Relative Issues Dealing with Ser and Estar

Problems in Spanish Grammar:

Relative Issues dealing with Ser and Estar

Matthew Criddle

Spanish 520

Professor Jeff Turley/Professor Scott Alvord

April 11, 2020

Relative Issues Dealing with Ser and Estar

Learning a second language comes with much practice and difficulty. There are so many

intrinsic details that can be missed or over looked during the process. Sometimes as the learner it

is easiest to learn the basic rules that are taught to us whether that be from instructors, textbooks,

or the internet, and call it sufficient. The reality is that each language is so complex in itself, that

learning the basics is never sufficient. There will always be other rules in grammar that need to

be addressed along the way. This can definitely be seen with learning Spanish. A learner of

Spanish might never realize the complexity of the language until he/she starts to delve into it

below its superficial aspects. In this paper I hope to shed some light on one of the issues in

Spanish grammar which deals with the verbs ser and estar, and hopefully provide some solutions

relating to the issue.

Ser and estar are the two “to be” verbs in Spanish, and they are perhaps two of the most

commonly used verbs in the language. It makes sense that two of the most popular verbs which

have very similar meanings, would cause confusion for many. The usage of these verbs is

difficult not only for the beginning speaker, but also for the intermediate to advanced speakers of

the language. The main issue that needs to be addressed when dealing with these verbs is

deciding which verb to use. Most beginners learn that the main way to decide which verb to use

is by knowing that ser tends to describe permanent attributes, and estar tends to describe

temporary conditions. Based on the first result that came up from a google search on the

difference between ser and estar, the website spanishdict.com stated, “Ser is used to talk

about permanent or lasting attributes. . . Estar is used to indicate temporary states and locations”.

This method of teaching ser as indicating permanent elements and estar as indicating temporary

elements, although sometimes effective, is not sufficient for all instances. There are so many

situations where ser doesn’t actually represent a permanent or lasting attribute, and estar doesn’t
Relative Issues Dealing with Ser and Estar

represent a temporary attribute. In the article, “The Distinction between Ser and Estar” by

Manuel J. Andrade, he gives several examples of sentences using ser and estar that don’t

represent permanent or temporary conditions. :

In what sense are the following sentences expressions of temporary conditions? La obra

está terminada; "Los santos estarán contentos por toda una eternidad"; Los Pirineos están

entre Espafia y Francia; ¡Está bien! ¡Que buenas están estas peras! (considering that I

have never tasted those pears before). How are we to explain that the following are

expressions of permanent conditions? Esto es mío; Somos estudiantes; Lo que quiero es

que me dejen salir; La disputa fue en el café; "Mientras Juan no se ponga bueno, yo seré

el más fuerte de la casa"; Yo era muy delgado cuando niño (p. 20).

Looking at the sentence “Los santos estarán contentos por toda una eternidad”, estar is used as

the principle verb even though it seems that the saints state of contentment won’t be changing

anytime soon. In the sentence “Somos estudiantes”, ser is the principle verb but it’s not likely

that the subjects in the sentence will be students permanently. Based off of the several example

sentences that Manuel J. Andrade showed, it seems safe to say that there may be more effective

methods in deciding which verb to use than simply basing it off of permanence or being

temporary.

So how can we efficiently choose which verb to use on a consistent basis? Although it

would be too difficult to find one solution to fix this problem, I believe it would be effective to

think of ser as applying to more general situations, and to think of estar as describing a

perception of what something is currently like. In other words, ser tending to be more objective,

and estar being more subjective, depending on the context.

Relative Issues Dealing with Ser and Estar

To expound upon this proposal, I will include several theories from different authors that

can help in clarifying and resolving this issue. One thing that should be noted is that there isn’t a

single “catch all” method that will always tell us the right verb to use. In reality there are many,

and it is our job to decipher which method to use. The first method is from An Chung Cheng

from the University of Toledo which is found in her article “The Effects of Processing

Instruction on the Acquisition of Ser and Estar”. She believes that a strong basis for deciding

which verb to use “could be the type of implied comparison that the sentence makes” (p. 309). In

the article, she states “Ser is used to classify the subject as one type among several: Maria es

bonita states that her beauty is greater than that of the average girl. In contrast, estar is used when

the subject is compared with itself under different conditions: Maria está bonita ahora, Maria's

appearance is prettier than usual” (p. 309). This method works when using descriptive adjectives

which describe appearance or a similar quality. The same example could be used with the verb

gordo in the sentences “Juan es gordo” and “Juan está gordo”. The first sentence is making the

comparison between John and most people which basically states that John is fatter than the

average person. And the second sentence is making the comparison with John himself stating

that he looks fatter than he usually does. From these examples, we can see a distinction between

the two verbs and their functions. Ser is being used to make a general comparison, while estar

makes a more particular comparison. Cheng also teaches that “The choice of ser and estar is

difficult because learners first must acquire the distinctions between adjective types (e.g.,

inherent vs. accidental) and aspectual types (i.e., perfective vs. imperfective) before they can

decide when to use ser and when to use estar” (p. 310). In other words, it is imperative that the

speaker understand the meaning of the adjective being used, before he/she decides whether to

use ser or estar.

