The structure and meaning of possessive verbs have received competing analyses in the literature. Almost all the analyses were developed based on the English have and intended to apply cross-linguistically. In this paper, I consider the rather unique degree use of the Mandarin Chinese possessive verb yǒu, in the “X + yǒu + Y + G(radable phrase)” construction. This construction has some peculiar empirical properties that are worth in-depth elaboration. I argue that the construction is an equative construction, semantically comparable to the English as…as degree construction. Yǒu in this construction takes a covert small clause as the underlying object that specifies a sub-interval/subset relation between X’s and Y’s degrees on the dimension specified by the G element. The sub-interval/subset relation is warranted by considering the ontological representation of degrees as intervals on a scale. The degree use of yǒu makes only formal, but not content, contributions to the semantics of the “X + yǒu + Y + G” construction. It shares the same structure and meaning as non-degree uses of yǒu. No other analysis of possessive verbs than the small clause-based analysis can capture this degree use of yǒu. Hence, through examining a language-specific phenomenon, the paper locates among several competing analyses of possessive verbs the most explanatorily adequate one.
This is a preview of subscription content,to check access.
Access this article
Belvin, Robert. 1993. The two causative haves are the two possessive haves. In Chicago Linguistic Society 29 (Main Session), ed. David Testen and Katharine Beals, 61–75. Chicago: Chicago Linguistic Society.
Bierwisch, Manfred. 1989. The semantics of gradation. In Dimensional adjectives, ed. Manfred Bierwisch and Ewald Lang, 71–262. Berlin: Springer.
Breheny, Richard. 2008. A new look at the semantics and pragmatics of numerically quantified NPs. Journal of Semantics 25: 93–140.
Büring, Daniel. 2004. Crossover situations. Natural Language Semantics 12: 23–62.
Cinque, Guglielmo. 1999. Adverbs and functional heads. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cowper, Elizabeth. 1989. Thematic underspecification: The case of “have”. In Toronto Working Papers in Linguistics 10, ed. Barbara Brunson, Strang Burton, and Tom Wilson, 85–93. Toronto: University of Toronto.
Freeze, Ray. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language 68: 553–595.
Grano, Thomas. 2012. Mandarin hen and universal markedness in gradable adjectives. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30: 513–565.
Gutiérrez-Rexach, Javier. 2006. Beyond the (in)definiteness restriction: A unified semantics for “have”. In Proccedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 11, ed. Estela Puig-Waldmüller, 291–304. Barcelona: Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
Heim, Irene, and Angelika Kratzer. 1998. Semantics in generative grammar. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Horn, Laurence. 1972. On the semantic properties of logical operators in English. Ph.D. dissertation, UCLA.
Huang, C.T. James. 1987. Existential sentences in Chinese and (in)definiteness. In The representation of (in)definiteness, ed. : Eric Reuland and Alice ter Meulen, 226–253. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Huang, Yiting, Elizabeth Spelke, and Jesse Snedeker. 2013. What exactly do number words mean? Language Learning and Development 9: 105–129.
Iatridou, Sabine. 1996. To have and have not: On the deconstruction approach. In West Coast Conference on Formal Linguistics 14, ed. Jose Camacho, Lina Choueiri, and Maki Watanabe, 185–201. Stanford: CSLI Publications.
Jensen, Per Anker, and Carl Vikner. 1996. The double nature of the verb “have.” LAMBDA 2: 25–37.
Kennedy, Christopher. 1999. Projecting the adjective: The syntax and semantics of gradability and comparison. New York: Garland Publishing.
Kennedy, Christopher. 2001. Polar opposition and the ontology of degrees. Linguistics and Philosophy 24: 33–70.
Kennedy, Christopher. 2007a. Vagueness and grammar: the semantics of relative and absolute gradable adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 30: 1–45.
Kennedy, Christopher. 2007b. Modes of comparison. In Chicago Linguistic Society 43 (Main Session), ed. Malcolm Elliott, James Kirby, Osamu Sawada, Eleni Staraki, and Suwon Yoon, 141–165. Chicago: Chinese Linguistic Society.
Kennedy, Christopher, and Louise McNally. 2005. Scale structure, degree modification and the semantic typology of gradable predicates. Language 81: 345–381.
Klein, Ewan. 1980. A semantics for positive and comparative adjectives. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 1–45.
