CONSTRUCTIONS WITH VERBS BITI 'BE' AND IMATI 'HAVE' IN

SERBIAN
1. Introduction
The main aim of this thesis will be to gain an insight into the syntactic nature of the
verbs biti be and imati have in Serbian and the differences in their syntactic structures.
These constructions include copular, expletive, locative and possessive constructions. The
meaning and the use of these two verbs are closely related and they are frequently
overlapping in the before mentioned constructions. This is the reason why, in the syntactic
literature of generative grammar, they are regarded not as lexical verbs, but rather as spellouts of functional heads in syntax.
The first goal of the dissertation will be to determine the difference between the verbs
biti be and imati have in existential (1), locative (2), and possessive constructions (3) and
to see how this is reflected in Serbian considering the fact that existential, locative and
possessive constructions are all considered to derive from the same underlying structure
(Zovko-Dinkovi, 2011). The question is that if these verbs are not lexical items with their
own meaning but just spell-outs of functional heads in syntax, how do the different
interpretations such as existence, location and possession arise. Similarly, it is not clear what
accounts for different interpretations given that locatives, existentials and possessives have
the same underlying argument structure of PredP. Between these constructions, there are
differences in argument structure (whether it is two or one argument verb), case assignment
(whether we use nominative and genitive) and tense distribution (how the structure changes
depending on tense). Also, their semantics is overlapping in certain cases.
Second goal is to determine the difference between the verb biti 'be' in these
constructions and verb biti 'be' in different kinds of copular constructions such as
1

specificational, predicational and identificational based on Higgins (1973) classification. One

of the questions which will be dealt in this research is whether we can apply Moros (1997)
predicate inversion theory, first to existential, locative, possessive constructions with the
verbs biti be and imati have in Serbian and second, in copular constructions, like
specificational and predicational constructions. We will also make a connection with den
Dikkens (2007) phasal approach to these constructions to see if predicative inversion fits into
this framework. However, the main interest of this thesis will be how these structures are
derived syntactically.
The structure of the paper will be the following, in the first part, main characteristics
of the copular constructions will be presented, and their classification and structure will be
explained. The second section is devoted to existential constructions and what are their
claracteristics in Serbian taking into consideration case assignment, agreement and word
order. In the third part, we will discuss the locative and possessive constructions in Serbian
and compare them to existential constructions and see the examples of meaning overlapping.
Furthermore, the main differences and similarities will be mentioned between these
constructions. The final part will be devoted to the syntactic derivation of the verbs have and
be in other languages.
Hystorically, the verb be developed much earlier in languages than the verb have. It is
these two verbs that play the crucial role in tense formation and this is why languages are
divided based on which of these two verbs they use to form compound tenses. The tradition
of treating main verb have as being composed of be and a functional element dates from
Benveniste (1971). This means that the verb have is considered to be form of the verb be and
functional head F. Benveniste (1971) gives the following arguments for his claim. The first
argument is from transitivity, have has a surface subject and object but otherwise behaves as

an intransitive verb. Second, it is cross-linguistically common for languages to express have

as be plus a locative phrase. Other arguments for deriving come from word order.
In the following part of the introduction, we are going to present some of the main
characteristics of these constructions. In (1), the construction is existential, in the present
tense with the verb imati 'have' and the NP is is genitive case with existential quantification
neki some. This sentence is impersonal. Second (2) sentence represents locative
construction with PP in the sentence initial position and the verb biti 'be' in the past tense. The
last sentence (3) represents possessive construction in the present tense with the verb imati
'have'.
(1)

Ima nekih kolaa.

existentials

have3.SG some cookiesGEN.PL

There are some cookies.
(2)

Na stolu je bilo kolaa.

locatives

on table njere cookiesGEN.PL

On the table there were cookies.
(3)

Imam mnogo kolaa.

possessives

have1.SG a lot of cookies

I have a lot of cookies.
There is a body of crosslinguistic evidence suggesting that the copula be should be
treated as distinct from the verb be used in existential-locative sentences (Freeze 1992). This
is why we will too define be in copular constructions. There are four types of copular clauses
with the verb be according to Higgins (1973). Predicational copular clauses have an
individual or entity in sentence initial position and a property ascribed to that individual in
post copular position (4). In both positions there is a NP, which is referential in sentence
initial position followed by the verb be in English and the verb biti in Serbian, but non3

referential in final position. In specificational clauses (5) the property-denoting expression

gubitnik loser is the subject, and the individual-denoting expression Petar is the
complement. Also there is difference in the status of the two constituents with respect to their
referentiality, NP1 seems to be non-referential element, while NP2 is a post copular
referential element. Identificational clauses consist of nonreferential NP1 to (it) and
referential NP2 Petar (6).
(4)

