Cover not available
Part of
Existential Constructions across Languages: Forms, meanings and functions
Edited by Laure Sarda and Ludovica Lena
[Human Cognitive Processing 76] 2023
► pp. 34–67

Chapter 2
Existential predication and have-possessive constructions in the languages of the world

ORCID logo | Université Lumière (Lyon 2), France
The present article deals with the relationship between have-possessive constructions and inverse-locational predication, a type of construction commonly characterized as ‘existential’, illustrated by English There is a cat in the tree (contrasting with the plain-locational clause The cat is in the tree). Some of the languages that have a transitive ‘have’ verb use the same verb as an inverse-locational predicator. Two types of historical explanations can be considered: either the inverse-locational construction developed from the impersonalization of a pre-existing have-possessive construction, or the possessive construction initially belonged to the locational-possessive type, but has undergone changes making the coding of the possessor more similar to that of A in transitive clauses and/or the coding of the possessee more similar to that of P (have-drift).
Keywords: have-drift, ‘have’ verb, impersonalization, inverse-locational predication, plain-locational predication
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Have-possessive constructions
    • 2.1Have possessive constructions and other types of predicative possession
    • 2.2‘Have’ verbs as more or less atypical transitive verbs
    • 2.3Possible sources of have-possessive constructions
      • 2.3.1Transitivization of incorporated-possessee constructions
      • 2.3.2Transitivization of comitative-possessee constructions
      • 2.3.3Transitivization of locational-possessive constructions
    • 2.4Have-possessive constructions in the languages of the world
  • 3.Have-ILP constructions
    • 3.1Introductory remarks
    • 3.2Have-ILP constructions: Some illustrations
    • 3.3Have-ILP constructions in the languages of the world
  • 4.The creation of ILP constructions via impersonalization of have-possessive constructions
  • 5.The transitivization of oblique-possessor constructions
    • 5.1Introductory remarks
    • 5.2Development of P-like coding of the possessee in oblique-possessor constructions
    • 5.3Topicalization of the possessor and reanalysis of oblique-possessor constructions
  • 6.‘Have’ verbs also used as locational predicators in a GLP construction
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 5 July 2023
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/hcp.76.02cre
References (75)
References
Ahland, M. 2009. Grammatical change in the Amharic possessive construction. Studies in Language 33(3), 685–717. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Aikhenvald, A. Y. 2008. The Manambu language of East Sepik, Papua New Guinea. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Ambros, A. A. 1969. Einführung in die moderne arabische Schriftsprache. München: Hueber.Google Scholar
Bakir, M. J. 2014. The multifunctionality of fii in Gulf Pidgin Arabic. Journal of Pidgin and Creole Languages 29(2), 410–436. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentley, D. 2017. Copular and existential constructions. In E. Stark, & A. Düfter (Eds.), Manuals of Romance Linguistics (MRL): Morphosyntax and Syntax (332–366). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentley, D., Ciconte, F. M., & Cruschina, S. 2013. Micro-variation in subject agreement: The case of existential pivots with split focus in Romance. Rivista di Linguistica, 25(1), 15–43.Google Scholar
2015. Existentials and locatives in Romance dialects of Italy. Oxford: Oxford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bentley, D., & Cruschina, S. 2016. Existential constructions. In S. Fischer, & C. Gabriel (Eds.), Manuals of Romance Linguistics (MRL): Grammatical Interfaces. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Boadi, L. A. 1971. Existential sentences in Akan. Foundations of Language, 7(1), 19–29.Google Scholar
Borschev, V., & Partee, B. 2002. The Russian genitive of negation: Theme-rheme structure or perspective structure? Journal of Slavic Linguistics 10(1/2), 105–144.Google Scholar
Cardoso, H. C. 2009. The Indo-Portuguese language of Diu. PhD dissertation. University of Amsterdam.
