1

Consider

[1] a. Kim has courage.
      b. Kim has a car.

My question: Is there a known linguistic concept that captures the difference (that I seem to be detecting, as explained below) in the usage of the verb has in these two sentences?

What CGEL says

According to CGEL (p. 111), the verb has in [1a] and [1b] appears in the same function, which they call 'stative' (the actual example CGEL gives is She has many virtues/two sons). But it seems to me that there is something quite a bit different in the way has functions in these two sentences---maybe not syntactically different, but certainly semantically. I'll try to explain what I mean in two different ways.

Explanation of what I mean in terms of 'linking verbs'

I understand that linguistics does not find the category of 'linking verbs' a useful one (or even a well-defined one), as has been discussed e.g. here. But if we suspend our disbelief (if any) in linking verbs for a second, we might want to say that in [1a] has acts as a linking verb, whereas in [1b] it does not.

It is true that 'linking' to lone adjectives (as in A rose is red) is a hallmark of linking verbs (as traditionally defined), and yet has can never 'link' to (or be followed by) a lone adjective---at least as far as I know. But it is also possible to 'link' to noun phrases. So, for example, in

[2] a. Kim is a zombie
      b. Kim has a zombie,

[2a] is predicating of Kim that it has a certain property, namely, that she is a zombie. If you ask the question, "How many 'entities' are implied to exist by this sentence?", the answer is one, namely Kim. The zombie is not a separate entity; the zombie is Kim. All of this is very consistent, I think, with what friends of the concept of linking verbs would say is characteristic of that category. Also, the verb is in [2a] can be replaced by another linking verb (some that would work include remains, seems, becomes, turns, ...), and the resulting sentence not only makes sense, but its meaning is, in some sense, related to the meaning of the original sentence with is.

In contrast, the sentence [2b] implies the existence of two entities: Kim and the zombie. It further says that a certain relation exists between, namely that of 'having', or of 'ownership', or of 'possession'.

Explanation of what I mean in terms of properties vs two-term relations

An alternative explanation is to say that in [2a], has expresses a property (or a one-term relation) of Kim's, whereas in [2b], it expresses a two-term relation between Kim and the car. Properties and relations belong to analytic philosophy (for relations, see the section relations). They are (therefore) accompanied by one or another degree of controversy, so they are not the firmest foundation on which to build an analysis (which should be, well, scientific, or so one would hope...). But I haven't yet figured out a better way to explain why I think [1a] and [1b] use has in rather different ways.

Now what about [1]?

The sentence [1b] clearly implies the existence of two 'entities', Kim and the car, and asserts that the relation of possession exists between them. Things aren't as clear in [1a]. You could, I suppose, say that courage is also an entity, and that has again expresses a two-term relation. But that is not at all my 'mental picture' of [1a]. When I say that Kim has courage, I mean that Kim is courageous, no more and no less. To my mind, there is no action of possessing here that is in any way comparable to the clear case of possession in [1b].

Further evidence that [1a] is different: if has is replaced by at least some of the verbs that are traditionally thought of as linking verbs, the sentence that results is at least marginally sensical, and moreover its meaning (such as it is) is related to the meaning of the original sentence. Consider e.g. replacing has by is: Kim is courage. I agree that it is somewhat dubious whether this makes sense. But it can be fixed by expanding it to Kim is the very definition of courage, which definitely does make sense. And this expanded version would also work with is replaced by seems, becomes, remains, and many other traditional linking verbs. Substituting has back produces Kim has the very definition of courage, which is again a bit dubious, but becomes less dubious if replaced by Kim has what is the very definition of courage.

This process does, in fact seem to reach a fixed point. Both of the following seems grammatical, sensical, and in fact mean the same thing:

[3] a. Kim is what seems to be the very definition of courage.
      b. Kim has what seems to be the very definition of courage.

I take this to be evidence that at least in [3], has is as much a 'linking verb' as is is.

So while the replacement of has by other linking verbs and vice versa (in sentences like [1a]) certainly does not go through completely smoothly, nevertheless there does seem to be some sort of pattern there. It is just a bit trickier a pattern than what we are used to with traditional linking verbs.

A summary

The verb has seems to serve two rather different functions in [1a] and in [1b]. Those who like linking verbs might say that has is a linking verb in [1a] but not in [1b]; those who like the philosophical concepts of properties and relations might say that in [1a] has expresses a property of Kim's (that she is courageous), while in [1b] it expresses a two-term relation (one of possession of a car by Kim). Either way, something seems to be relevantly different about has in [1a] vs in [1b]. My question is: is there a known linguistic concept that captures this difference?

A bonus question for those who like the concept of linking verbs: do you agree that has in [1a] is a linking verb?