Petar je gubitnik.

predicational

Peter-NOM.SG be-3.SG.PRES gubitnik-NOM.SG

Peter is loser.
(5)

Gubitnik je Petar.

specificational

loser-NOM.SG be-3.SG.PRES Peter-NOM.SG

Loser is Peter.
(6)

To je Petar.

identificational

that be-3.SG.PRES Peter-NOM.SG

That is Peter.

1.

Copular clauses
Firstly, we will mention a few general facts about predicate inversion and small

clauses which are present in every copular construction. Stowell (1981) argued that every
maximal projection of a lexical element is potentially a small clause (SC). He first introduced
the idea of a small clause complement of the copula be, which is illustrated in example (7). In
other words, the bracketed sequences form a phrase, and since this phrase involves a subject
and predicate, it represents a clause.
(7) Mary saw [SC John very angry.]

Bowers (1993) proposed a uniform structural manifestation for predication in general.

He argued that by positing the functional layer Predicative phrase (PredP), we can unify all
predicative relations, including those found both in small clauses and main clauses. The
specifier position of PredP is the subject position and the complement is the predicate, thus
preserving the c-command relation between subject and predicate proposed by Williams
(1980), as well as the constituency of the subject and the predicate assumed by SC-theory.
Predication is then defined by the structural relation between the specifier and the
complement of the functional head PredP which represents copula BE. In example (8) PredP
takes two arguments.
(8) John is very angry.
DPref

DPpred

Predicate inversion will be one of the most important aspects of this research and it
implies changing the position betnjeen a referential element representing the subject and the
predicate of a clause. The approach will rely on the predicate inversion analysis of Moro
(1997). On Moros analysis, if the subject moves past the copula the result is a predicational
sentence (9a). If the predicate moves to subject position, the result is a specificational
sentence (9b).
(9) a. Subject be [SC <Subject> Predicate] predicational sentence
b. Predicate be [SC Subject<Predicate>] specificational sentence

From Heycock (2012), we can see that in specificational clauses some of the
languages like English show consistent NP1 agreement, while other languages like Italian or
Russian show NP2 agreement. Serbian also falls into the latter category, showing consistent
NP2 agreement, which speaks in favor of the argument that in specificational clauses NP2 is
a syntactic subject. Also, NP2 is always in nominative case which is another argument in
favor of treating NP2 as a syntactic subject.
In English, there is consistent agreement of the copula with the initial noun phrase or
NP1 (11), which is completely different from the languages previously presented. This can be
taken as an indication that in English NP1 is treated as a syntactic subject in specificational
clauses instead.
(11) The real problem is/*are your parents.

There is a consistent NP2 agreement (12), which is why we treat it as the syntactic
subject and it is an argument in favor of the predicate inversion analysis. In Serbian, syntactic
subject is always in nominative, regardless of its clausal position, and in specificational
clauses NP2 is always in nominative (12). In the examples (13a) and (13b) we can see that
NP1 agreement is not possible in these constructions and that it is always with the NP2.

(12)

Pretnja su zatvaranje fabrika i unitavanje preduzea.

threat-NOM.SG be-3.PL.PRES closing factories-NOM.PL and destruction companies-NOM.PL
The treat is closing of the factories and the destructions of companies.

(13) a) Problem su nai roditelji.

problem-NOM.SG be-3.PL.PRES our parents-NOM.PL
The problem is our parents.
b) *Problem je nai roditelji.
problem-NOM.SG. be-3.SG.PRES our parents-NOM.PL
The problem is our parents.
In predicational clauses, agreement is always with the NP1, which shows that in these
clauses NP1 is considered to be the syntactic subject (14 a). In addition, it is always in
nominative.
(14) a) Petar i Marko su problem.
Peter-NOM.SG and Marco-NOM.SG be-3.SG.PRES problem-NOM.SG
The problem are Peter and Marco.
b) *Petar su pobednici.
Peter-NOM.SG be-3.PL.PRES winners-NOM.PL
*

Peter are winners.

