English presentative sentences with have

English presentative sentences with have Gabriela Brůhová, Markéta Malá (Prague) ABSTRACT The paper explores the potential of English sentences with the verb have to constitute the Presentation Scale. Have-presentative sentences, in which the verb is devoid of its possessive meaning, can be viewed as an alternative to the “full presentative” there-constructions. Both constructions contain an indefinite noun phrase presenting new information, and they share the communicative function of introducing anew referent into discourse, cf. We have along trip ahead of us vs. There’s along trip ahead of us. Presentative sentences with have are described and classified with respect to the animacy, semantics and reference of the subject, the presence of alocative adverbial, and the semantics of the object. KEYWORDS Presentation Scale, have-presentative sentences, locative subject, verbs of existence and appearance DOI https://doi.org/10.14712/18059635.2019.2.3 1. INTRODUCTION “[T]he idea (and necessity) of presenting aphenomenon on the scene represents one of the essential pillars of human communication” (Adam 2013: 9). The linguistic means of presenting phenomena on the scene appear to constitute abroad scale, ranging from prototypical presentation sentences, invariably associated with this function, to those whose presentation function is highly dependent on the context. The paper focuses on one of the syntactic forms employed in English to present anew phenomenon in discourse, viz. presentative sentences with have (ex. 1 a). Havepresentative constructions can be regarded as an alternative to the more frequent “full presentative” there-constructions (ex. 1 b) (Ebeling 2000; Lambrecht 1994; Freeze 1992), as they both contain “an indefinite noun phrase which could be said to present the addressee with new or unknown information” (Ebeling 2000: 1), and their basic communicative function is identical, i.e. to introduce, or present, anew referent into discourse. Apart from these, English has at its disposal anumber of other syntactic forms which perform the same function, such as sentences with the initial rhematic subject (ex. 1 c), sentences with afronted adverbial and subject-verb inversion (ex. 1d), and sentences with alocative subject (ex. 1 e). (1) a. We have along trip ahead of us (Ebeling 2000: 1) b. There’s along trip ahead of us. (Ebeling 2000: 1) c. Aslow cruel smile came over the Witch’s face. (Adam 2013: 66) d. Behind the ornaments were two coloured photographs. (Dušková 2015: 204) e. This road carries alot of traffic. (Dušková 2015: 206) GABRIELA BRůHOVá, MARKÉTA MALá 161 2. ENGLISH PRESENTATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS FROM THE FSP POINT OF VIEW Since the aim of the paper is to explore the potential of presentative sentences with have to constitute the Presentation Scale, it is necessary to explain the conception of the Presentation Scale and the Quality Scale, i.e. two types of dynamic semantic scales which were identified by Firbas (1992: 87) and further elaborated by Chamonikolasová and Adam (2005). According to this theory, every sentence implements one of the two dynamic semantic scales, or in other words communicative perspectives (Chamonikolasová and Adam 2005: 59): the communication can be perspectived either towards or away from the subject. In this dynamic approach to semantics, each element is ascribed one of the dynamic semantic functions (DSFs). The scales reflect functionally the distribution of communicative dynamism (CD)1 and operate ir respective of word order (Firbas 1992; Adam 2013: 14; Chamonikolasová 2010: 87). The identification of the type of dynamic scale depends on the function of the verb in the immediately relevant context. In the Quality Scale, the communication is perspectived away from the subject, towards some quality that is ascribed to it: “[s]omething new (Specification) is said about the subject (Bearer of Quality)” (Adam 2013: 46). In the Presentation Scale, on the other hand, the communication is perspectived towards the subject, whose referent is introduced into discourse. The verb performs the dynamic semantic function of presentation (i.e. it presents something new on the scene), the subject is the most dynamic element (Phenomenon) that is “literally ushered onto the scene” (Adam 2013: 45), the least dynamic element being the Setting of the action (i.e. “usually temporal or spatial items of when and where the action takes place” (ibid.)). It was pointed out by Dušková (2015: 260) that if the verb is to perform the presentation function, “the subject must be context independent: it then has