Criteria adopted

The large Oxford English Dictionary lists twenty-seven senses of have, sixty-four of give and ninety-four of take. Each of these verbs shows a very varied set of syntactic usages. In view of this, it is important that I should give explicit criteria to define the constructions I am describing, which will serve to distinguish them from other constructions involving have, give and take.

The criteria I adopt relate to: (a) form; (b) meaning; (c) adverb/adjective correspondence; and (d) preservation of peripheral constituents. In discussing these it will be useful to refer to a ‘basic sentence’ and then to a peripheral HAVE A, GIVE or TAKE A correspondent of this, e.g. Mary walked in the garden is a basic sentence, and Mary had a walk in the garden is a periphrastic HAVE A version of it.

(a) Form

A periphrastic construction should show (i) the same subject as the basic sentence; (ii) have, take or give as the main verb; (iii) the base form of the verb of the basic sentence as head of a postpredicate NP, preceded by the indefinite article a or an.

I had a kick of the ball is a bona fide HAVE A construction, as can be seen by comparison with I kicked the ball. But I had a kick from the horse is not a HAVE A correspondent of The horse kicked me since the two sentences have different subjects.

I am here adopting the quite restrictive condition that a plain verb base (not a derived form) must occur, with a, in an NP following have, give or take. John and Mary had a chat about the accident is an instance of the HAVE A construction, since it relates to the basic sentence John and Mary chatted about the accident. But John and Mary had a discussion about the accident is not, since the NP involves a derived noun, discussion, and not the verb root discuss. Relating to John regretted that he had to leave early there is John had regrets about leaving early, but this does not satisfy the criterion since the post-verbal NP is regrets rather than a regret. (It also fails criterion (d) concerning peripheral constituents, since the basic sentence involves a THAT complement clause and the have construction shows preposition about plus an ING clause.)

Nominalizations, derived from verbs. Most nominalizations involve a morphological process, which is generally a suffix such as -ing, -tion or -ment. But some use zero derivation, where the nominalization has the same form as the verb, e.g. wound, cart, offer. There are just a few instances where a Unit-nom or State-nom, involving zero derivation, could conceivably be confused with the base form of the verb in a HAVE A, TAKE A or GIVE A construction. These include run, throw, smile, shout and dread. Compare:

(b) Meaning

We will show that each of HAVE A, GIVE A and TAKE A adds a special semantic element to the basic sentence. Leaving this aside, criterion (b) demands that the periphrastic sentence should have essentially the same meaning as the basic sentence. I looked in the suitcase and I had/took a look in the suitcase satisfy this criterion. But I chanced to see Mary and I had a chance to see Mary have quite different meanings—the first can mean ‘I saw Mary accidentally’ and the second ‘I had the opportunity to see Mary but didn’t avail myself of it’. By criterion (b), I had a chance to see Mary is not an instance of the HAVE A construction that is the topic. (Note also that the can be used in place of a, e.g. I had the chance to see Mary. This is never possible in a HAVE A, TAKE A or GIVE A construction, e.g. not *I had/took the look in the suitcase.)

Criteria (a) and (b) interrelate to give similar results. In John had a talk with Mary, it is the base form of the verb that has become head of the NP, and this sentence does have a similar meaning to John talked with Mary. But in John gave a speech to Mary the NP involves a derived noun (not the verb base speak), and this sentence does have a quite different meaning from John spoke to Mary, confirming that give a speech is not an example of our GIVE A construction.

Corresponding to Mary thought about the party we get the HAVE A sentence Mary had a think about the party, where the NP does involve the base form of the verb. These two sentences have similar meanings—the thinking went on for a period of time (and need not necessarily have yielded any conclusive ideas). Contrast these with Mary had a (sudden) thought about the party, which has a quite different meaning (referring to a flash of inspiration) and also involves the derived noun thought; this sentence is thus not an instance of the HAVE A construction.

(c) Adverb/adjective correspondence

The way in which an adjective provides semantic modification to the head of an NP is similar to the way in which an adverb modifies a verb. Corresponding to an adverb in a basic sentence we would expect an adjective in a corresponding periphrastic HAVE A, TAKE A or GIVE A construction, e.g.

John climbed easily up the rocks/John had an easy climb up the rocks

Mary kissed him passionately/Mary gave him a passionate kiss

Fred looked more closely at the hole in the fence/Fred took a closer look at the hole in the fence

An adverbial phrase describing time or distance in a basic sentence may correspond to an adjective in a periphrastic construction.

And the adverb again may correspond to adjective another:

She looked again at the ring/She had another look at the ring

The condition that there should be adverb/adjective correspondence often helps to distinguish a true HAVE A, TAKE A or GIVE A construction from one of the verbs have, take or give used with an independent noun that has the same form as the verb. In

(1a) She scratched her mosquito bites savagely/for a long time

(1b) She gave her mosquito bite a savage/long scratch

the adverb/adjective condition is satisfied. But now consider:

(2) She gave him a long scratch on the leg

This does not relate to She scratched him on the leg for a long time. It is not the action of scratching which is long; rather, a long wound has been inflicted on him by the scratching. This indicates that scratch is an independent noun in (2), and that this is not an instance of the GIVE a construction.