2. Existentials
Many researchers consider that existential and possessive constructions derive from
locative and that existential constructions are implicitly locational. The overlapping of these
terms happens because the categories of possession, existence and location derive from
human understanding that everything that exists, exists on a certain place and that everything
that is possessed has to exist first. In Serbian, one of the most important general
7

characteristics of existentials are case distribution and tense alternations (ori 2013). Firstly,
in Serbian there is no overt existential element like there in English. Instead, there is an
impersonal construction typically consisting of a verb, a noun phrase following that verb and
an optional PP which adds a locational component to the meaning. In Serbian, existential
constructions appear with two types of verbs, biti be and imati have. In present tense,
existential sentences are formed with the verb imati have (15a) and in all other tense forms,
the verb biti be is used (15b, 15c) and these two verbs are never interchangeable. However,
in Serbian there is another verb with the meaning of the verb be in English and that is the
verb biti. The argument structure of both verbs contains just one argument, which is the
logical subject. As Serbian is a pro-drop language, no expletive appears in the subject
position.
(15) a. Ima nekih kolaa (na stolu).
have3.SG.PRES some cookiesGEN.PL on table
There are some cookies on the table.
b. Bilo je nekih kolaa (na stolu).
be3.SG.PAST some cookiesGEN.PL
There were some cookies at the table.
c. Bie nekih kolaa na stolu.
be3.SG.FUT some cookiesGEN.PL
There will be some cookies at the table.
In existential sentences there is no grammatical subject, but only the logical or
semantic subject, which has the theta role of Theme. It is usually genitive case-marked, but it
can also appear in nominative depending on the singularity or plurality of the verb. In
existential constructions, the verb and the noun phrase following it do not agree in phifeatures (16a) and agreement is default (Zovko-Dinkovi, 2011). These constructions are

impersonal and have the morphological form of 3rd person singular Present Tense. The only
exceptions are personal existential constructions in the Simple Past, where NP is nominative
case-assigned (16b). Only in this case does the verb agree in phi-features with the noun
phrase.
(16) a. Ima/*Imaju dobrih razloga da se to uradi.
have3.SG.PRES/have3.PL.PRES good reasonGEN.PL to it do
There are good reasons to do it.
b. U tom mestu bio je deiji vrti.
there be3.SG kindergartenNOM.SG in that place
There was a kindergarten in that place.
With existentials, the neutral word order is V-LOC-NP (17a) or it can be as well V-NPLOC (17b). The marked word order is LOC-V-NP (17c) or V-NP-LOC (17d). Location is
optional and can be dropped in all cases.
(17) a. Ima (ovde) nekih ljudi koji hoe samo da razgledaju.
has (here) some peopleGEN who want just to sightsee
There are (here) some people who just want to sightsee.
b. Ima nekih ljudi koji hoe samo da razgledaju (ovde).
has some peopleGEN who want just to sightsee (here)
c. (Ovde) ima nekih ljudi koji hoe samo da razgledaju.
(here) has some peopleGEN who want just to sightsee
d. Ima nekih ljudi (ovde) koji hoe samo da razgledaju.
has some peopleGEN (here) who want just to sightsee
When we look at affirmative sentences in Present Tense, we see that bare singular count
nouns cannot occur on their own. They have to be preceded by quantifying expressions jedna/-an/ -no one or nek-a/-i/-o some (18a). In this case, noun appears in nominative and the
meaning of this construction is partitive and non-specific. This example supports the idea
9

about existential quantification, which means that in every existential construction, there is
always an implicit quantifying expression (Hartman, 2008).
Genitive case is not typically used in affirmative sentences in singular and this is because
of the partitive character of this construction. This sentence is not acceptable due to semantic
reasons (18b). When plural form is used, we can use genitive case without the need for
quantificational element (18c). However, it is not possible to form existential sentence by
using nominative plural form.
(18)

a. Ima *(jedna) knjiga na stolu.

there is one bookNOM.SG on the table
b. ?Ima knjige na stolu.
there is bookGEN.SG on the table
c. Ima knjiga na stolu.
there are booksGEN.PL on the table
d. *Ima knjige na stolu.
there are booksNOM.PL on the table

