To Have to be Dative

This paper argues that possessive constructions occur in two varieties, a BE-type and a HAVE-type. The distinction is one of Case-marking: BE-type constructions have a mechanism of Dative case, which HAVE-type constructions lack. It is then argued that double object constructions are similarly of one of these two types. Whereas the possessor/indirect object is licensed with Dative case in BE-type constructions, it is licensed by structural Case in HAVE-type constructions (either. Nominative or Accusative). The difference is traced to differences in properties of the prepositional element responsible for the attribution of the possessor-role: this may either be an overt preposition, or an empty preposition. In the latter case, it may either have case assigning potential of its own, or transmit the case of a governor. It is then shown how these differences in the nature of this prepositional element determine the range of “possessor” constructions within and across languages. At least four different interpretations of possessive relations need to be distinguished: recipient, resultative benefactives, affective benefactives and inalienable possession. While these are homogeneous in terms of their thematic nature, i.e. all involve the notion of possessor, their distribution differs in function of the different properties of the prepositional element.