English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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.

There be- and have- sentences: Different semantics, different definiteness effects