the DSF of aphenomenon presented on the scene.” The verb plays amajor role in the Presentation Scale, as it is the “semantic content of the verb that actuates the presentation semantics of the sentence” (ibid.). The verbs that may perform the function of presentation2 are traditionally divided into two classes: verbs that express existence or appearance either explicitly or implicitly (cf. Firbas 1992: 60). The group of presentation verbs that express existence or appearance explicitly is relatively well-defined and is represented by prototypical verbs like appear, arrive, come, enter, exist, occur, turn up, etc. The second group of verbs expressing the existence or appearance on the scene in an implicit way (i.e. “with sufficient implicitness”, cf. Firbas (1995: 65, cited in Adam 2013: 15)) includes not only intransitive uses of verbs like strike, await, buzz, shine, seize, pour, feed, blow, but also transitive verbs (e.g. fill, flood, brim). The latter group also comprises the verb have, which is discussed in this paper. 1 Communicative dynamism is defined as “the relative extent to which alinguistic element contributes towards the further development of the communication” (Firbas 1992: 8). 2 As pointed out by Chamonikolasová (2005: 61), “[f]rom the static point of view, certain types of verbs are better suited to express existence/appearance, and other types to express quality; considered from the dynamic point of view, however, every verb is capable of functioning within either scale.” 162 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 2/2019 2.1 EXISTENTIAL CONSTRUCTIONS WITH THERE The there-construction is the most frequent realization form of the presentation scale. The existential there functions as the formal (also called ‘dummy’) subject, the verb (typically be) asserts the existence of some person or thing, and the notional subject occurs in postverbal position (Quirk et al. 1985: 1403; Dušková et al. 2006: 353). There are two basic types of there-constructions, namely existential and existential-locative constructions.3 The existential construction4 has the structure there + be + indefinite noun phrase, and it “simply postulates the existence of some entity or entities” (ex. 2) (Quirk et al. 1985: 1406). These sentences can be viewed as “cases in which the final element is omitted as understood” (ex. 2 c) (ibid.). (2) a. There are no exceptions. (Dušková et al. 2006: 353) b. There’s nothing to do. (Quirk et al. 1985: 1406) c. Is there any other business (for the committee at this meeting)? (Quirk et al. 1985: 1406) The existential-locative construction (ex. 3) has the structure there + be + indefinite noun phrase + adverbial, where the adverbial is an obligatory element. The construction expresses the existence of some entity in some place or at some time. The adverbial can occupy either the final or initial position. (3) There was aboy in the room. (Firbas 1992: 59) From the FSP point of view, “existential there in the subject position serves to achieve postverbal placement of the notional, rhematic subject. In this respect, it contributes to the basic distribution of CD” (Dušková 2015: 188–189). The notional subject is typically context-independent and conveys the information towards which communication is perspectived. It carries the highest degree of CD, representing the Phenomenon ushered onto the scene. The verb be has the role of transition and links the thematic and non-thematic part of the sentence (Firbas 1992: 91; Adam 2013: 31). The rest of the sentence, i.e. the existential there and the adverbial (if present), is thematic. In existential-locative constructions the existential there constitutes the theme proper and the adverbial (e.g. in the room in ex. 3) performs the function of the diatheme (i.e. the most dynamic element within the thematic section) (cf. Svoboda 1981; Firbas 1992: 59; Dušková 2015: 203). 2.2 PRESENTATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS WITH HAVE In have-presentative constructions, the elements are also ordered according to the basic distribution of CD (ex. 4). Since the subject is thematic and the object rhematic, 3 In addition to these two basic types of existential sentences, Dušková et al. (2006: 354–355) distinguish two other subtypes of there-constructions, viz. actional (There was aclick in the lock.) and modal (There is no knowing what she may do.). 