Jump to ContentJump to Main Navigation
Building and Interpreting Possession Sentences$
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content.

Neil Myler

Print publication date: 2016

Print ISBN-13: 9780262034913

Published to MIT Press Scholarship Online: May 2017

DOI: 10.7551/mitpress/9780262034913.001.0001

Show Summary Details
Page of

PRINTED FROM MIT PRESS SCHOLARSHIP ONLINE (www.mitpress.universitypressscholarship.com). (c) Copyright The MIT Press, 2021. All Rights Reserved. An individual user may print out a PDF of a single chapter of a monograph in MITSO for personal use.date: 26 July 2021

Consequences and Comparisons

Consequences and Comparisons

Chapter:
(p.307) 5 Consequences and Comparisons
Source:
Building and Interpreting Possession Sentences
Author(s):

Neil Myler

Publisher:
The MIT Press
DOI:10.7551/mitpress/9780262034913.003.0005

This chapter compares the analysis of HAVE from chapter 4 with the standard analysis of HAVE found in the Freeze/Kayne tradition. Whereas the present approach takes HAVE to be BE plus a transitive Voice head, the Freeze/Kayne tradition proposes that HAVE is BE plus an incorporated adposition. After examining the Freeze/Kayne tradition on its own terms and pointing out a number of empirical and technical problems with it, this chapter goes on to compare the predictions made by the two approaches with respect to the structure of HAVE sentences. The Freeze/Kayne approach predicts that definiteness effects in HAVE sentences should match up with those in existential sentences. It also predicts that HAVE sentences should show signs that their subject has raised from below, and that they should pass tests for unaccusativity. In contrast, the present approach assigns a different explanation for definiteness effects in HAVE sentences, and predicts that HAVE should fail unaccusativity and raising tests. It is shown that the predictions of the present approach are correct, and that traditional arguments in favour of HAVE’s being unaccusative (such as its alleged inability to passivize) do not go through.

Keywords:   Possession, Existentials, Freeze/Kayne Tradition, Delayed Gratification, Definiteness Effects, Transitivity, Unaccusativity, Voice

MIT Press Scholarship Online requires a subscription or purchase to access the full text of books within the service. Public users can however freely search the site and view the abstracts and keywords for each book and chapter.

Please, subscribe or login to access full text content.

If you think you should have access to this title, please contact your librarian.

To troubleshoot, please check our FAQs, and if you can't find the answer there, please contact us.