The (Un)passivizability of Have, Own, and Possess
Shiro Takeuchi
University of Tsukuba
This study attributes the difference in passivizability of the possessive verbs shown in (1) tothe presence or absence of a bound variable in the second argument of each verb.
(1) a. * A sister / pen was had by Mowgli.
(Tham (2005:232))
b. A huge old house is owned by the Irish doctor.
(Kageyama (1997:50))
c. A very powerful engine is possessed by the car.
(Kobukata (2010:31))
More specifically, I assert that there is an implicit bound variable in the second argument of have inits semantic structure (SS), which is a modified version of that of Pinker’s (1989) (cf. Culicoverand Jackendoff (2005)). In what follows, I overview several accounts of previous studies,morphological (Kageyama (1997)), syntactic (Morita (2003)), and functional (Tham (2005)), andpoint out their problems.
Assuming that passivization is a process in which the external argument of a verb issuppressed, Kageyama (1997) reduces the difference in passivizability to the presence or absenceof an external argument, which Kageyama claims is illustrated by the following:(2)*haver / owner / possessor
Contrary to his claim, however, it is not so difficult to find the form haver.
(3)
The haver is not open to others, the very essence of his being is “closed.”(W. Cooney, The Quest for Meaning)This fact indicates the inadequacy of the morphological explanation for the unpassivizability ofhave.
Morita (2003) reduces the unpassivizability of have to the structural partitive Case assigned
to its second argument. It is assigned to the second argument of a verb when the first and second
arguments exhibit the whole-part relation, which covers a possessor-possessed relation.
According to Morita, this structural Case resists passivization. However, the passive sentences ofown and possess in (1b, c) constitute serious counterexamples to his account, since both verbs
exhibit the whole-part relation, but they do passivize.
Tham (2005) attributes the unpassivizability of have to its presentational function. He
asserts that the second argument of have always has the status of presentational focus, whereas thepassive subject has the status of topic; therefore, the second argument cannot be a passive subject.
However, not only can both arguments of have bear a presentational focus (Kobukata (2009:11)),
but both own and possess exhibit the same behavior, as in (4).
(4) a. It is a house that John {has/owns/possesses}.
b. It is John who {has/owns/possesses} a house.
This fact confirms the inadequacy of the functional explanation for the difference in passivizability.
The alternative account that I offer here is to reduce the unpassivizability of have to theimplicit bound variable present in the second argument in its SS. Consider the contrast below:(5) a. I have {a/my/*his/*the/*every} {house/sister}.
b. I {own/possess} {a/my/his/the/every} house.
As (5a) shows, a possessive pronoun in the second argument of have, when it appears, must beanaphoric to the first, while in (5b), there is no such restriction. This fact indicates that there is animplicit bound variable in the second argument of have, meaning that I have a house and I have asister are construed as I have a house (of my own) and I have a sister (of my own), respectively.
On the basis of this fact, I propose the following SS for have.
(6)[state HAVE ([THING]α, [THING(α)])]This structure shows that α in the second argument of HAVE has to be anaphoric to and bound by
the first argument, which is indicated by the superscript. This enables us to answer the question of
the unpassivizability. That is, when the second argument is put in subject position, the boundvariable associated with it cannot be bound by the first argument. Note here that on the basis of
the behavior in (5a) and the conjoinability shown in (7), I assume that the same SS holds regardlessof the alienability of the value of the second argument.
(7)
John has a wife, and a house.
(cf. Partee (1983/1997:187))
The SSs of own and possess are similar to that in (6), but there is no variable in them.
The SS in (6) accounts for the following contrast.
(8) a. Who {owns/possesses} this land? John {owns/possesses} it.
b. * Who has this land? John has it.
cf. John has some land. He has had it for five years.
The second argument of have has to be anaphoric to the first; however, this and it in (8b) cannot be.
Hence the sentence in (8b) is ungrammatical. This constraint also explains the fact that only haveexhibits the definiteness restriction (DR), shown in (5). That is, “strong quantifiers” cannot bebound by the first argument. On the other hand, the second arguments of own and possess neednot be anaphoric to the first; therefore, these verbs do not exhibit DR and the sentences in (8a) aregrammatical.

References
Culicover, Peter W. and Jackendoff, Ray (2005) Simpler Syntax, Oxford University Press, NewYork.
Kageyama, Taro (1997) “Gush Dooshi no Jitakootai to Hitaikakusei,’’ Toozai Gengo Bunka noRuikeiron Tokubetsu Purojekuto Kenkyu Hookokusyo, 47-56, University of Tsukuba.
Kobukata, Yuko (2009) “Shoyuu Koobun no Teiseikooka,” Bungei Gengo Kenkyu Gengo Hen 5,1-16, University of Tsukuba.
Kobukata, Yuko (2010) A Semantic and Pragmatic Investigation of Possessive Constructions inEnglish and Japanese, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Tsukuba.
Morita, Joe (2003) ‘‘On the Structure and (Un)passivizability of Contain,’’ English Linguistics, 20,169-196.
Partee, Barbara H. (1983/1997) Uniformity and Versatility: The Genitive, A Case Study, Appendix
to Theo Janssen (1997), Compositionality, in The Handbook of Logic and Language, eds. by
Johan van Benthem and Alice ter Meulen, 464-470, Amsterdam, Elsevier.
Pinker, Steven (1989) Learnability and Cognition: The Acquisition of Argument Structure, MITPress, Cambridge, Mass.
Tham, Shiao Wei (2005) Representing Possessive Predication: Semantic Dimensions andPragmatic Bases, Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University.