In the past tense, nominative is used when the form of existential construction is finite or
when the verb agrees with the noun phrase in phi-features (19). The difference in position of
the main verb and auxiliary verb influence the interpretation of the sentence. When the main
verb precedes auxiliary verb, the meaning of the sentence is existential; however, when the
auxiliary verb precedes the main verb, the meaning of the verb biti be changes into
locational.
(19) a. U tom mestu bio je deiji vrti.
there be3.SG kindergartenNOM.SG in that place
There was a kindergarten in that place.
b. U tom mestu bili su deiji vrtii.
10

there be3.PL kindergartensNOM.PL in that place

There were kindergartens in that place.
In affirmative and negative sentences in the past, the construction is always not finite
when N is genitive case-marked. It means that when genitive appears on a noun, there is no
agreement between the verb and logical subject (20a and 20b).
(20) a. U tome mestu nije bilo deijeg vrtia.
there be3.SG. no kindergartenGEN.SG in that place
There was no kindergarten in that place.
b. U tome mestu nije bilo deijih vrtia.
there be3.SG no kindergartenGEN.PL in that place.
There were no kindergartens in that place.
Creissels (2010) discusses case-assignment in existential constructions.
In the existential use of the transitive possession verb imati, the possessee reanalyzed as the figure
in a spatial configuration has undergone a change in its case marking properties resulting in the possibility of
nominative marking. This change, which probably started with the reanalysis of accusative forms
homonymous with the nominative, reinforces the distinction between the existential construction and the
transitive possessive construction from which it developed. () Note however that, in spite of its possibility
of nominative marking, the NP representing the figure in the existential construction with imati cannot be
analyzed as an inverted subject in a more or less canonical intransitive construction, since in the plural, the
genitive must be used in conditions in which intransitive subjects (even in postverbal position) are normally
in the nominative, and the verb does not show plural agreement.
(Creissels, 2010: 56)

Taking into consideration the syntactic structure of existential constructions in

Serbian, Hartmann (2008) proposed that the core of these sentences is Pred EXP, with a
(locative) PP in its specifier position and a nominal phrase in complement position. The noun
phrase is embedded in an additional functional layer FP njhich is responsible for genitive
11

case-marking. There is also a silent head QP which represents NUMBER or AMOUNT and is
responsible for existential interpretations of the sentence. The presence of the silent noun
blocks the agreement of the verb with the embedded noun phrase.

3. Locatives and Possessives

In some cases, the existential meaning can be substituted with the meaning of location.
The meaning of the verb imati have can be substituted njith the verbs postojati to exist and
nalaziti se there is. These two meanings are both derived from the meaning of possession
and in certain cases the division between existence and location is not clear-cut and there is
overlapping. Some sentences can have both a locational and existential reading (21). This can
be understood, in the existential interpretation, that the book exists on the table, and in the
locative meaning, that its position is on the table. The argument structure of locative
constructions is different from existentials in that it requires two arguments, a logical subject
which is present in existentials, too and an obligatory PP element. In the existential sentences
PP is optional.

12

(21)

Ima knjiga *(na stolu).

have3.SG bookGEN.PL on table
There are books on the table.
This semantic overlapping will too be explained in the following paragraphs. In the next

example, inanimate objects are used njith affirmative sentences in the singular. We can
conclude that in all the cases the nouns are [+specific] and that they are combined with the
number jedan/-na/-no one. In these cases (22a, 22b) they denote the meaning of location.
However, when instead of jedna the quantifier neki/-a/-o some is used, the locational
meaning changes into existential (22c). It is important to mention that in existential sentences
it is typical for existential quantification to arise.
(22) a. Ima jedna peina u planini.
have3.SG one caveGEN.SG in mountain
There is a cave in the mountain.
b. Ima jedna knjiga na stolu.
have3.SG one bookGEN.SG on table
There is a book on the table.
c. Ima neka knjiga na stolu.
have3.SG some bookGEN.SG on table
There is some book on the table.
When we make a comparison with other languages, we can see that in Russian
existentials and possessives are similar constructions. The position of the PP inside the clause
is the element which plays the crucial role in determining the type of the construction.
According to Freeze (1992), predicate inversion theory can be applied to Russian. In the case
of existentials and possessives, the PP moves to sentence initial position and this is how the

13

meaning of location is changed into existential or possessive (23). Every time the PP is in
sentence final position the meaning is locative; if not, it is existential or possessive.
(23) a. Kniga byla na stole.

locative

bookNOM njas on table

The book is on the table.
b. Na stole byla kniga.

existential

on table njas bookNOM

There njas a book on the table.
c. U menja byla kniga.

