New Principles for Some Spanish Equivalents of "To Be"

Abstract

T HAS been said, with justification, that no one underlying principle suffices to explain all the uses of ser and estar, but even this broad generalization does not indicate the complexity of the subject. In a large measure the problem has been underrated, and underlying principles have been sought in too narrow a compass and too close to the surface. Moreover, the apparent irrationality of the uses, especially in relation to the present rules, has tended to close off investigation on the subject as such and has directed teachers toward discovery of teaching techniques which might minimize the difficulties both for the teacher and the student. It is the aim of this paper to show that the problem, when approached from a different point of view, is not as insurmountable as it has seemed and that more adequate and dependable rules can be developed. The material presented here is based on a study of 840 pages of text chosen at random from twenty-four recent and modern authors. While the actual number of pages studied is relatively small, when compared with the monumental work by Keniston on Spanish syntax, the number of examples encountered seems sufficiently large to give an adequate crosssection of usages and to provide material on which to base rules. The research yielded 3796 examples of the two verbs under consideration: 2901 examples of ser, and 895 examples of estar. The examples quoted in this paper are from this number or, when not otherwise indicated, from notes taken in conversations with native speakers. The point of distinction differentiating the use of ser and estar with