Community
  • 1
linguisticturn
  • 12,606
  • 5
    I fear you may be overthinking things a bit. It's a common enough trope to personalize characteristics as entities separate from an individual, and once we do that we can make those entities subject or objects in their own grammatical right. We speak of buying courage, taking courage, borrowing courage, etc. Are we to consider these linking verbs? – deadrat Mar 29 '16 at 00:44
  • 7
    *has* has exactly the same meaning in both. What is different is the semantics of what it means to have a quality attribute vs a physical object. – Jim Mar 29 '16 at 00:52
  • @Jim Thank you for your comment. But, what about the interchangeability of has with is in [3] (which I just added)? – linguisticturn Mar 29 '16 at 02:16
  • In that last bit you've got two different senses of "definition". One is "epitome" while the other is "quality". – Hot Licks Mar 29 '16 at 02:54
  • @deadrat Thank you for your comment. 1. borrow maybe indeed could be a 'linking verb' in this usage. After all, if have_could, in some rare cases, act like a linking verb, why couldn't other verbs? 2. having said that, _take courage is a phrase, a separate entry in a dictionary. One can have courage/pluck/gumption/chutzpah, but one can't take any of them. 3. Yes, maybe courage is reified in [1a]... but that's not the mental image I, at least, have. Maybe it started as a metaphor, but it doesn't strike me as one when I use it. And I think [3] may count as evidence for that. – linguisticturn Mar 29 '16 at 03:07
  • @Hot Licks Thank you for that comment. However, I don't see how quality could work there: Kim has what seems to be the very quality of courage doesn't sound right---does it? In contrast, at least to my ear, Kim has what seems to be the very epitome of courage sort of does... at least to me... – linguisticturn Mar 29 '16 at 03:09
  • 1
    Your example 3 isn't idiomatic in the sense you want. 3b would mean that Kim is holding a slip of paper on which she has copied the definition of courage. Kim is a person, not a definition, although she could be the epitome or an exemplar. But then has doesn't work for these words. – deadrat Mar 29 '16 at 03:20
  • One can have courage/pluck/gumption/chutzpah, but one can't take any of them. No, but one can get all of them, at least in the past tense. – deadrat Mar 29 '16 at 03:25
  • Also note that as clumsy as it is, has courage may be transformed into passive voice: The courage that was had* by the coward could be found in a bottle of cheap scotch.* By the way, I am not the downvoter. – deadrat Mar 29 '16 at 03:42
  • @deadrat 1. as far as get vs take: that's perfectly fine; after all, get is already on many a list of linking verbs. 2. I agree that [3b] can be interpreted as you suggest. But I think it can also, given the right context, be interpreted as equivalent to 'she is very courageous'. One just has to imagine a conversation like this: A: Kim is skittish. B: No way, she has courage. A: I say she's kind of a coward. B: And I say... (and then says [3b]). 3. I didn't think you were the downvoter, but thanks for confirming it. – linguisticturn Mar 29 '16 at 04:26
  • @deadrat 4. I think the passivization is the most serious objection so far. In reply, maybe one could say it only works through abuse of language---but, then again, maybe not. – linguisticturn Mar 29 '16 at 04:27
  • @deadrat One could also say that, OK, has is definitely not a typical linking verb (e.g., as I already said, it doesn't work with adjectives). Maybe, in its case, the passive can also perform a 'linking' function (which is after all not really a syntactical category, for reasons explained in the link I provided above, but somehow a semantic one)---i.e. one can say that the passive is just a figure of speech and no actual action of 'having' is taking place. But I do have to sleep on this. Thank you! – linguisticturn Mar 29 '16 at 04:27
  • 1
    I agree they mean something different. Kim has courage means something similar to Kim is courageous. – Araucaria - Him Mar 29 '16 at 12:31
  • @Araucaria Right. It ascribes a property to Kim; it says of Kim that it enters a one-term relation. In contrast, Kim has a car says that Kim and a car enter a two-term relation. Now, is there a linguistic concept for things that express one-term relations as opposed to two-term ones? – linguisticturn Mar 29 '16 at 13:46
  • @linguisticturn Maybe a question for stack linguistics? I don't know of one, but I'm rubbish at semantics stuff (very unfortunate given the thesis of my PhD!) – Araucaria - Him Mar 29 '16 at 13:49
  • @linguisticturn I'd make your question much shorter though! – Araucaria - Him Mar 29 '16 at 13:50
  • @Araucaria Another way to phrase the question, following deadrat's comments is this: in [1a], is courage reified_ or not? I don't know how to test for such things--and maybe they aren't really testable... – linguisticturn Mar 29 '16 at 13:51
  • @linguisticturn Reified or not. The semantics is different, it seems to me. – Araucaria - Him Mar 29 '16 at 13:52
  • @Araucaria 1. I agree that shorter questions are better, but when I was writing it, I was quite confused about many things. I still am, but as I receive feedback from various people, I will better understand what matters and what doesn't, which will eventually enable me to make the question shorter. 2. Stackexchange is against duplicate questions on different stackexchange sites... I will have to rephrase the question somehow. Maybe after I learn more on this site, I'll be able to reformulate it sufficiently to post on the linguistics stackexchange. – linguisticturn Mar 29 '16 at 13:57
  • @Araucaria 3. I was actually curious what the people who like the concept of a linking verb would say about [1a]. Judging by the discussion of some of the other questions posted, I know that at least some people on this site do like that concept. On the linguistics stackexchange, I think I would simply be told that the whole concept of a linking verb doesn't make any sense to begin with---that there is just the copula be, and that the other traditional linking verbs have to be analyzed in all kinds of disparate ways, as e.g. here. – linguisticturn Mar 29 '16 at 14:00
  • @linguisticum If you drastically rephrased the Q, then I doubt it would be regarded as a duplicate. You could also consider deleting this question here (you could reopen it later if you wanted to). – Araucaria - Him Mar 29 '16 at 14:05
  • @Araucaria Thanks---I may do that! Let me think about it for a bit. – linguisticturn Mar 29 '16 at 14:06
  • 1
    I don't see the grammatical pattern. Try "Kim has courage (in his heart/in his liver/in every part of him)." You're dealing with folk theories about the seat of a quality, not grammar. – Greg Lee May 17 '17 at 21:08