4 This type of construction is also called the ‘bare’ existential or ‘ontological’ sentence (Quirk et al. 1985: 1406). GABRIELA BRůHOVá, MARKÉTA MALá 163 the construction “seems to implement the Quality rather than the Presentation Scale” (Adam 2013: 148). (4) Every chair had an inscription. (Brůhová and Malá 2017: 29) However, it has been suggested that these sentences with thematic subjects can also be viewed as arealization form of the Presentation Scale (Adam 2013: 69; Dušková 2015: 206; Rohrauer 2013: 154; Brůhová and Malá 2017: 29). In ex. 4, the locative subject (every chair) has the function of aSetting, the verb (had) performs the DSF of Presentation, and the object (an inscription) represents the Phenomenon presented on the locative scene. The presentational function of the construction can be manifested by the alternative expression of the same content using an existential there-construction (There was an inscription on every chair). As the paraphrase with the existential construction demonstrates, the syntactic form with have is asurface structure implementing in its deep structure the Presentation Scale. We argue, therefore, that havepresentative constructions should be regarded as one of the realization forms of the Presentation Scale (Figure 1). Setting Presentation of Phenomenon Phenomenon Presented theme transition rheme Every chair had an inscription. Figure 1.DSFs in the Presentation Scale The presentative function of the construction is enabled by the semantics of the verb have. Have is “stripped of its possessive meaning and is actually semantically emptied in this sense” (Adam 2013: 149); it “contribute[s] to the information conveyed by the sentence to amuch lesser extent than [its] complements, [its] function being reduced to that of ushering anew phenomenon” into discourse (Malá and Brůhová 2019: 252). As illustrated by ex. 4, the subject in have-presentative constructions is typically inanimate and locative. This type is recognized as aseparate type of presentation sentences by Adam (2013) and Dušková (2015), and described in detail e.g. by Brůhová and Malá (2017). Dušková (1999b: 250) considers have and other verbs5 in this type of sentences “quasi-copulative for they merely provide alink between the participants in verbal action without contributing any relevant lexico-semantic feature”. In addition, the presentative have can also occur with animate subjects (exx 5a and 5b). The occurrence of have-presentative constructions with animate subjects was, to our knowledge, first observed by Adam (2013) and by Rohrauer (2015). (5) a. You have people there who hold to the teaching of Balaam… (Adam 2013: 150) 5 The most frequent verbs occurring in this construction are have, bear, wear, hold and contain (Malá and Brůhová 2019: 242). 164 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 2/2019 b. We do not have acomplete consistent theory that unifies general relativity and quantum mechanics, … (Rohrauer 2015: 120) The type of subject is one of the criteria applied by Ebeling (2000) when classifying have-presentative constructions. He distinguishes six categories, which are described and illustrated in Table 1 below.6 category example I The locative subject is coreferential with the (optional) prepositional adverbial; the subject is mostly inanimate The tree has anest in it. II The subject is areferentially unspecified pronoun They hadn’t much snow last winter. III The animate subject has something (alienably possessed) somewhere. He had three hundred of them on board. IV The animate subject refers to agroup of people or an establishment We haven’t any shops on the island. V The object is an abstract notion and is postmodified. The alternative with thereconstruction requires an insertion of afor-phrase. He has agreat deal to be thankful for. VI The object is an abstract notion without postmodification. The alternative with thereconstruction requires an insertion of afor-phrase. Women had no access. Table 1.Classification of have-presentative constructions according to Ebeling (2000) 2.3 HAVEVS. THERE-PRESENTATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS This section describes the similarities and differences between haveand there-presentative constructions. Presentative constructions with have differ from there-constructions in several ways (Ebeling 2000: 227). In there-presentative constructions, the initial position is occupied by the dummy element there (ex. 6 a), while in havepresentative constructions the initial position “is filled by anoun-phrase subject preceding the verb have” (exx 6 b and 6 c) (Quirk et al. 1985: 1411). Thus, the main difference lies in “the overt involvement in the existential process of some person or thing” (ibid.), syntactically represented as the subject in have-presentative constructions. Owing to this participant, “the have-presentative construction can be seen as semantically richer than its impersonal