Natural Language Semantics

, 17:369

Possession and pertinence: the meaning of have



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.


Possession Pertinence Abstraction Binding Relational 


  1. Alexiadou, A., Rathert, M., Stechow, A. (eds) (2003) Perfect explorations. Mouton de Gruyter, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  2. Barker C. (1995) Possessive descriptions. CSLI Publications, StanfordGoogle Scholar
  3. Barwise J., Cooper R. (1984) Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bennis H. et al (1998) Predication in nominal phrases. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1: 85–117CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bentley D., Eythórsson Th. (2004) Auxiliary selection and the semantics of unaccusativity. Lingua 114: 447–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Büring D. (2004) Crossover situations. Natural Language Semantics 12: 23–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chung S., Ladusaw W. (2003) Restriction and saturation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  8. de Acosta, D. 2006. HAVE + PERFECT PARTICIPLE in Romance and English: Synchrony and diachrony. PhD dissertation, Cornell University.Google Scholar
  9. Fabricius-Hansen, C. 2006. Big events and small clauses. Sinn und Bedeutung 11, Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.Google Scholar
  10. Freeze R. (1992) Existentials and other locatives. Language 68: 553–595CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.Google Scholar
  12. Harley H. (2004) Wanting, having, and getting: A note on Fodor and Lepore 1998. Linguistic Inquiry 35: 255–267CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 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.Google Scholar
  14. Heim I., Kratzer A. (1998) Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Heine B. (1997) Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. 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.Google Scholar
  17. Iatridou, S. 1996. To have and have not: On the deconstruction approach. Proceedings of WCCFL 14, pp. 185–201. CSLI, Stanford.Google Scholar
  18. Jensen P., Vikner C., Vikner C. (1996) The double nature of the verb have. LAMBDA 21: 25–37 Department of Computational Linguistics, Copenhagen Business SchoolGoogle Scholar
  19. Klein W. (1992) The present perfect puzzle. Language 68: 525–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kratzer, A. 2000. Building statives. Proceedings of the Berkeley Linguistic Society 26, Berkeley.Google Scholar
  21. Kuteva T., Heine B. (2004) On the possessive perfect in North Russian. Word 55: 37–71Google Scholar
  22. Landman F. (2004) Indefinites and the type of sets. Blackwell, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Landman, F., and B. Partee. 1987. Weak NPs in HAVE sentences. Unpublished abstract. Amherst, MA: University of Massachusetts.Google Scholar
  24. Löbner, S. 1998. Definite associative anaphora. Unpublished manuscript, University of Duesseldorf.
  25. 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.Google Scholar
  26. McCoard R.W. (1978) The English perfect: Tense choice and pragmatic inference. Amsterdam, North-HollandGoogle Scholar
  27. 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.Google Scholar
  28. Musan R. (2003) The German perfect: Its compositional semantics and its interaction with temporal adverbials. Kluwer, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  29. Parsons T. (1990) Events in the semantics of English. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  30. 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.Google Scholar
  31. 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.
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. 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.Google Scholar
  34. Pylkkänen L. (2008) Introducing arguments. MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  35. Reinhart T. (1983) Anaphora and semantic interpretation. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  36. van Riemsdijk H.C. (1978) A case study in syntactic markedness. Foris, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  37. Ritter E., Rosen S.T. (1997) The function of have. Lingua 101: 295–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.Google Scholar
  39. Schaden, G. (to appear). Present perfects compete. To appear in Linguistics and Philosophy.Google Scholar
  40. Stump G. (1985) The semantic variability of absolute constructions. Reidel, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. Tantos, A. 2006. Lexicon-discourse interactions: Light have. Paper presented at Sinn und Bedeutung 11, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Barcelona.Google Scholar
  43. Vikner C., Anker Jensen P. (2002) A semantic analysis of the Engish genitive. Studia Linguistica 56: 191–226CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ILOSUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations