (1970): 22-27.

19

Prado, Marcial. "The Semantics of Adjective Position in Spanish." Selecta 9 (1988): 1-8.

Zierer, Ernesto. "Embedding Transformations - a Criterion for Classifying Adjectives in Spanish." Lenguaje y ciencias 38 (1970): 29-36.

20

S-ar putea să vă placă și