counterpart, the full presentative construction.” (Ebeling 2000: 253). Quirk et al. (1985: 1411) also point out that it is impossible to specify what the semantic role (i.e. the involvement) of the subject is, which can be illustrated by examples (6 b) and (6 c). Ex. (6 b) quite strongly implies that the subject the porter has an agentive role, but in ex. (6 c) the implication is not so straightforward and the subject you could be viewed as arecipient or affected participant. Therefore, 6 Ebeling’s classification is based on 27 English, and 57 Norwegian examples of have-/haconstructions. GABRIELA BRůHOVá, MARKÉTA MALá 165 Quirk et al. (1985: 1412) suggest using the term “affected” for the subject of have-presentatives: “[C]alling it ‘affected’ seems to state the involvement with adegree of generality that satisfactorily accounts for most cases”. (6) a. There is ataxi ready. b. The porter has ataxi ready. c. You have ataxi ready. (Quirk et al. 1985: 1411) Similarly, Lyons (1968: 391–394) argues that the original function of the have-transformation was to bring the ‘person interested’ into foreground: “[…] the ‘subject’ of have is brought into aposition of prominence in surface structure”. Other authors point out similarities between haveand there-presentative constructions. Freeze (1992: 553) notes that haveand there-presentative constructions are very similar and that they are “derived from asingle and maximally abstract syntactic structure […]”. He views both these types as members of “the locative paradigm” since “the normal form of the existential has alocative argument in the subject position”, and the there expletive subject can also be understood as locative (ibid.: 554–5). Chaffey (1980: 53–54, cited in Ebeling 2000: 228–229) sees the similarity between the two constructions in adifferent way. According to him, both constructions denote possession. He notes that all there-sentences are related to an underlying possessive structure and that many of them can be “directly converted into havesentences” (exx7 a–c). (7) a. There are four rooms and akitchen in the house. → The house has four rooms and akitchen. b. There was athunderstorm yesterday. → We had athunderstorm. c. There is aGod. → We have aGod. (ibid.) In addition, Chaffey (ibid.) points out that in certain contexts we prefer there-constructions and in others have-constructions. This depends on whether the referent of the object is a“necessary attribute” of the subject or not. In other words, whether the referent of the object is “inalienably possessed” or a“characteristically associated noun” (i.e. treated as inalienably possessed). Thus, in ex. (8 a) the there-construction is preferred, as “adog is not anecessary attribute of agarden” (Chaffey 1980: 54), whereas in ex. (8 b) “asurface is anecessary attribute of atable”, and therefore the construction with have is preferred (cf. also Heine 1997). (8) a. There is adog in the garden. and NOT: *The garden has adog in it. Cf. The garden has adog cemetery, complete with gravestones. (BNC, AJX: 699)7 b. This table has alovely surface. and NOT: *There is alovely surface on this table. Cf. There was abowl of fruit on the table. (BNC, G17: 2353) 7 Examples followed by the abbreviation BNC were excerpted from the British National Corpus; the brackets include the code of the text and the sentence number. 166 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 2/2019 In addition, Freeze (1992: 583) and Dušková et al. (2006: 354) note that in have-presentative constructions where the referent of the object is not anecessary attribute of the subject (i.e. it is alienably possessed, as nest and brass plate in ex. 9), the sentence is only grammatical if aprepositional phrase is added. (9) a. The tree has anest in it. and NOT: *The tree has anest. (Freeze 1992: 583) b. The door has abrass plate on it. (Dušková et al. 2006: 354) In examples (9 a) and (9 b), the location is expressed twice, in the locative subject (the tree, the door) and in the prepositional phrase performing the adverbial function (in it, on it). In these sentences the subject and the complement of the preposition are clearly co-referential (cf. “the doubled expression of the locative reference” (Adam 2013: 149)). 