Explaining Ser and Estar

Last week I was talking about how helpful a cognitive grammar approach can be for explaining ser and estar, which later initiated a discussion with my colleagues who put forth examples that seemed to refute the effectiveness of the approach. To my surprise however, it is effective in all cases.

Let’s break this down into parts:

1. The first part is always about location: “El niño está en la plaza”, estar here, in other words “to be in a place” is a quite straightforward example of an exterior matter.
2. “La biblioteca está en la plaza”: before getting into this one, forget all about “but the library is always there”, forget about the classic refrain “ser es siempre” and start considering that the library is (es) a quiet place to study books while the fact that it is (está) in the plaza is an external matter. We could argue for hours about this, but grammar is a stubborn animal who says that in Spanish location is different than essence, it’s a circumstance and it’s expressed with a special verb.
3. “Es nervioso / está nervioso”. This contrast is in my opinion the cornerstone of this discussion: there are two reasons why we mustn’t give into the temptation of saying “es nervioso siempre”.

First: IT’S A MINE FIELD! Because if you bring up the business of time and temporary and permanent states it will remain branded into your students minds and infinitely reduce their chances of ever coming to grasp the contrast.

Second: In my modest opinion it’s a false affirmation, nobody is always nervous, I am (soy) a nervous person, but I sleep quite peacefully, and I’m not talking about siestas…

The explanation is simple: Ser nervioso expresses an internal characteristic, circumstantial in this case, since no action has changed my character. Just as ser optimista expresses an internal quality but may not be present in every moment or aspect of my life (I’m an optimistic person but not when I think about the economic crisis: as far as pulling out of the crisis I’d say no soy optimista). And estar de buen humor is an external trait that makes it perfectly correct to say “me encanta que siempre estés de buen humor”. And I could go on with many more examples.

4. “Ser guapa” / “estar guapa”. My students say, “But being pretty is an external thing”. Right, it is, but when we say someone is inherently something, then we’re saying that that quality is essential for defining that person. Physical aspects define their subjects, so they’re inherent.
5. “La fiesta es en la playa”. It’s always bothered me that this case is considered an exception. Maybe I’m confused but it’s always seemed clear to me that a group of people with music and sangria are in a fiesta, while people in a church with a coffin are in a funeral, and people in a school with books are in a class. It’s definitive, the place in which the event is held is inherent to the event. I think the work I mentioned before is helpful because it lets us explain why in some cases you can say “La exposición está en el quinto”. The authors of the work say that in this case we’re referring to the ensemble of objects. It’s the same thing as if I say “la recepción está abajo”, which makes me think of tables prepared with hors d’oeuvres and drinks.
6. With the inevitable “está muerto” I think it’s easy to understand that death is not inseparable from the subject and it is the result of the unfortunate action of dying.
7. “Estar joven” and “estar sordo” are easy to explain when we adopt them to the criteria laid out in the book: the notion of change which the speaker is making clear has occurred, comparing two different moments experienced by the subject.
8. The pasiva de resultado is an inappropriate expression according to the authors. It must be seen simply as an attributive (estar + participle) but independent of taxonomy and grammatical analysis. They explain it well from a practical point of view with the concept of the result of a change: “se rompió” and so “está roto”, “lo detuvieron” and so now you can say “está detenido”.
9. “Es presidente” / “Está de presidente” is another case in which the cognitive approach proves its effectiveness. Depending on speakers’ communicative intentions, they can choose to describe this inseparable quality without time references by using ser or they can communicate the idea that the fact that being the president is something external (because it’s not a profession but a vocation or a life project) or temporary (for example: es un cargo).

In conclusion, removing the concept of time to explain this contrast not only better reflects reality but it is also more effective in my opinion. Ever since I’ve avoided the subject of time in my explanation, the dialogue with my students has changed. They no longer attack me with examples that point out how illogical Spanish is and gone are the angry and fed up facial expressions. Now they simply ask “What exactly am I expressing when I say…?”

I must admit that working with 6 teachers allows for discussion and collective reflection. It’s not uncommon after class for someone from the staff to ask “how do you explain this sentence using the cognitive approach?” which puts the effectiveness of the approach to the test.

I encourage you to broaden our team by leaving a comment below telling us about which phrases or examples you find most difficult to explain. That way we can broaden our network of reflection. So go ahead and write to us, you don’t have anything to lose, but you do have plenty to gain!