possessive

at me njas bookNOM
I had a book.
In Serbian, existentials differ from locatives in several respects. In line with Freeze's
observation, they differ with respect to word order in neutral sentences. In existential
structures, the position in front of the verb is empty, in locative structures, the subject appears
in the first position.
(24) a. Ima nekih studenata (ovde) koji hoe samo diplomu.
There are some students (here) who just want the certificate.'
b. Neki studenti su *(ovde) koji hoe samo diplomu.
'Some students are here who just want the certificate.'
Apart from this difference in word order, however, there are five other differences
between existential and locative sentences in Serbian. First, just like in English, the PP is
optional in existential sentences, (25a) whereas in locative sentences it has to be overtly
present (25b). Second, in present tense, existentials use the verb ima 'have', while locatives
are formed with the copular verb biti 'be'. In past tense both paradigms use auxiliary and the
participle of 'be'.

14

(25) a. Bilo je nekih knjiga (u sobi).

'(The) books were on the table.'
b. Knijge su bile *(na stolu).
'(The) books were on the table.'
Third, in past tense, the participle moves to the first position in the existential
structure, while it is preferably the subject that moves in the locative structure. Fourth, in
existential sentences, the verb and the noun phrase cannot agree in phi-features, (26a), it has
to turn up in 3SG.N. In locative sentences the verb and subject have to agree (26b).
(26) a. *Imaju dobrih razloga da se to uradi.
'There are good reasons to do it.'
b. *Dobri razlozi da se to uradi je u ovoj tabeli.
'The good reasons to do it are in this chart.'
Finally, in locative structures the agreeing noun phrase is case-marked nominative,
while in existential sentences, the noun phrase is usually marked genitive as seen in all the
examples above. For the locative structure, we assume a standard PredP analysis following
Bowers (1993) and follow-up work. The subject moves from the base position to the preverbal position, just as subjects of verbs do. Subject-verb agreement applies the same way it
does with other subject-verb structures, and nominative case is assigned. As the PP is the
predicate in these structures, it is obligatory. Namely that in Serbian the copula is have in the
present tense, and be in the past tense. We take this to be a surface effect of the spell-out of
the combination of PredEX and tense, which is ima. In past tense, PredEX incorporates into the
participle head, and is spelled out as the neuter third person singular participle of the verb
'be', which is bilo. Under this analysis, ima 'have' is not the existential copula, but the tensed
realization of the existential Pred-head. (Hartmann, 2008)

15

There are also sentences which denote the meaning of quantity and here it is possible
to substitute verb ima have with genitive case with the verb biti be with genitive. However,
the syntactic structure of the sentence changes and while the first sentence is impersonal, the
second sentence represents copular construction with the verb be.
(27) Ima sve manje muzike / Muzike je sve manje.
(28) Ima sve vie studenata / Studenata je sve vie.
Ima/nema in the present tense can be rarely substituted with biti be or postojati
exist if the sentence has NP in genitive like the example (28) (Grickat 1961). Examples like
(29a) show the overlapping of existential and possessive meaning in the sentence. This
sentence can have two meanings, first is that a good ice cream exists and this meaning is
existential. If the meaning is focused on the location where the ice cream is sold, the meaning
is purely locational. The sentence (29b) represents possessive meaning and the verb imati
have in the present tense is not impersonal like in other two constructions.We can see that
the meaning mosly depends from the context of the sentence.
(28) a. Ovde ima ena i dece.
There are women and children here.
(29) a. Tamo ima dobar sladoled.
There is a good ice cream.

16

b. Tamo imaju dobar sladoled.

They have a good ice cream there.
In Serbian, possessive meaning can be expressed in two ways. The first one is
adjectival-predicative possessive construction (30a) (Klajn, 2014). It consists of the verb biti
be, which agrees with the subject in nominative and pronoun. The second construction is
the predicative possessive construction (30b) which consists of the verb imati have which
agrees with the subject. The argument structure of possessives in Serbian is completely
different from the other two constructions. The verb imati have in these sentences has a
personal forms ima / imate / imamo / imaju. In Serbian, the verb imati is also used in other
tenses like past (31a) or future tenses (31b). In these examples, we see the overlapping of
possessive and existential meaning with the verb imati have. Despite the fact that this is
typical possessive construction with nominative, personal form of the verb imati and
accusative or partitive genitive, the meaning is existential and the sentence has an
interpretation that there is a bus at three which you can use. When the subject of the sentences
possesses something made of certain material genitive case is used and we express partitive
meaning. However, accusative case is used only for concrete objects like in (32).
(Arsenijevi, 2012).
(30) a. Haljina joj je lepa.
dressSG.NOM her be3.SG pretty
Her dress is pretty.
b. Ti ima zlatne ruke.
you have2.SG golden hands
You have golden hands.
(31) a. Imali ste autobus u tri.
You had a bus at three oclock.