3. MATERIAL AND METHOD The material was drawn from the English fiction and non-fiction sub-corpus of the parallel translation corpus InterCorp, version 10.8 The size of the sub-corpus used is 20 917 278 tokens. It comprises 185 original English texts, most of them fiction published in the latter half of the 20th and in the 21st century. The instances of have-presentative sentences were excerpted using aquery searching for sentences with lexical have (lemma) as the predicate (cf. Ebeling 2000: 239).9 The randomised results of the query were checked manually to exclude nonpresentative uses of have. The initial 100 have-presentative sentences were selected in this way to form what will be referred to as the basic data-set here. All quantitative results presented in this study as well as the classification of have-presentatives are based on the basic data-set. Since the frequency of some of the categories of have-presentative sentences in the basic data-set was too low to allow more detailed description, further, narrower searches were performed where possible in order to excerpt specific types of haveconstructions, such as the constructions with double location (e.g. …one book had adark stain on it that looked horribly like blood) or those with animate generic subjects (e.g. Everyone has something in their life about which they are profoundly ashamed). The most problematic issue in compiling the basic data-set proved to be the selection of sentences in which have performs the presentative function. Assuming functional equivalence of thereand have-presentatives, the main criterion for recognizing asentence as the have-presentative construction was the possibility to transform it to athere-presentative construction. In other words, if the alternation with the existential or existential-locative there-construction was possible, the sentence was 8 Klégr, A.— Kubánek, M.— Malá, M.— Rohrauer, L.— Šaldová, P.— Vavřín, M.: Korpus InterCorp— English, version 10 from 1.12.2017. Ústav Českého národního korpusu FF UK. Praha 2017. Available at http://www.korpus.cz 9 The query excluded post-verbal noun phrases with the definite article. GABRIELA BRůHOVá, MARKÉTA MALá 167 included in the analysis (exx 10 a, b). This “may not be the only approach. However, if we believe that one of the uses of the construction is to present the existence or appearance of an entity, then we need some yardstick by which to separate this particular sense from all the other uses of [have]. The full presentative test can be this yardstick.” (Ebeling 2000: 242) (10) a. We must have new solutions to new problems. → There must be new solutions to new problems. b. The room has seven different lamps. → There are seven different lamps in the room. However, it “can be difficult to argue for asameness of meaning in the two alternatives in agiven context” (Ebeling 2000: 239). The alternation may be complicated by the loss of the subject of the have-construction in the there-alternative (see 2.3.), and by syntactic and semantic constrains on inserting the have-subject equivalent in the there-construction (ex. 11). (11) But Ihave aproblem. → ? There is aproblem (for me). The alternation test led to the exclusion of sentences with possessive (ex. 12 a) and causative have (ex. 12 b), and sentences in which have expressed the relationship between the possessor and his/her body parts (ex. 12 c), or akinship relation (ex. 12 d). Near-copular uses of have with eventive objects were also excluded (ex. 12 e). We also decided to remove fixed phrases, such as have no idea/clue (ex. 12 f), where the alternation is blocked. (12) a. Nearly everyone has acar. b. I’ll have him fix it up. / He had them eating out of his hand. c. She had the most amazing eyes, thought Richard. d. She has asister, no other family. e. The doctors can have alook at him there. f. Ihad no idea how to do abankruptcy. 4. ANALYSIS The analysis showed that have-presentative constructions can be classified into four types, summarized in Table 2.The classification draws on Ebeling’s (2000) categories. Three criteria for categorization were applied in steps. First, the animacy of the subject was determined. Animate subjects were further classified according to their reference (generic vs. non-generic). The sentences with an animate, non-generic subject were further divided according to the presence or absence of alocative adverbial. 168 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 2/2019 type example number Σ=100 Iinanimate subject His hotel room had aminibar… 18 II animate, non-generic subject + locative adverbial …the intruder had ashawl of bees on him. 20 III animate subject with generic/group reference We must have new solutions to new problems. 