Chappell, H., & Creissels, D. 2019. Topicality and the typology of predicative possession. Linguistic Typology, 23(3), 467–532. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Chappell, H., & Lü, S. 2022. A semantic typology of location, existence, possession and copular verbs: areal patterns of polysemy in Mainland East and Southeast Asia. Linguistics, 60(1), 1–82. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ciconte, F. M. 2013. Argument realization and existential pro-forms in early Italo-Romance. In E. van Gelderen, M. Cennamo, & J. Barðdal (Eds.), Argument structure in flux (549–566). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Comrie, B. 1989. Language universals and linguistic typology (2nd edition). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Creissels, D. 2022. Existential predication and predicative possession in Arabic dialects, 75(4): 583–612. STUF – Language Typology and Universals. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2013. Control and the evolution of possessive and existential constructions. In E. van Gelderen, M. Cennamo, & J. Barðdal (Eds.), Argument structure in flux (461–476). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2019. Inverse-locational predication in typological perspective. Italian Journal of Linguistics, 31(2), 37–106.Google Scholar
Forthcoming. Predicative possession in Bantu languages. In E.-M. Bloom Ström, H. Gibson, R. Guérois, & L. Marten (Eds.), Current approaches to morphosyntactic variation in Bantu. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Creissels, D., Bao Diop, S., Bassène, A. C., Cissé, M. T., Cobbinah, A., Dieye, E. H., Ndao, D., Nouguier-Voisin, S., Quint, N., Renaudier, M., Sall, A., & Segerer, G. 2015. L’impersonnalité dans les langues de la région sénégambienne. Africana Linguistica, 21, 29–86. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Creissels, D., & Sambou, P. 2013. Le mandinka: phonologie, grammaire, textes. Paris: Karthala.Google Scholar
Cruschina, S. 2015. Patterns of variation in existential constructions. Isogloss. A journal on variation of Romance and Iberian languages, 1(1), 33–65. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Czinglar, C. 2002. Decomposing existence: Evidence from Germanic. In A. Werner, & J.-W. Zwart (Eds.), Issues in formal German(ic) typology (85–126). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
DeLancey, S. 1981. An interpretation of split ergativity and related patterns. Language, 57(3), 626–57. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Dunham, M. 2005. Eléments de description du langi, langue bantoue F33 de Tanzanie. Louvain-Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
Freeze, R. 1992. Existentials and other locatives. Language, 68(3), 553–95. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Givón, T. 2011. Ute reference grammar. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Green, L. J. 2002. African American English, a linguistic introduction. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Guérois, R. 2015. A grammar of Cuwabo (Mozambique, Bantu P34). PhD dissertation. University of Lyon.
Haspelmath, M. 2010. Comparative concepts and descriptive categories in cross-linguistic studies. Language, 86(3), 663–687. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, B. 1997. Possession: cognitive sources, forces, and grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Huang, C. 2004. A reference grammar of the Puxi variety of Qiang. PhD dissertation. City University of Hong-Kong.
Jendraschek, G. 2012. A grammar of Iatmul. Habilitation thesis. University of Regensburg.
Jenny, M., & Hnin Tun, S. S. 2016. Burmese: A comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Jones, M. 1993. Sardinian syntax. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Joswig, A. 2019. The Majang language. PhD dissertation. University of Leiden.
Jun, A. 2005. Sama-Bajau. In K. A. Adelaar, & N. Himmelmann (Eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar (377–396). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Koch, P. 2012. Location, existence, and possession: A constructional-typological exploration. Linguistics, 50(3), 533–603. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Launey, M. 2003. Awna parikwaki – Introduction à la langue palikur de Guyane et de l’Amapá. Montpellier: IRD Éditions.Google Scholar
Li, Jessica & Anaí Navarro. 2015. Copular clauses. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), with Wambũi Mũringo Wa-Ngatho (Language Consultant). A basic sketch grammar of Gĩkũyũ. Rice Working Papers in Linguistics, Vol. 6, Special Issue.Google Scholar
Lienhard, R. 1978. Daba grammar. Yaoundé: SIL.Google Scholar
Lombard, A. 1974. La langue roumaine. Une présentation. Paris: Klincksieck.Google Scholar
Madi, H. 2005. Contribution à l’élaboration d’une description de référence du shimaoré. PhD dissertation. University of Lyon.
Manfredi, S. 2017. Árabi Júba: un pidgnin-créole du Soudan du Sud. Leuven-Paris: Peeters.Google Scholar
Mazzitelli, L. F. 2015. The expression of predicative possession in Belarusian and Lithuanian. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mbodj, C. 1983. Recherches sur la phonologie et la morphologie de la langue saafi (parler de Boukhou). PhD dissertation. University of Nice.
Meillet, A. 1923. Le développement du verbe avoir. In ANTIDORON: Festschrift Jacob Wackernagel zur Vollendung des 70. Lebensjahres am 11. Dezember 1923 gewidmet von Schülern Freunden und Kollegen (9–13). Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.Google Scholar
Michaelis, S. M., Maurer, P., Haspelmath, M., & Huber, M. 2013. The Atlas and Survey of Pidgin and Creole languages. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Morgan, D. R. 1996. Overview of grammatical structures of Ndut, a Cangin language of Senegal. MA thesis. University of Texas at Arlington.
Mous, M. 2003. The making of a mixed language: The case of Ma’a/Mbugu. Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Myler, N. 2016. Building and interpreting possession sentences. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Newman, P. 2000. The Hausa language: an encyclopedic reference grammar. New Haven & London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Newmark, L., Hubbard, P., & Prifti, P. 1982. Standard Albanian, a reference grammar for students. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Nikolaeva, I. 1999. Ostyak. München: Lincom Europa.Google Scholar
Onumajuru, E. M. 1985. Système verbal de la langue igbo (le parler d’Orlu). PhD dissertation. University of Grenoble.
Partee, B., & Borschev, V. 2004. The semantics of Russian genitive of negation: the nature and role of perspectival structure. In K. Watanabe, & R. B. Young (Eds.), Proceedings of Semantics and Linguistic Theory (SALT) 14 (212–234). Ithaca, NY: CLC Publications. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. Existential sentences, BE, and the genitive of negation in Russian. In I. Comorovski & K. von Heusinger (Eds.), Existence: Semantics and syntax (147–190). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
Payne, D. L. 2007. The existential toe-hold of a split-S system. Paper given at the conference of the Association of Linguistic Typology 7, September, 25–28 2007, Paris.
Petzell, M. 2008. The Kagulu language of Tanzania: grammar, texts and vocabulary. Cologne: Rüdiger Köppe.Google Scholar
Randal, S. 1998. A grammatical sketch of Tennet. In G. Dimmendaal (Ed.), Surmic languages and cultures (219–272). Köln: Rüdiger Köppe Verlag.Google Scholar
Redden, J. E., & Owusu, N. 1995. Twi basic course. New York: Hippocrene Books.Google Scholar
Reineke, Brigitte. 1972. The structure of the Nkonya language. Leipzig: Verlag Enzyklopädie.Google Scholar
Rowland-Oke, M. 2003. Description systématique le la langue obolo-andoni. Paris: L’Harmattan.Google Scholar
Rubin, A. D. 2005. Studies in Semitic grammaticalization. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Sarda, L., & Lena, L. (This volume). Existential constructions: In search of a definition. In L. Sarda, & L. Lena (Eds.), Existential constructions across languages: Forms, meanings and functions (1–32). Amsterdam & Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Simnara, Komi. 2019. L’expression des émotions en lama (Gur, Togo). Doctoral dissertation. University of Paris.Google Scholar
Sneddon, J. N. 1996. Indonesian: a comprehensive grammar. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Stassen, L. 2009. Predicative possession. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Thieberger, N. 2006. A grammar of South Efate: An Oceanic language of Vanuatu. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.Google Scholar
Tsukida, N. 2005. Seediq. In K. A. Adelaar and N. Himmelmann (Eds.), The Austronesian languages of Asia and Madagascar (291–325). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Van Geenhoven, V. 1998. Semantic incorporation and indefinite description. Semantic and syntactic aspects of noun incorporation in West Greenlandic. Stanford: CSLI Publications.Google Scholar
Williams-van Klinken, C., Hajek, J., & Nordlinger, R. 2002. Tetun Dili: A Grammar of an East Timorese Language. Canberra: Pacific Linguistics.Google Scholar
Zeitoun, E., Huang, L. M., Yeh, M. M., & Chang, A. H. 1999. Existential, possessive and locative constructions in Formosan languages. Oceanic Linguistics, 38(1), 1–42. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ziv, Y. 1982. Another look at definites in existentials. Journal of Linguistics 18(1), 73–88. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Zuckermann, G. 2009. Hybridity versus revivability: Multiple causation, forms and patterns. Journal of Language Contact 2(2), 40–87. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cited by (3)

Cited by three other publications

Creissels, Denis
2024. Transitivity, Valency, and Voice, DOI logo
Lena, Ludovica
2024. Encoding indefinite human reference without indefinite pronouns: the case of Chinese presentationals. Folia Linguistica 58:3 ► pp. 659 ff. DOI logo
Lena, Ludovica
2024. Negative existentials and presentationals in Chinese. Languages in Contrast 24:2 ► pp. 226 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 17 november 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.