Taalportaal - the digital language portal

Dutch
Frisian
Saterfrisian
Afrikaans

Show all

5.2.3.5. Hebben'to have' + infinitive

quickinfo

If hebben'to have' governs some other verb, it is typically used as a perfect auxiliary; cf. Section 6.2.1. There is, however, another construction, illustrated in (749), in which hebben does not govern a past participle but a bare infinitive.

749

a.	Ik	heb	de brief	hier	voor me	liggen.
	I	have	the letter	here	in.front.of me	lie
	'I have the letter lying here in front of me.'

b.	Marie	heeft	buiten	drie koeien	lopen/grazen.
	Marie	has	outside	three cows	walk/pasture
	'Marie has three cows grazing outside.'

c.	Jan heeft	in Amsterdam	veel familie	werken/wonen.
	Jan has	in Amsterdam	a lot of family	work/live
	'Jan has quite a few family members working/living in Amsterdam.'

The constructions in (749) crucially differ from perfect-tense constructions in that hebben functions as a main verb, as is clear from the fact that it adds an additional argument to the arguments selected by the infinitival verb. It looks as if we have to do with some sort of AcI-construction: example (750b) shows that the subject of liggen surfaces as an object in the hebben + bare infinitive construction in order to allow the additional argument to become the subject of hebben. That hebben is an argument-taking verb in examples such as (750) cannot be shown so easily by means of pronominalization: a continuation of (750) by means of (750b') is not accepted by all speakers.

750

a.		De brief/Hij	ligt	hier	voor me.
		the letter/he	lies	here	in.front.of me

b.		Ik	heb	[de brief/hem	hier	voor me	liggen].
		I	have	the letter/him	here	in.front.of me	lie

b'.	%	... en	Peter heeft	dat	ook.
		... and	Peter has	that	too

That hebben and the bare infinitive may form a verbal complex is clear from the fact illustrated in (751a) that the infinitive may follow hebben in embedded clauses, as a result of which it is separated from its arguments. Unfortunately, it is not possible to appeal to the IPP-effect in order to provide more evidence for this, for the simple reason that the construction does not occur in the perfect tense; example (751b) is unacceptable both with and without the IPP-effect.

751

a.		dat	ik	de brief	hier	voor me	heb	liggen.
		that	I	the letter	here	in.front.of me	have	lie

b.	*	dat	ik	de brief	hier	voor me	heb	hebben/gehad	liggen.
		that	I	the letter	here	in.front.of me	have	have/had	lie

That hebben takes a bare infinitival complement clause finds more support in the fact that PP-complements of bare infinitives may contain the simplex reflexive zich if the latter is bound by the subject of hebben; since weak reflexives must be free in their own clause (see Section N5.2.1.5, sub III, for a more accurate discussion), the bracketed structure in (752) must be an infinitival clause. The intended interpretation is indicated by means of coindexing.

752

Dit bedrijfi	heeft	[vijfhonderd mensen	voor zichi	werken].
this company	has	five.hundred people	for refl	work
'This company employs 500 people.'

The competing analysis according to which the bare infinitive is the head of a bare-inf nominalization cannot be correct; subjects of the input verbs of such nominalizations are never realized as nominal phrases but are left implicit or realized by means of a van/door-phrase.
The discussion above has already shown that the hebben + bare infinitive construction is restricted in unexpected ways; it does not have a perfect form and does not seem to allow pronominalization of its infinitival complement. We continue by discussing some more restrictions. Note first that the infinitive is part of a restricted paradigm, which seems exhausted by the examples in (753), taken from Paardekooper (1986:108).

753

Posture verbs: liggen'to lie', zitten'to sit', staan'to stand', hangen'to hang'

Movement verbs: lopen'to walk', draaien'to turn', rijden'to drive', vliegen'to fly'

Activity verbs: branden'to burn', grazen'to pasture', groeien'to grow', spelen'to play', werken'to work', wonen'to live'

The verbs of posture in (753a) occur very frequently in this construction. They can frequently be omitted without any drastic effect on the meaning of the examples; the examples in (754) with and without the bare infinitive express more or less the same assertion. If there is a meaning difference, it might be that the examples without an infinitive simply express that the referents of the objects are in a specific location, whereas the examples with an infinitive suggest that the referents of the object may be located there for a certain reason: the contract mentioned in (754a), for example, may be in the right place to be consulted if needed, the old computer mentioned in (754b) may be needed as a fall-back, and the laundry mentioned in (754) is likely to hang outside in order to dry.

754

a.	Ik	have	het contract	hier	voor me	(liggen).
	I	have	the contract	here	in.front.of me	lie
	'I have the contract (lying) here in front of me.'

b.	Ik	heb	nog	een oude computer	in de bergkast	(staan).
	I	have	still	an old computer	in the cupboard	stand
	'I still have an old computer (standing) in the cupboard.'

c.	Ik	heb	de was	buiten	?(hangen).
	I	have	the laundry	outside	hang
	'I have the laundry hanging outside.'

The presence of the movement verbs in (755) sometimes seem to trigger a clear difference in meaning in the sentences. Sentences without a bare infinitive simply have a possession reading; the entities referred to by the object are in the possession of the entity referred to by the subject. In sentences with a bare infinitive, on the other hand, the possession reading is less prominent and the focus is more on the fact that the referents of the objects entertain some professional relation to the referents of the subject. This is perhaps not so clear in the case of lopen in (755a), although this example is certainly compatible with the idea that Marie is a farmer, but an example such as (755b) definitely suggests that the three cars are in Groningen for a reason: they are used, e.g., to transport things or persons. Example (755c) does not seem to involve possession at all, but simply expresses that there are at least three turbines running in the power station in question.