11 IV animate, non-generic subject, no locative adverbial Ihave nothing to say. 51 Table 2.Types of have-presentative constructions 4.1 TYPE I– HAVE-PRESENTATIVE CONSTRUCTIONS WITH AN INANIMATE SUBJECT This type constitutes 18 percent of the basic data-set. Since the inanimate subject is typically locative, this type of have-presentative sentences constitutes an alternative to the existential-locative there-construction (ex. 13). (13) His hotel room had aminibar… → There was aminibar in his hotel room… As demonstrated by the paraphrase with the there-construction, have-presentative constructions with inanimate locative subjects have apresentative function. The semantic category of location is understood quite broadly, comprising also cases where “something is included or contained within something else” (Ebeling 2000: 245; cf. also Levin 1993: 82) (ex. 14). Due to its limited semantics have expresses “abstract relationships of containment, involvement and the like” (Halliday and Matthiessen, 2004: 246). (14) …abook that boasts in its subtitle that it has twenty-three chapters. Apart from the prototypical spatial localization, our data include sentences whose subjects denote time (ex. 15) or some kind of human expression (e.g. voice in ex. 16). (15) Saturdays had aholiday bustle and tension (16) Rodney’s voice was steady and had awarning in it. In five instances the location is expressed twice, i.e. in the subject and an adverbial realized by aprepositional phrase. The adverbial specifies the exact location of the phenomenon. The locative complement of the preposition is either fully coreferential with the subject (knife— it in ex. 17), or constitutes only apart of the subject referent (it (car)— the front, the back in ex. 18). Since the location proper is conveyed by the adverbial in these cases, the subject can be assigned the affected role. (17) Igazed at the knife— it had white paint on it. GABRIELA BRůHOVá, MARKÉTA MALá 175 (41) Let us assume, for astart, that we have aplanet with an atmosphere of between 0.5 and 2 bars pressure… (42) But we have nothing to lose. In example (41) the subject has generic human reference. Such “eternal themes” constitute the theme proper (Svoboda 1983: 55), and have thus been assigned the DSF of Setting. In example (42), the animate non-generic subject is the least dynamic element within the clause due to its contextual dependence. As the theme proper, it can perform the DSF of Setting. Examples (41) and (42) deviate from the generally recognized implementation of the Presentation Scale, where the DSF of Setting is performed “typically [by] temporal and spatial items of when and where the action takes place” (Adam 2013: 14–15). The communicative field of these sentences, however, “is opened by the least dynamic element of the sentence, […], which forms the Setting” (ibid.: 15). 5. CONCLUSIONS The presentational function of all the have-constructions described in the present paper can be manifested by the possible alternative expression of the same content using an existential there-construction. As the paraphrase with the existential construction demonstrates, this syntactic form is indeed asurface structure implementing in its deep structure the Presentation Scale. We argue, therefore, that have-presentative constructions should be regarded as one of the realization forms of the Presentation Scale. Four types of have-presentation constructions were identified. In all four types the verb have is semantically empty, i.e. devoid of the possessive meaning, and thus capable of performing the DSF of Presentation, and the object represents the Phenomenon Presented. The four types differ in the reference and (static) semantic role of the subject and in the presence of the locative adverbial, and consequently also in the realization of the DSF of Setting. We have demonstrated that apart from the inanimate locative or temporal subjects described in detail in literature (Type I), havepresentation sentences can have an animate human subject, with generic (Type III) or non-generic reference (Types II and IV). The semantic role of the animate subjects can be described as broadly affected or as the experiencer/recipient. The adverbial, where present (in Types Iand II), specifies the scene on which the Phenomenon is presented. It may be fully or partly coreferential with the subject, which raises the question of the involvement of the subject in the presentation. Since the subject is the least dynamic element of the clause, it was assigned the DSF of (apart of) of the Setting, even though this may require amodification of the prototypical implementation of the Presentation Scale. Two directions of deviation from the prototypical characteristics of the Setting in have-presentation sentences were identified: asplit Setting, comprising both the subject and the adverbial, and aSetting which is performed by other “circumstantial elements” (cf. Svoboda 1983) than temporal and spatial items. No matter what its (static) semantic role, the Setting always comprises the least dynamic elements of the distributional field. 