1 Answers1

1

The short answer is no, has is not a linking verb and no, you haven't come close to showing that it is.

The long answer is that you seem to be confused about what a copula does. Traditionally it shows that two items have the same referent (The Evening Star is Venus); membership of a class (He is a teacher); or some kind of property (The rose is red). Higgins(1973,1979) refined this a bit to four functions: predicational (The cat is big), specificational (The detective is Sherlock Homes), identificational (That is John), and equative (Kim is a zombie).

You haven't shown has performing any of these functions of a copular verb, so the obvious conclusion is that it isn't one.

Roaring Fish
  • 15,115
  • Thank you for your answer. 1. I was careful to not claim that has functions as a copula in [1a]. My understanding is that the traditional category of linking verbs includes copulas, but also other kinds of verbs. 2. It is true that if has doesn't (in usage [1a]) qualify as a linking verb, then I would like to know why. However, my primary question is whether there is some category recognized by linguistics that would distinguish the usage in [1a] from that in [1b]. – linguisticturn Mar 29 '16 at 04:00
  • Then perhaps you should tell us how you define 'linking verb', but note that by doing that you essentally reduce your whole argument to a search for a self-serving definition of 'linking verb' that gives you the result you want. 1a and 1b are the same. Kim posseses something, in both cases signalled by 'has'. Anything differences are in the semantic properties of the words used, not in 'has'. – Roaring Fish Mar 29 '16 at 04:36
  • 1
    To repeat, my main concern is not to defend or expand the category of linking verbs (which linguists say is ill-defined anyway), but rather to understand if [1a] and [1b] are really the same usage of have or not. And it does still seem to me that [1a] predicates a property to Kim, whereas [1b] expresses a two-term relation between Kim and the car. If this is so, then I would think that this distinction might be something that linguists have already studied; and if that so, then I'd like to know what it is. – linguisticturn Mar 29 '16 at 05:56
  • As far as linking verbs, just to play the Devil's advocate: one definition says that they are 'verbs that describe the subject or link the subject to some complement such as a predicate adjective or predicate noun'. It seems to me that a fair rephrasing of that is that linking verbs are those that express the fact that the subject has a certain property (as opposed to expressing the fact that the subject enters into a two-or-more-term relation with other things). That's the semantic part. – linguisticturn Mar 29 '16 at 06:04
  • The syntactic part is that they must either take a direct object or require a complement that is either an adjective or an NP (this is so as to exclude the intransitive verbs that also predicate a property to the subject, as in He hungers). – linguisticturn Mar 29 '16 at 06:05
  • The term ' linking verb' is used very loosely by some people. It can range from strictly being the 'be' verb, through the traditional 'be' plus a variable bunch of perception verbs, through to the concept that a sentence is a collection of arguments linked by verbs so all verbs are linking verbs. It would be helpful if you clarified what you mean when you say linking verb. – Roaring Fish Mar 29 '16 at 14:42
  • 1
    As for 1a and 1b, 'has' is being used in the same way. The alleged differences you point to are functions of the nouns used, not the 'has'. Courage is an abstract noun applicable only to an individual, while car is a concrete noun with a tangible external referant. – Roaring Fish Mar 29 '16 at 14:49