Drink, as an independent noun, may be the object of a verb like consume, or of have, e.g. He consumed a (or the) drink/a (or the) drink of juice/a (or the) juice and He had a (or the) drink/a (or the) drink of juice /a (or the) juice. Also, corresponding to a basic sentence such as Go on, you drink my new Californian juice we can get the HAVE A construction Go on, you have a drink of my new Californian juice.

The sentence Have a drink is thus ambiguous between these two readings. However, the inclusion of an adverb may help to resolve this ambiguity. Corresponding to Have a sneaky/quick drink of the juice there is Drink the juice sneakily/quickly, the adjective/adverb correspondence showing that this is a true HAVE A construction. On the other hand, corresponding to Have an ice-cold drink it is not possible to say *Drink ice-coldly, showing that drink is here an independent noun.

The dividing lines between similar construction types are seldom water-tight in any language. People do say Have a quick juice, which is a blend of Have a quick drink (the HAVE A construction based on Drink quickly) and Have a juice /drink of juice /drink, which is a different have construction, involving an independent noun as NP head. Still, blends like this are unusual; in the vast majority of cases the adverb/adjective correspondence condition does enable us to distinguish between HAVE A, GIVE A, TAKE A and other constructions involving these verbs.

It will be seen that a number of roots, like scratch and drink, may be used (i) as a verb, whose base form is extended to occurrence in HAVE A, TAKE A or GIVE A constructions; and (ii) as a noun. But there are other roots which may only be used as a verb, not as an independent noun. Carry, for instance, only occurs in an NP within a HAVE A or GIVE A construction, e.g. John gave the baby a carry.

(d) Preservation of peripheral constituents

We will also discuss the syntax of HAVE A, GIVE A and TAKE A constructions. To anticipate: if HAVE A or TAKE A relates to a basic sentence that is transitive, the preposition of is likely to be inserted before the erstwhile direct object, e.g. I smelt the pudding and its periphrastic correspondent I had a smell of the pudding. GIVE A may relate to an intransitive basic sentence including a prepositional NP, with the preposition being omitted in the GIVE  A construction, e.g. Mary winked at John, Mary gave John a wink.

Leaving aside these differences, which involve core constituents, all peripheral constituents of the basic sentence should be exactly preserved in the periphrastic construction. Thus, I always swim in the pool before breakfast on weekdays and I always have a swim in the pool before breakfast on weekdays—here the correspondence of in the pool, before breakfast and on weekdays between the two sentences shows that we are dealing with a bona fide HAVE a construction.

Now consider:

(3a) John painted the wall with Dulux

(3b) John gave the wall a paint with Dulux

(4a) Mary coated the table with wax

(4b) Mary gave the table a coat of wax

Sentence (3b) is a GIVE A construction since the peripheral NP with Dulux has the same form as in the basic sentence. Sentence (4b), in contrast, is a different kind of construction, since it includes the NP a coat of wax where (4a) has coat . . . with wax.

It may be useful at this stage briefly to mention one of the many other constructions involving give, and one of those involving have, that we are excluding from consideration here:

i. The ‘Permissive’ give construction, e.g. I gave Mary a lick of my lollipop, which is similar in meaning to I let Mary lick my lollipop. Compare this with the GIVE A construction I gave my lollipop a lick, corresponding to the basic sentence I licked my lollipop.

ii. The ‘Experiencer’ have construction, e.g. I had/experienced a heart attack/a stab in the back/the misfortune to be dropped from the side/a brainwave/a move to head office.

A fair number of forms that function as verbs and enter into the HAVE A construction also function as an independent noun in the Experiencer have construction. A doctor might say: Go on, cough gently or else they could use the HAVE A sentence: Go on, have a gentle cough. But cough may also be used as a noun, as in I had a bad cough (parallel to I had a headache).

Other Experiencer have sentences are I had/got/received a kick from Mary/a kiss from Mary; these relate to sentences with a different subject, Mary kicked/kissed me. Notice the contrast with the HAVE A verb sentences I had a kick at the ball (basic sentence I kicked at the ball) and, with plural subject, John and Mary had a kiss (corresponding to John and Mary kissed).

Walk enters into HAVE A constructions (e.g. Why don’t we have a little walk before breakfast?). But it is also an independent noun, as in That walk tired me and I had a tiring walk; the fact that the last sentence is Experiencer have and not the HAVE A construction is seen from the failure of the adverb/ adjective criterion (*I walked tiringly is scarcely felicitous). He had a fall is also an instance of Experiencer have; any one of an array of adjectives may be included in the NP (e.g. nasty, awful, serious), but for most of these there is no corresponding adverb that could be used with I fell.

Take also occurs in an ‘Experiencer’ construction, e.g. He took a (bad) tumble, She took a punch in the stomach (relating to Someone punched her in the stomach), She took offence at John’s behavior (relating to John’s behavior offended her).