176 LINGUISTICA PRAGENSIA 2/2019 Our findings corroborate the fact that it is the verb that “actuates the presentation semantics of the sentence” (Dušková 2015: 260) and presents the phenomenon in discourse. The Setting, constituting the theme of the sentence, may allow for some variation. The paper has shown that have-presentative constructions can serve as an alternative to the full presentative there-constructions, both existential and existential-locative. However, they are generally semantically richer than the there-constructions, since apart from the phenomenon presented, they comprise another, often animate, participant involved in the presentation. Funding Acknowledgement This study was supported by the Charles University project Progres Q10, Language in the shiftings of time, space, and culture. REFERENCES Adam, M. (2013) Presentation Sentences (Syntax, Semantics and FSP). Brno: Masaryk University— Faculty of Education. Brůhová, G. and M.Malá (2017) On English Locative Subjects. Acta Universitatis Carolinae, Philologica 1, Prague Studies in English, 19–38. Prague: Karolinum Press. Chaffey, P.N. (1980) Atranslator’s view of ‘it’ and ‘there’. Sprak og sprakundervisning 4/80, 50–55 Chamonikolasová, J. (2005) Dynamic semantic scales in the theory of functional sentence perspective. In: Panevová J. and B.Vidová Hladká (eds) Aleg(r)ace pro Evu. Papers in Honour of Eva Hajičová, 61–67. Prague: Univerzita Karlova. Chamonikolasová, J. (2010) Communicative perspectives in the theory of FSP. Linguistica Pragensia XX/2, 86–93. Chamonikolasová, J. and M.Adam (2005) The presentation scale in the theory of functional sentence perspective. In: Čermák, J., A.Klégr, M.Malá, and P.Šaldová (eds) Patterns. AFestschrift for Libuše Dušková. 59–69. Prague: Modern Language Association (KMF). Dušková, L. (1999a) On the type of definiteness expressed by English possessives. Studies in the English language. Part 1, 260–270. Prague: Karolinum. Dušková, L. (1999b) On some semantic and FSP aspects of the subject in Czech and in English. Studies in the English language. Part 2, 247–272. Prague: Karolinum. Dušková L. (2015) From Syntax to Text: The Janus Face of Functional Sentence Perspective. Prague: Karolinum Press. Dušková, L. et al. (2006) Mluvnice současné angličtiny na pozadí češtiny. Praha: Academia. Ebeling, J. (2000) Presentative Constructions in English and Norwegian. ACorpus-based Contrastive Study. Oslo: University of Oslo, Faculty of Arts. Firbas, J. (1992) Functional Sentence Perspective in Written and Spoken Communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Freeze, R. (1992) Existentials and other locatives. Language 68/3, 553–595. Halliday, M.A.K., and C.M.I.Matthiessen (2004) An Introduction to Functional Grammar. London: Routledge. Heine, B. (1997) Possession: Cognitive Sources, Forces and Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Huddleston, R., G.K.Pullum et al. (2002) The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Lambrecht, K. (1994) Information Structure and Sentence Form: Topic, Focus, and the GABRIELA BRůHOVá, MARKÉTA MALá 177 Mental Representations of Discourse Referents. Cambridge Studies in Linguistics 71. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levin, B. (1993) English Verb Classes and Alternations: a Preliminary Investigation. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lyons, J. (1968) Introduction to Theoretical Linguistics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Malá, M. and G.Brůhová (2019) English presentative semantic patterns as seen through aparallel translation corpus. Languages in Contrast 19/2, 232–255. Quirk R. et al. (1985) AComprehensive Grammar of the English Language. London: Longman. Rohrauer, L. (2013) Syntactic realizations of the presentation scale in academic prose and in fiction. AUC Philologica 3/2013. Prague Studies in English XXVI, 145–158. Prague: Karolinum Press. Rohrauer, L. (2015) Presentation Sentences in Fiction and Academic Prose: aSyntacticosemantic, FSP and Textual View. Unpublished Ph.D. thesis. Prague: Charles University. Svoboda, A. (1981) Diatheme. Brno: Masaryk University. Svoboda, A. (1983) Thematic elements. Brno Studies in English 15, 49–85. Gabriela Brůhová Department of English Language and ELT Methodology Faculty of Arts, Charles University nám. Jana Palacha 2, 116 38 Praha 1 ORCID ID: 0000-0001-5014-7965 e-mail: [email protected] Markéta Malá Department of Linguistics Faculty of Arts, Charles University nám. Jana Palacha 2, 116 38 Praha 1 ORCID ID: 0000-0003-3611-8433 e-mail: [email protected]