17

b. Imat ete autobus u tri.

You will have a bus at three.
(32) Imam vodu, a ne vino.
I have water, not wine.

4. Syntactic structure
The verbs be and have are related and existential, locative and possessive
constructions are all derived from the same underlying structure PredP. They are regarded not
as lexical verbs, but rather as spell-outs of functional heads in syntax. What is important is to
see if there is a difference between the verbs be and have in existential-locative sentences and
how this is reflected in Serbian. There is also a cross linguistic evidence suggesting that the
copula BE should be treated as distinct from the verb BE used in existential-locative
sentences (Freeze 1992). If BE is not a lexical item with its own meaning but just a spell-out
of functional heads in syntax, it is not clear how the different interpretations such as existence
and location arise. Similarly, it is not clear what accounts for the different interpretations
given that locatives, existentials and possessives have underlyingly the same argument
structure. This would again amount to saying that there are crosslinguistically two
different BEs: (i) a BE without [uP], and (ii) a BE with [uP]. While the first BE, spelled out
as be, gives rise to a PP possessor, the second BE, spelled out as have, gives rise to a
nominal possessor.
Freeze (1992) observes that locatives, existentials, and possessive 'have' statements all
seem to have the same underlying syntactic structure in universal grammar (UG). He
proposed that the underlying structure of locative statements and existential statements differ
only in the ordering of the theme and location. Moreover, Freeze argues that languages which

18

use a proform 'there' as subjects in existential statements, such as English, are deviations from
this and thus exceptions to what is otherwise observed cross linguistically. In other words, for
most languages, the underlying structure of an existential statement is one where the locative
argument is the subject of the sentence whereas the underlying structure of a locative
statement has the theme as the subject. To account for Freeze facts pointed out above in
recent minimalist terms, one would presumably have to assume that BE might have an
uninterpretable [P]-feature, forcing a P-into-BE incorporation. The possessor phrase is the
complement of a locative prepositional head with a Case feature (in English, this P-head is
phonologically null). Given this, we will actually expect that the possessor phrase is case
marked by the locative P already in situ before P moves to BE. But then, the possessor phrase
would be case marked twice assuming that it moves to SpecTP (i.e., undergoes an Agree
relation with T), or alternatively, it would not be allowed to undergo an Agree relation with T.

Recent work (Bjorkman, 2011) also assumes that have aux is composed of be and a
locative preposition. F head-moves and incorporates into be, meaning that have is composed
of be and a locative functional head. In both structures, the possessor asymmetrically ccommands the possessum. The lower DP moves past the higher locative expression in beconstructions, but the possessum cannot move across the possessor in have-constructions.
This is because F bears a [+LOC] feature and Agrees with the [+LOC] possessor, attracting it

19

to its specifier. In some languages, there is morphological evidence for this, as auxiliary have
is realized as be + an aspectual particle that is homophonous with or related to a preposition.
PP-fronting is analyzed as an instance of Predicate Inversion, an A-movement. BE is
a surface phonetic realisation of the aspectual head F with an Agr-head incorporated into it.
The complex F-head resulting from P-to-Agr-to-F-movement is realised on the surface as
have, not be, due to the fact that the Agr-head that incorporates into F has come in the
possession of the dative prepositions Case-feature. (Belvin and den Dikken 1997:155) In
this example AgrP is the small clause composed of a subject in its specifier and a predicate
locative phrase there as its predicate. The predicate raises to become the new subject at FP's
Spec while Agr is also forced to raise to and adjoin to F. In such structures, Belvin and den
Dikken assume, Agr+F is always spelled out. Belvin and den Dikken further extend this
analysis to possessive have constructions, arguing that the distinction between existential
statements and possessive 'have' statements is made by the ability to assign Case, which they
assume is due to preposition incorporation into Agr. Although 'have' statements begin with
the same underlying structure as existentials, in these constructions the preposition of the
locative predicate incorporates into Agr before Agr moves higher in the structure. As a
consequence, when the predicate inverts with the subject and forces Agr to raise, the
preposition raises as well. It is this Agr+P combined with the aspectual mood at F, that
becomes realized as 'have' as example shows. The differences between existentials and
possessive constructions are fully spelled out in the structures below.

20