755

a.	Marie	heeft	buiten	drie koeien	(lopen).
	Marie	has	outside	three cows	walk
	'Marie has three cows (grazing) outside.'

b.	Jan heeft	in Groningen	drie autoʼs	(rijden)
	Jan has	in Groningen	three cars	drive
	'Jan has three cars (running) in Groningen.'

c.	We	hebben	tenminste	drie turbines	(draaien)	in deze centrale.
	we	have	at least	three turbines	turn	in this power.station
	'We keep at least three turbines (turning) in this power station.'

In (756), we give some examples with the activity verbs branden'to burn', grazen'to pasture', groeien'to grow' and werken'to work'. These examples, too, seem to express a meaning that goes beyond the expression of simple possession.

756

a.	Jan heeft	kaarsen	in zijn kamer	branden.
	Jan has	candles	in his room	burn
	'Jan has candles lit in his room.'

b.	Marie	heeft	buiten	drie koeien	grazen.
	Marie	has	outside	three cows	graze
	'Marie has three cows grazing (outside).'

c.	Els	heeft	aardbeien	in de tuin	groeien.
	Els	has	strawberries	in the garden	grow
	'Els has strawberries growing in the garden.'

d.	Peter heeft	in Groningen	drie mensen	werken.
	Peter has	in Groningen	three people	work
	'Peter has three people working for him in Groningen.'

It looks as if hebben + bare infinitive constructions often have a durative meaning; this is at least what Paardekooper claims for the hebben + lopen construction. If we substitute krijgen for hebben, the construction refers to some future eventuality with a longer duration. However, the complementation options for this verb are even more restricted than with hebben: perhaps this complementation is restricted to wonen'to live' and werken'to work'.

757

a.	Jan heeft/krijgt	een jong stel	naast zich	wonen.
	Jan has/gets	a young couple	next.to him	live
	'There is/will be a young couple living next to Jan.'

b.	Els heeft/krijgt	een nieuwe assistent	voor haar	werken.
	Els has/gets	a new assistant	for her	work
	'Els has/will get a new assistant working for her.'

Another restriction often mentioned is that the infinitival clause normally contains some spatial phrase which can serve as a complementive, like in the examples in (754), or as an adverbial phrase, as in the examples in (755) and (756). That leaving out the complementives in (754) gives rise to a degraded result need not surprise us: the posture verbs normally require a complementive to be present. In fact, it is the possibility of omitting the PP in (758) that should be seen as the surprising thing. We used a percentage sign in (758a) because one of our informants reported to accept Ik heb het contract liggen.

758

a.		Ik	heb	het contract	%(hier	voor me)	liggen.
		I	have	the contract	here	in.front.of me	lie

b.		Ik	heb	nog	een oude computer	(in de bergkast)	staan.
		I	have	still	an old computer	in the cupboard	stand

c.	Ik	heb	de was	*(buiten)	hangen.
	I	have	the laundry	outside	hang
	'I have the washing hanging outside.'

If leaving out the adverbial phrases in (754) and (755) were to have a degrading effect, it would be surprising as these adverbial phrases are normally optional. Our own judgments suggest that there may well be some degrading effect, although it is generally quite mild and differs from case to case and probably also from speaker to speaker.

759

a.		Marie	heeft	?(buiten)	drie koeien	lopen.
		Marie	has	outside	three cows	walk

b.		Jan heeft	?(in Groningen)	drie autoʼs	rijden.
		Jan has	in Groningen	three cars	drive

c.		We	hebben	tenminste	drie turbines	draaien	?(in deze centrale).
		we	have	at.least	three turbines	turn	in this power.station

760

a.		Jan heeft	kaarsen	(in zijn kamer)	branden.
		Jan has	candles	in his room	burn

b.		Marie	heeft	?(buiten)	drie koeien	grazen.
		Marie	has	outside	three cows	graze

c.		Els	heeft	aardbeien	??(in de tuin)	groeien.
		Els	has	strawberries	in the garden	grow

d.		Peter	heeft	??(in Groningen)	drie mensen	werken.
		Peter	has	in Groningen	three people	work

For completeness' sake, the examples in (761) show that in the case of posture verbs, the complementive can also be adjectival or have the form of a verbal particle.

761

a.	Jan heeft	zijn spullen	klaar	staan.
	Jan has	his things	ready	stand
	'Janʼs things are ready.'

b.	Jan heeft	de vlag	uithangen.
	Jan has	the flag	out-hang
	'Jan has the flag hanging out.'

The examples in (762) show that verbal particles are also possible with verbs of movement, but seem impossible with other activity verbs; although zijn kinderen groeien op'his children are growing up' is impeccable, example (762b) seems unacceptable.

762

a.	Marie heeft	drie koeien rondlopen.
	Marie has	three cows around-walk
	'Marie has three cows walking about.'

b.	*?	Jan	heeft	twee kinderen	opgroeien.
		Jan	has	two children	up-growing

References:

Paardekooper, P.C1986Beknopte ABN-syntaksisEindhovenP.C. Paardekooper

⇑ Back to top

About this article

Author(s): Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver

Category: Dutch Syntax

Keywords: Argument ClauseBare InfinitivalClauseInfinitival Argument ClauseNominalizationPronominalizationVerb Cluster

Version: 1.0, January 2016

Version history:

version	editor(s)	date	remarks
1.0	Hans Broekhuis, Norbert Corver	January 2016

report errorprintcite

Jump to:

introduction
references
related articles