Possession and pertinence: the meaning of have

Alexiadou, A., Rathert, M., Stechow, A. (eds) (2003) Perfect explorations. Mouton de Gruyter, Berlin Barker C. (1995) Possessive descriptions. CSLI Publications, Stanford Barwise J., Cooper R. (1984) Generalized quantifiers and natural language. Linguistics and Philosophy 4: 159–219 Bennis H. et al (1998) Predication in nominal phrases. Journal of Comparative Germanic Linguistics 1: 85–117 Bentley D., Eythórsson Th. (2004) Auxiliary selection and the semantics of unaccusativity. Lingua 114: 447–471 Büring D. (2004) Crossover situations. Natural Language Semantics 12: 23–62 Chung S., Ladusaw W. (2003) Restriction and saturation. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 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 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 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 Heine B. (1997) Possession: Cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 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 Klein W. (1992) The present perfect puzzle. Language 68: 525–552 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 Landman F. (2004) Indefinites and the type of sets. Blackwell, Oxford 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 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 Parsons T. (1990) Events in the semantics of English. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA 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 Reinhart T. (1983) Anaphora and semantic interpretation. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago van Riemsdijk H.C. (1978) A case study in syntactic markedness. Foris, Dordrecht Ritter E., Rosen S.T. (1997) The function of have. Lingua 101: 295–321 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 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 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.