Relative Issues Dealing with Ser and Estar

Another applicable explanation can be found in the book “Spanish/English Contrasts: A

Course in Spanish Linguistics”, by Melvin Stanley Whitley. In the book he attacks the

“traditional” explanation of ser and estar which is taught in most classrooms and textbooks. The

traditional view states that the attributes of ser are “permanence, inherence, characteristic, or

innate quality, natural state, essence”, and the attributes of estar are, “temporariness, accidental

condition, transience, semblance of being” (p. 314). Whitley argues against this because the

criteria for verb selection is “too vague for students to apply”(p. 314). He recites some

counterexamples made by the author Navas Ruiz in his book “Ser y Estar”, which do a great job

of portraying this vagueness, and they are:

 “Ella es protestante, yet religious affiliation is neither innate nor necessarily

permanent

 La casa es azul, yet blueness is not inherent when the house must be painted that

color

 Es español, although having Spanish citizenship is not a “quality”

 ¡Qué fría está la nieve! Although snow´s coldness is an inherent quality by definition

 Está muerto, although death is permanent, and a natural state. . .” (p.165)

These counterexamples from Navas Ruiz are very eye opening. They show several flaws in the

way that students are being taught to differentiate and select between these verbs. Something

interesting that Whitley explains came from the author William Bull in his books “Spanish for

Teachers” and “Cuaderno: Spanish for Communication”. The theory Professor Bull created is

known as the norm theory, and he explains that it is the key difference between ser and estar.

Whitley uses this theory from Bull to explain:

Relative Issues Dealing with Ser and Estar

Attributes that the speaker takes to be normal for an entity are expressed with ser, while

deviations or changes from the norm are shown by estar. Estar accompanies muerto

because death is a change from the original condition in which one is remembered. . . Es

viejo indicates how one generally visualizes a certain individual; está viejo indicates a

change in how the person strikes the speaker after an interval. The grass of a region es

verde or está verde regardless of “ripeness”: it may be normally green or greened up by a

post-drought shower. With es triste/enfermo/borracho, the speaker regards a person as

typically gloomy, prone to sickness, given to drunkenness; está triste/enfermo/borracho

implies that these are aberrations from the person’s usual or expected condition” (p. 315).

This norm theory developed by Bull proves to be quite effective in the verb selection between ser

and estar. This theory is similar to the teachings of An Chung Cheng in relation to the implied

comparison of the sentence. In the previous sentences, Whitley explains that ser is being used to

describe attributes of the subject that are general or normal to the speaker (hence the word

“norm” as the name of the theory). Estar is used to describe that the attributes of the subject have

changed or are in some way different from what the speaker is used to.

Although the norm theory seems to work for the majority of the time, it still has it’s

flaws. Navas Ruiz points out certain flaws in the theory which cause it to not be 100 percent

effective. Ruiz agrees that estar demonstrates change, but not necessarily from the norm.

However, he disagrees with the notion that ser demonstrates the norm for the speaker due to the

fact that there are instances when estar can portray a “normal state” (p. 147-48). Whitley gives an

example of this instance, which is, “la nieve de allí siempre está blanquísima” (p. 316). Since

there are situations when estar can essentially describe a norm, it is obvious that the norm theory

isn’t always accurate. However, since no theory or method can solve all the issues relating to
Relative Issues Dealing with Ser and Estar

verb selection of ser and estar, it would be fair to say that the norm theory does a pretty good job

of narrowing down the problems.

The last method of deciphering that I will include is from Manuel J Andrade. His opinion

on the matter is a little different in itself, but makes sense in a lot of ways. He said,

“The basis of distinction, as I feel it, is that estar is associated with the characteristic

feelings which attend immediate perceptions and their representations, while ser is

likewise related to concepts and judgements. According to William James,

`Remembrance is like direct feeling; its object is suffused with a warmth and intimacy to

which no object of more conception ever attains’. This “warmth and intimacy” finds

expression in estar, and the colder logical relations, in ser” (p. 22).

It’s interesting how Andrade included that quote from William James, and related it to the

expressions of ser and estar. In a way, I find his explanation to be quite accurate because it seems

that estar does have a more intimate aspect of expression than that of ser. It seems that Andrade’s

statement, although worded differently, is quite similar to the proposal I made at the beginning.

One aspect that stood out about Andrade’s article, is that he addressed the importance of teaching

these principles. It is one thing to be able to understand the distinction between the two verbs,

but being able to teach this distinction adds a whole other element of difficulty. In relation to this,

Andrade said, “How the above basis of distinction can be taught is, of course, a question that

each individual teacher must solve for himself” (p. 23). In all reality, this is completely true.

Every teacher has to come up with their own way to teach the distinction between ser and estar

without over simplifying (which tends to happen most often), or over complicating it. There is

never going to be a single correct theory that solves all questions, but with a strong basis
Relative Issues Dealing with Ser and Estar

(method) to build upon, the distinction between ser and estar can be taught in an efficient

manner.

In conclusion, it can be seen just in this paper alone, that there are so many different

theories and explanations for problems in Spanish grammar. Several methods from different

authors were addressed about ser and estar and deciphering between the two verbs, yet there

wasn’t one that resolved all the issues that were faced. One thing that became certain from this

research, is that the traditional explanation of ser and estar shouldn’t be the only method of

teaching. Instead, a strong basis should be used such as the comparison method from An Chu

Cheng, the norm theory from Professor William Bull, or even the explanation Manuel Adrade.

By using a more solid basis for teaching this difficult distinction, one can more fully understand

how to decipher between the verbs ser and estar, and know when to use them.
Relative Issues Dealing with Ser and Estar

Works cited

Bull, W. E. (1965). Spanish for teachers: Applied linguistics. Malabar, FL: R.E. Krieger.

Bull, W. E., Briscoe, L. A., & Lamadrid, E. E. (1972). Cuaderno: Spanish for communication.

Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

Andrade, M. J. (n.d.). The Distinction between Ser and Estar. Retrieved April, 2020, from

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/331263.pdf

RUIZ, R. N. (1963). SER Y ESTAR.

Whitley, M. S. (2002). Spanish/English contrasts: A course in Spanish linguistics. Washington:

Georgetown University Press.