@inproceedings{bybel_syntax_2014,
	address = {Coastal Carolina University},
	title = {The syntax of ‘have yet to’},
	author = {Bybel, Kali and Johnson, Greg},
	year = {2014},
	keywords = {Have yet to},
}

@article{harves_licensing_2014,
	title = {Licensing {NPIs} and licensing silence: {Have}/be yet to in {English}},
	volume = {148},
	issn = {0024-3841},
	shorttitle = {Licensing {NPIs} and licensing silence},
	url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002438411400120X},
	doi = {10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.012},
	abstract = {This paper discusses the syntax of the have/be yet to construction in English, as in John has/is yet to eat dinner. As pointed out by Kelly (2008), this construction raises a number of questions. How is the NPI yet licensed? Why is have interpreted as a perfect auxiliary verb, in spite of the fact that it appears to take an infinitival complement, rather than a perfect participle? What accounts for the apparent free alternation between have and be? We argue that have in the have yet to construction is, for many speakers, perfect have, which selects for a silent raising predicate that has negative implicative semantics. This predicate is responsible for licensing the NPI yet. We further show that the apparent free alternation between have yet to and be yet to is illusory. The category of the silent predicate can be shown to be different in each case in a way that is to be expected given independent c-selectional properties of have and be in English.},
	urldate = {2016-07-12},
	journal = {Lingua},
	author = {Harves, Stephanie and Myler, Neil},
	month = sep,
	year = {2014},
	keywords = {Have yet to, Have/be alternations, NPIs, Negation, Yet},
	pages = {213--239},
}

This paper discusses the syntax of the have/be yet to construction in English, as in John has/is yet to eat dinner. As pointed out by Kelly (2008), this construction raises a number of questions. How is the NPI yet licensed? Why is have interpreted as a perfect auxiliary verb, in spite of the fact that it appears to take an infinitival complement, rather than a perfect participle? What accounts for the apparent free alternation between have and be? We argue that have in the have yet to construction is, for many speakers, perfect have, which selects for a silent raising predicate that has negative implicative semantics. This predicate is responsible for licensing the NPI yet. We further show that the apparent free alternation between have yet to and be yet to is illusory. The category of the silent predicate can be shown to be different in each case in a way that is to be expected given independent c-selectional properties of have and be in English.

@article{huddleston_theoretical_1976,
	title = {Some theoretical issues in the description of the {English} verb},
	volume = {40},
	journal = {Lingua},
	author = {Huddleston, Rodney D.},
	year = {1976},
	keywords = {Have yet to},
	pages = {331--383},
}

@inproceedings{bybel_syntax_2014,
	address = {Coastal Carolina University},
	title = {The syntax of ‘have yet to’},
	author = {Bybel, Kali and Johnson, Greg},
	year = {2014},
	keywords = {Have yet to},
}

@article{kelly_syntax_2012,
	title = {The syntax and semantics of infinitival yet constructions},
	volume = {25},
	journal = {Cahiers Chronos},
	author = {Kelly, Justin},
	year = {2012},
	keywords = {Have yet to},
}

@incollection{klima_negation_1964,
	title = {Negation in {English}},
	booktitle = {The {Structure} of {Language}: {Readings} in the {Philosophy} of {Language}},
	publisher = {Prentice-Hall},
	author = {Klima, Edward},
	editor = {Fodor, Jerry and Katz, Jerrold},
	year = {1964},
	keywords = {Have yet to},
}

@article{harves_licensing_2014,
	title = {Licensing {NPIs} and licensing silence: {Have}/be yet to in {English}},
	volume = {148},
	issn = {0024-3841},
	shorttitle = {Licensing {NPIs} and licensing silence},
	url = {http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002438411400120X},
	doi = {10.1016/j.lingua.2014.05.012},
	abstract = {This paper discusses the syntax of the have/be yet to construction in English, as in John has/is yet to eat dinner. As pointed out by Kelly (2008), this construction raises a number of questions. How is the NPI yet licensed? Why is have interpreted as a perfect auxiliary verb, in spite of the fact that it appears to take an infinitival complement, rather than a perfect participle? What accounts for the apparent free alternation between have and be? We argue that have in the have yet to construction is, for many speakers, perfect have, which selects for a silent raising predicate that has negative implicative semantics. This predicate is responsible for licensing the NPI yet. We further show that the apparent free alternation between have yet to and be yet to is illusory. The category of the silent predicate can be shown to be different in each case in a way that is to be expected given independent c-selectional properties of have and be in English.},
	urldate = {2016-07-12},
	journal = {Lingua},
	author = {Harves, Stephanie and Myler, Neil},
	month = sep,
	year = {2014},
	keywords = {Have yet to, Have/be alternations, NPIs, Negation, Yet},
	pages = {213--239},
}

This paper discusses the syntax of the have/be yet to construction in English, as in John has/is yet to eat dinner. As pointed out by Kelly (2008), this construction raises a number of questions. How is the NPI yet licensed? Why is have interpreted as a perfect auxiliary verb, in spite of the fact that it appears to take an infinitival complement, rather than a perfect participle? What accounts for the apparent free alternation between have and be? We argue that have in the have yet to construction is, for many speakers, perfect have, which selects for a silent raising predicate that has negative implicative semantics. This predicate is responsible for licensing the NPI yet. We further show that the apparent free alternation between have yet to and be yet to is illusory. The category of the silent predicate can be shown to be different in each case in a way that is to be expected given independent c-selectional properties of have and be in English.

@article{tyler_microvariation_2019,
	title = {Microvariation in the have yet to construction},
	volume = {19},
	doi = {10.1075/lv.16006.tyl},
	number = {2},
	journal = {Linguistic Variation},
	author = {Tyler, Matthew and Wood, Jim},
	year = {2019},
	keywords = {Have yet to},
	pages = {232--279},
}

@unpublished{tyler_microvariation_2016,
	address = {New Haven, CT: Yale University},
	type = {Unpublished manuscript},
	title = {Microvariation in the have yet to construction},
	author = {Tyler, Matthew and Wood, Jim},
	year = {2016},
	keywords = {2016 Seminar, Have yet to},
}

@article{tyler_microvariation_2019,
	title = {Microvariation in the have yet to construction},
	volume = {19},
	doi = {10.1075/lv.16006.tyl},
	number = {2},
	journal = {Linguistic Variation},
	author = {Tyler, Matthew and Wood, Jim},
	year = {2019},
	keywords = {Have yet to},
	pages = {232--279},
}

@unpublished{tyler_microvariation_2016,
	address = {New Haven, CT: Yale University},
	type = {Unpublished manuscript},
	title = {Microvariation in the have yet to construction},
	author = {Tyler, Matthew and Wood, Jim},
	year = {2016},
	keywords = {2016 Seminar, Have yet to},
}