There be- and have-sentences

Different semantics, different definiteness effects

Bibliographic Data

ID20344450
AuthorsToni Bassaganyas-Bars (0000-0001-6322-5512, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK), Louise Mcnally (0000-0002-3355-913X, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, corresponding author)
Year2020
Volume37
Issue2
Pages179-208
Publication date2020-05-26
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueThe Linguistic Review (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0167-6318 • E-ISSN: 1613-3676
PublisherWalter de Gruyter GmbH (PUBLISHER • DE)
DOI10.1515/tlr-2019-2041
OpenAlexW2958623474
LanguageEN
Citations received3
References cited18

Edward Keenan coined the term “existential- have ” for have -sentences containing a relational noun in object position that present a definiteness effect (DE) similar to the one in there be -sentences. We begin this paper by showing in detail that the DE in these sentences is in fact different from the one found with there be -sentences. We then explain how these contrasts reflect differences in the semantics of the two sorts of sentences that we have independently argued for in previous work. We will specifically challenge two assumptions that are frequently made about the definiteness effect in have -sentences: (1) that it is related to any version of the so-called “weak”/“strong” distinction that has been used to characterize the effect in there be -sentences; and (2) that it is limited to relational nouns like handle and follows from treating such nouns as two-place predicates. Finally, we show how our account is superior to other accounts that have been offered of the definiteness effect in have -sentences

Definiteness · Linguistics · Natural language processing · Noun · Noun phrase · Semantic property · Computer Science · Language, Metaphor, and Cognition · Philosophy · Philosophy and Theoretical Science · Syntax, Semantics, Linguistic Variation · Artificial Intelligence

Tools

Open DOISci-HubOpen Access