Learning a second language is a non-linear process that goes far beyond memorising vocabulary and grammar. It opens up new worlds and ways of perceiving what linguists call “units”: sets of objects or forms and the interconnected relationships between them.
These units are recognised, understood and ultimately learned through exposure to a variety of contexts and real communicative situations, but they can vary massively from one language to another, often in fundamental questions like what it means to “be”. Just ask anyone who has studied Spanish, which splits this most basic concept into two completely distinct verbs.
There is growing research-based support for incorporating a unit-based approach to language learning in the classroom, but many second language teaching methodologies still focus on lists of rules and usages. These lists are often accompanied by a litany of exceptions that lead only to confusion and frustration.
To be or to be?
All languages have a way of expressing the existence of someone or something. For instance, English has the verb “to be”, while French uses “être”. However Spanish uses two verbs to express this concept: “ser” and “estar”.
This presents a challenge for students and teachers of Spanish, and there is extensive, ongoing research into its theoretical foundations, as well as how to teach it in the classroom.
The difference between “ser” and “estar”: permanent and temporary “being”
Many grammarians and linguists have tried to establish rules that determine the uses of “ser” and “estar”, but despite their efforts there is no unanimous agreement on the exact reason why one verb is used instead of the other.
At first glance, “ser” seems to apply to permanent states or characteristics – “My name is Elena” (“Mi nombre es Elena”), “Madrid is a big city” (“Madrid es una ciudad muy grande”) or “Margarita is red-haired” (“Margarita es pelirroja”).
“Estar” is reserved for temporary states, such as “Marta is smiling today” (“Marta está sonriente hoy”), or “Elena is outside” (“Elena está fuera”).
However, there is a problem with this interpretation: very few states, if any, can be considered truly permanent. Elena could change her name, the population of Madrid could get smaller, and Margarita could dye her hair a different colour.
There are also some major exceptions to this rule. “Estar” is used to say whether a person is alive or dead (“Eduardo is dead” translates as “Eduardo está muerto”) or where something is located (“Cali is in Colombia” translates as “Cali está en Colombia”).
The speaker also has little way of knowing whether the thing they are describing is in its current state or the result of a recent change. This rule therefore imposes a significant cognitive burden and responsibility on the speaker.
Identity, location, properties
An alternative way of explaining the differences between “ser” and “estar” is that “ser” is used to identify (“My mother is the one in the red dress”), to locate events (“The congress is in building A”), and to talk about permanent properties (“The cat is grey”).
By contrast, “estar” is used to locate an object, as in “The remote is under the table”, or to talk about states, such as “The children are tired”.
Although this explanation can be useful in the classroom, it does not address cases where both verbs can be used, like the sentence “La gente es/está impaciente”. Using “ser” would refer to a general personality trait of impatience – “People are impatient”. However, using “estar” would refer to a more temporary state – “The people are eager” or “The people are getting impatient”.
Using different verbs can even completely change the meaning of some adjectives – “ella es lista” means “she’s clever”, but “ella está lista” means “she’s ready”.
So, can we define more precisely how and when to use “ser” and “estar”?
Context and time are key
Nothing we say occurs in a vacuum: everything is influenced by the context in which it occurs. The reality we perceive and describe is always filtered through our previous experiences, shared knowledge, communicative intention and the state we are in at the time. Therefore, its interpretation is rarely neutral, and as social beings, we have the capacity to interpret, imagine and represent the same situation from different angles.
The verbs “ser” and “estar” differentiate relationships of different types, and we can do the same thing in English using “to be” – “he is selfish” refers to a person’s permanent character, while “he is being selfish” would refer to temporary behaviour.
Taking this difference into account, we can say that “ser” identifies and classifies within a category with no relation to the dimension of time, whereas “estar” refers to a condition that occurs at a specific moment in time or refers to a particular state.
Integrating these mental processes into the explanation of “ser” and “estar” may seem abstract, especially for confused students looking for a magic formula to understand the difference. However, research shows that these mechanisms can be helpful when learning a second language, and truly understanding how its native speakers use it.
This article is part of a collaboration with Santander Open Academy, Banco Santander’s non-profit initiative that helps people obtain training in the professional skills they need to improve their employability and future. It offers anyone access to 100% free courses, free quality content and scholarships from leading universities and institutions. More information at www.santanderopenacademy.com.
Zeina Alhmoud no recibe salario, ni ejerce labores de consultoría, ni posee acciones, ni recibe financiación de ninguna compañía u organización que pueda obtener beneficio de este artículo, y ha declarado carecer de vínculos relevantes más allá del cargo académico citado.
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