König, Jean-Pierre. 1991. Scalar predicates and negation: Punctual semantics and interval interpretations. In Chicago Linguistic Society 27 (Parasession), ed. Lise M. Dobrin, Lynn Nichols, and Rosa M. Rodriguez, 140–155. Chicago: Chinese Linguistic Society.
Landman, Fred. 2004. Indefinites and the type of sets. Oxford: Blackwell Publishing.
Li, Audrey Y.-H., and Shi-Zhe Huang. 2009. Looking into clauses. In Proceedings of the 21st North American Conference on Chinese Linguistics, ed. Yun Xiao, 436–463. Columbus: The Ohio State University.
Li, Charles, and Sandra Thompson. 1981. Mandarin Chinese: A functional reference grammar. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Lin, Jo-wang. 2009. Chinese comparatives and their implicational parameters. Natural Lan- guage Semantics 17: 1–27.
Liu, C.S.Luther. 1996. A note on Chinese comparatives. Studies in the Linguistic Sciences 26: 215–235.
Liu, C.S.Luther. 2010. The Chinese geng clausal comparative. Lingua 120: 1579–1606.
Liu, C.S.Luther. 2011. The Chinese bi comparative. Lingua 121: 1767–1795.
Liu, Yan. 2004. Xiandai hanyu bijao fanchou de yuyi renzhi jichu [The semantic-cognitive basis of comparatives in Modern Mandarin]. Shanghai: Xuelin Publishers.
Liu, Yuehua, Pan Wenyu, and Gu Wei. 2001. Shiyong xiandai hanyu yufa [Practical Modern Chinese Grammar]. Beijing: Commercial Press.
Lü, Shuxiang. 1980. Xiandai hanyu babai ci [Eight hundred words of Modern Chinese]. Beijing: Commercial Press.
Morzycki, Marcin. 2012. Adjectival extremeness: Degree modification and contextually restricted scales. Natural Language and Linguistic Theory 30: 567–609.
Partee, Barbara. 1999. Weak NPs in HAVE-sentences. In JFAK: Essays dedicated to Johan van Bentham on the occasion of his 50th birthday, ed. Maarten Marx, Maarten de Rijke, Jelle Gerbrandy, and Yde Venema. Vossiuspers: Amsterdam University Press.
Reinhart, Tanya. 1983. Anaphora and semantic interpretation. London: Croom Helm.
Rett, Jessica. 2008a. Antonymy and evaluativity. In Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) XVII, ed. Masayuki Gibson and Tova Friedman, 210–227. Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications.
Rett, Jessica. 2008b. Degree modification in natural language. Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University.
Ritter, Elizabeth, and Sara Thomas Rosen. 1997. The function of “have”. Lingua 101: 295–321.
Sæbø, Kjell Johan. 2009. Possession and pertinence: The meaning of “have”. Natural Language Semantics 17: 369–397.
Schwarzschild, Roger, and Karina Wilkinson. 2002. Quantifiers in comparatives: A semantics of degree based on intervals. Natural Language Semantics 10: 1–41.
Teng, Shou-hsin. 1973. Negation and aspects in Chinese. Journal of Chinese Linguistics 1: 14–37.
Wu, Yaqing, and Juan Zhu. 2013. Xingrongci zuo weiyu de buwanju xiaoying yanjiu [On the sentence incompleteness effect of adjectives used as predicates]. Xiandai Waiyu [Modern Foreign Language] 36: 18–24.
Xiang, Ming. 2005. Some topics on comparative constructions. Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University.
Xie, Zhiguo. 2011a. The relevance of gradability in natural language: Chinese and English. Ph.D. dissertation, Cornell University.
Xie, Zhiguo. 2011b. Degree possession is a subset relation (as well). In Proceedings of Sinn und Bedeutung 15, ed. Ingo Reich, Eva Horch, and Dennis Pauly, 661–676. Saarbrücken: Saarland University Press.
Xu, Guoping. 2007. Xiandai hanyu chabi fanchou yanjiu [A study of superiority comparatives in Modern Chinese]. Shanghai: Xuelin Publishers.
Zhu, Dexi. 1982. Yufa jiangyi [Lecture notes on grammar]. Beijing: Commercial Press.
About this article
Cite this article
Xie, Z. The degree use of the possessive verb yǒu in Mandarin Chinese: a unified analysis and its theoretical implications. J East Asian Linguist 23, 113–156 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10831-013-9113-3