There be- and have-sentences: different semantics, different definiteness effects
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...
| Autores: | , |
|---|---|
| Tipo de recurso: | artículo |
| Estado: | Versión publicada |
| Fecha de publicación: | 2019 |
| País: | España |
| Institución: | Universitat Pompeu Fabra |
| Repositorio: | Repositorio Digital de la UPF |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:repositori.upf.edu:10230/46332 |
| Acceso en línea: | http://hdl.handle.net/10230/46332 http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/tlr-2019-2041 |
| Access Level: | acceso abierto |
| Palabra clave: | Existential sentences Definiteness effect Have There be Relational nouns |
| Sumario: | 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. |
|---|