Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Possession and pertinence: the meaning of have

  • Published:
Natural Language Semantics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The meaning of have is notoriously difficult to define; sometimes it seems to denote possession, but often, it seems to denote nothing, only to complicate composition. This paper focuses on the cases where have embeds a small clause, proposing that all it accomplishes is abstraction, turning the small clause into a predicate. This analysis is extended to the cases where have appears to embed DPs: These objects are interpreted as small clauses as well, with implicit predicates denoting possession or—with relational nouns—nothing.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alexiadou, A., Rathert, M., Stechow, A. (eds) (2003) Perfect explorations. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Barker C. (1995) Possessive descriptions. CSLI Publications, Stanford

    Google Scholar 

  • Barwise J., Cooper R. (1984) Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennis H. et al (1998) Predication in nominal phrases. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1: 85–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentley D., Eythórsson Th. (2004) Auxiliary selection and the semantics of unaccusativity. Lingua 114: 447–471

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Büring D. (2004) Crossover situations. Natural Language Semantics 12: 23–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chung S., Ladusaw W. (2003) Restriction and saturation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • de Acosta, D. 2006. HAVE + PERFECT PARTICIPLE in Romance and English: Synchrony and diachrony. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.

  • Fabricius-Hansen, C. 2006. Big events and small clauses. Sinn und Bedeutung 11, Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

  • Freeze R. (1992) Existentials and other locatives. Language 68: 553–595

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutiérrez-Rexach, J. 2007. Beyond the (in)definiteness restriction: A unified semantics for have. In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, ed. E. Puig-Waldmüller, 291–304. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.

  • Harley H. (2004) Wanting, having, and getting: A note on Fodor and Lepore 1998. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 255–267

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heim, I. 1998. Anaphora and semantic interpretation: A reinterpretation of Reinhart’s approach. In The interpretive tract (= MITWPL 25), ed. U. Sauerland and O. Percus, 205–246. Cambridge: MIT.

  • Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Heine B. (1997) Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Hole, D. 2005. Reconciling “possessor” datives and “beneficiary” datives – towards a unified voice account of dative binding in German. In Event arguments: Foundations and applications, ed. C. Maienborn and A. Wöllstein, 205–246. Tübingen: Niemeyer.

  • Iatridou, S. 1996. To have and have not: On the deconstruction approach. Proceedings of WCCFL 14, pp. 185–201. CSLI, Stanford.

  • Jensen P., Vikner C., Vikner C. (1996) The double nature of the verb have. LAMBDA 21: 25–37 Department of Computational Linguistics, Copenhagen Business School

    Google Scholar 

  • Klein W. (1992) The present perfect puzzle. Language 68: 525–552

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kratzer, A. 2000. Building statives. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 26, Berkeley.

  • Kuteva T., Heine B. (2004) On the possessive perfect in North Russian. Word 55: 37–71

    Google Scholar 

  • Landman F. (2004) Indefinites and the type of sets. Blackwell, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Landman, F., and B. Partee. 1987. Weak NPs in HAVE sentences. Unpublished abstract. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.

  • Löbner, S. 1998. Definite associative anaphora. Unpublished manuscript, University of Duesseldorf. http://user.phil-fak.uni-duesseldorf.de/~loebner/

  • McCawley, J.D. 1971. Tense and time reference in English. In Studies in linguistic semantics, ed. C.J. Fillmore and D.T. Langendoen, 96–113. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

  • McCoard R.W. (1978) The English perfect: Tense choice and pragmatic inference. Amsterdam, North-Holland

    Google Scholar 

  • Montague, R. 1973. The proper treatment of quantification in ordinary English. In Approaches to natural language, ed. J. Hintikka et al., 221–242. Dordrecht: Reidel.

  • Musan R. (2003) The German perfect: Its compositional semantics and its interaction with temporal adverbials. Kluwer, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Parsons T. (1990) Events in the semantics of English. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Partee, B. 1983/1997. Uniformity vs. versatility: The genitive, a case study. Appendix to Theo Janssen (1997), “Compositionality”. In The handbook of logic and language, ed. J. van Benthem and A. ter Meulen, 464–470. New York: Elsevier.

  • Partee, B. 1999. Weak NPs in HAVE sentences. In JFAK [a Liber Amicorum for Johan van Benthem on the occasion of his 50th birthday], ed. J. Gerbrandy et al., CD-Rom. Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam. http://www.illc.uva.nl/j50/

  • Partee, B., and V. Borschev. 1998. Integrating lexical and formal semantics: Genitives, relational nouns, and type-shifting. In Proceedings of the 2nd Tbilisi Symposium on Language, Logic and Computation, ed. R. Cooper and Th. Gamkrelidze, 229–241. Tbilisi: Tbilisi State University.

  • Partee, B., and V. Borschev. 2003. Genitives, relational nouns and argument-modifier ambiguity. In Modifying adjuncts, ed. E. Lang, C. Maienborn, and C. Fabricius-Hansen, 67–112. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Pylkkänen L. (2008) Introducing arguments. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Reinhart T. (1983) Anaphora and semantic interpretation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • van Riemsdijk H.C. (1978) A case study in syntactic markedness. Foris, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Ritter E., Rosen S.T. (1997) The function of have. Lingua 101: 295–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, S. 2003. Secondary predication and aspectual structure. In Modifying adjuncts, ed. E. Lang, C. Maienborn and C. Fabricius-Hansen, 553–590. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.

  • Schaden, G. (to appear). Present perfects compete. To appear in Linguistics and Philosophy.

  • Stump G. (1985) The semantic variability of absolute constructions. Reidel, Dordrecht

    Google Scholar 

  • Szabolcsi, A. 1994. The noun phrase. In Syntax and semantics 27: The syntactic structure of Hungarian, ed. F. Kiefer and K.É . Kiss, 179–275. New York: Academic Press.

  • Tantos, A. 2006. Lexicon-discourse interactions: Light have. Paper presented at Sinn und Bedeutung 11, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.

  • Vikner C., Anker Jensen P. (2002) A semantic analysis of the Engish genitive. Studia Linguistica 56: 191–226

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vincent, N. 1982. The development of the auxiliaries HABERE and ESSE in Romance. In Studies in the Romance Verb, ed. N.Vincent and M. Harris, 71–96. London: Croom Helm.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ILOS, University of Oslo, P.O. Box 1003, 0315, Oslo, Norway

    Kjell Johan Sæbø

Authors
  1. Kjell Johan Sæbø
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Kjell Johan Sæbø.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Sæbø, K.J. Possession and pertinence: the meaning of have . Nat Lang Semantics 17, 369–397 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-009-9047-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11050-009-9047-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation