Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-lpg2g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-15T10:57:29.298Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Why Can You Have a Drink When You Can't *Have An Eat?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 March 2026

Anna Wierzbicka
Anna Wierzbicka*
Affiliation:
Australian National University
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper argues that sentences in the have a V frame are not a jungle of idiosyncrasies, but exhibit orderly and systematic behavior, governed by strict semantic rules. These rules can be stated in precise formulae with full predictive power. Ten subtypes are singled out: each has a slightly different semantic formula, but all have a common core, which is a semantic invariant of the have a V frame. These semantic formulae, which account for differences both in acceptability (have a drink and *have an eat) and in meaning (drink and have a drink), are stated not in terms of ad-hoc features or labels, but in an independently justified semantic metalanguage based on natural language.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Language , Volume 58 , Issue 4 , December 1982, pp. 753 - 799
Copyright
Copyright © 1982 by Linguistic Society of America

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Anderson, Stephen. 1971. On the role of deep structure in semantic interpretation. Foundations of Language 7.387–96.Google Scholar
Blake, Barry. 1977. Case marking in Australian languages. Canberra: Australian Institute of Aboriginal Studies.Google Scholar
Cattell, Ray. 1977. Body surface, movement and direction, MS.Google Scholar
Cattell, Ray. 1980. Some composite semantic predicates in English. Mimeo.Google Scholar
Chappell, Hilary. 1977. Semantics of some causatives in Chinese and English. B.A. Honours thesis, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Couturat, Louis. 1903. Opuscules et fragments inédits de Leibniz. Paris. [Reprinted, Hildesheim: Olms, 1961.]Google Scholar
Crowley, Terry. 1979. The language of Paama (New Hebrides). Doctoral dissertation, Australian National University.Google Scholar
Dixon, Robert M. W. 1979. Ergativity. Lg. 55.59–138.Google Scholar
Dowty, David. 1979. Word meaning and Montague Grammar. Dordrecht: Reidel.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durie, Mark, and Wilkins, David. 1980. Syntax and semantics of say/tell verbs. Mimeo.Google Scholar
García, Erica. 1975. The role of theory in linguistic analysis: The Spanish pronoun system. Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Givó n, Talmy. 1979. On understanding grammar. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Green, Georgia. 1974. Semantics and syntactic irregularity. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.Google Scholar
Harris, Zellig. 1969. The two systems of grammar: Report and paraphrase. (Transformations and discourse analysis papers, 79.) Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania. [Reprinted in his Papers in structural and transformational linguistics, 612–92. Dordrecht: Reidel, 1970.]Google Scholar
Hopper, Paul, and Thompson, Sandra. 1980. The discourse basis of transitivity. Lg. 56.251–300.Google Scholar
Jespersen, Otto. 1942. Modern English grammar on historical principles, VI. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Kibrik, A. E. 1979-80. Materialy k tipologii ergativnosti. Moskva: Institut Russkogo Jazyka AN SSSR.Google Scholar
Kruisinga, E. 1932. A handbook of present-day English, II. 5th ed. Groningen: Noordhoff.Google Scholar
Lévy-Bruhl, Lucien. 1915. L'expression de la possession dans les langues melanésiennes. Mémoires de la Societé de Linguistique 19.96–105.Google Scholar
Lynch, John. 1973. Verbal aspects of possession in Melanesian languages. Oceanic Linguistics 12.96–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCawley, James. 1972. A program for logic. The semantics of natural language, ed. by Davidson, Donald & Harman, Gilbert, 498–544. Dordrecht: Reidel.10.1007/978-94-010-2557-7_18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Makkai, Adam. 1977. The passing of the syntactic age: A first look at the ecology of the English verb take. Linguistics at the crossroads, ed. by Makkai, Adam et al., 79–104. Padova: Liviana.Google Scholar
Moravcsik, Edith. 1978. On the case marking of objects. Universals of human language, IV, ed. by Greenberg, Joseph et al., 249–89. Stanford: University Press.Google Scholar
Nickel, Gerhard. 1968. Complex verbal structures in English. International Review of Applied Linguistics 6.1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Prince, Ellen. 1974. English aspectual constructions. University of Pennsylvania dissertation.Google Scholar
Ross, John Robert. 1967. Constraints on variables in syntax. MIT dissertation. [Published by Indiana University Linguistics Club.]Google Scholar
Sapir, Edward. 1931. The function of an international auxiliary language. Psyche 11.4–15. [Reprinted in Selected writings of Edward Sapir, ed. by David Mandelbaum, 110–21. Berkeley & Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1949.]Google Scholar
Schuchardt, Hugo. 1885. Ü ber die Lautgesetze: Gegen die Junggrammatiker. Berlin: Oppenheim. [Reprinted in Schuchardt, the Neogrammarians, and the transformational theory of phonological change, by Theo Vennemann et al., 1–37. Frankfurt: Athenä um, 1972.]Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1972. Semantic primitives. Frankfurt: Athenä um.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1975. Why ‘kill’ does not mean ‘cause to die’: The semantics of action sentences. Foundations of Language 13.491–528.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1979. Are grammatical categories vague or polysemous? The Japanese ‘adversative passive’ in a typological context. Papers in Linguistics 12.111–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1980a. The case for surface case. Ann Arbor: Karoma.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1980b. Lingua mentalis. Sydney & New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wierzbicka, Anna. 1981. Case marking and human nature. Australian Journal of Linguistics 1.43–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar