When hebbento have governs another verb, it is typically used as a perfect auxiliary; cf. Section 6.2.1. However, there is another construction, illustrated in (762), in which hebben does not govern a past participle but a bare infinitive.

The constructions in (762) differ crucially from perfect-tense constructions in that hebben functions as a main verb, as can be seen from the fact that it adds an extra argument to the arguments of the infinitival verb. It looks like we are dealing with a kind of AcI-construction: (763b) shows that the subject of liggen appears as 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 the examples such as (763b) cannot be shown so easily by pronominalization: the continuation of (763b) with (763b') is not accepted by all speakers.

The verb hebben and the bare infinitive can form a verbal complex, as shown by the fact, illustrated in (764a), that the infinitive can follow hebben in embedded clauses, thus separating it from its dependents. Unfortunately, it is not possible to appeal to the IPP-effect as further evidence for this, for the simple reason that the construction does not occur in the perfect tense; example (764b) is unacceptable both with the infinitive hebben and with the participle gehad, i.e. with and without the IPP-effect.

That hebben takes a bare infinitival complement clause is supported by the fact that PP-complements of bare infinitives can contain the simplex reflexive zich if the latter is bound by the subject of hebben; since weak reflexives cannot have an antecedent in their own clause (cf. Section N22.4 for a more detailed discussion), the bracketed structure in (765) must be an infinitival clause. The intended interpretation is indicated by coindexing.

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 realized by a van/door-PP or left implicit.

The discussion above has 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 further restrictions. Note first that the infinitive is part of a restricted paradigm, which seems to be exhausted by the examples in (766); cf. Paardekooper (1986:108).

The posture verbs in (766a) are very common in this construction. They can often be omitted without drastically affecting the meaning of the examples; the examples in (767) assert more or less the same thing with and without the bare infinitive. If there is a difference in meaning, it might be that the examples without an infinitive simply express that the referents of the objects are in a certain place, whereas the examples with an infinitive suggest that the referents of the object might be there for a certain reason: for example, the contract mentioned in (767a) might be in the right place to be consulted if needed, the old computer mentioned in (767b) might be needed as a backup, and the laundry mentioned in (767) is probably hanging outside to dry.

The presence of the movement verbs in (768) causes a clear difference in the meaning of the sentences. Sentences without a bare infinitive simply have a possession reading; the entities referred to by the object are in possession of the entity referred to by the subject. In sentences with a bare infinitive, on the other hand, the possession reading is less pronounced, and the focus is more on the fact that the referents of the objects have some professional relation to the referents of the subject. This is perhaps not so clear in the case of lopen in (768a), although this example is certainly compatible with the idea that Marie is a farmer, but an example such as (768b) definitely suggests that the three cars are in Groningen for a reason: e.g. they are used to transport things or people. Example (768c) with the infinitive does not seem to involve possession at all, but simply expresses that there are at least three turbines running in the power plant in question.

In (769), we give some examples with the activity verbs brandento burn, grazento graze, groeiento grow and werkento work. These examples also seem to express a meaning that goes beyond the expression of simple possession.

It seems that hebben + bare infinitive constructions often have a durative meaning; at least this is what Paardekooper claims for the hebben + lopen construction. If we replace hebben with krijgen, the construction refers to a future eventuality with a longer duration. However, the complementation possibilities for this verb are even more limited than for hebben: perhaps this complementation is limited to wonento live/reside and werkento work.

A restriction that is often mentioned is that the infinitival clause usually contains a spatial phrase that serves as a complementive, as in the examples in (767), or as an adverbial phrase, as in the examples in (768) and (769). That omitting the complementives in (767) leads to a degraded result is not surprising, because posture verbs usually require a complementive to be present. In fact, it is the possibility of omitting the PP in (771a&b) that is surprising; the percentage sign is used in (771a) because not all of our informants accept Ik heb het contract liggen.

It would be surprising if omitting the adverbial phrases in (767) and (768) had a degrading effect, since they are usually optional. Our own judgments suggest that there may well be some degrading effect, although it is generally quite mild and varies from case to case and probably also from speaker to speaker.

For completeness’ sake, the examples in (774) show that the complementive can also be adjectival or have the form of a verbal particle in the case of posture verbs.

The examples in (775) conclude by showing that verbal particles are also possible with verbs of movement, but seem impossible with other activity verbs; although zijn kinderen groeien ophis children are growing up is impeccable, example (775b) seems unacceptable.