Is it gramatically correct to say 'She said that she hadn't got any money?

Question

In MyGrammarLab Elementary A1/A2 by Mark Foley and Diane Hall Pearson 2012 I came across the following example sentence in the unit covering Reported Speech statements: 'I haven't got any money.' - She said she hadn't got any money.

In all the texbooks I have ever read they say that we form the negative past simple of any verb with the auxiliary did for all persons and the particle 'not'. Somehow it is not the case here. And they also teach us that the form of 'to have got' in the past simple tense is 'had' NOT 'had got'. So, my question is: is it grammatically correct (because I am interested whether such a sentence would be penalised at any EFL exam a student might take) to make the above changes or not?

The task of the exersice I am citing here is the following: Complete the reported statements with verbs, pronouns or possessives.

In my opinion it is rather unreasonable to give such a controversial example sentence at such a level bearing in mind that students have been exposed to Reported Speech for the first time.

Answer 1

It's more British English than American:

"As though she hadn't got enough V. P. of her own! "

BRAVE NEW WORLD by Aldous Huxley

http://www.huxley.net/bnw/thirteen.html

Theoretically, 'haven't got' changes to 'hadn't got', and 'don't have' changes

to 'didn't have'.

It might depend on whether the exam is American or British.

Answer 2

A good rule of thumb is to remember that have got can be used to mean have¹.

1_{(Though it's very likely that haven't got any money in the example should mean "doesn't have any money", the alternate interpretation in BrE, "haven't obtained/received any money", can't be ruled out. For more details, see the discussion in comments under this answer.)}

---

One interesting point made in The Cambridge Grammar of the English Language (CGEL) on page 112 (which is along the same lines as given in other answers here) is that,

In both varieties [of have got, in BrE and AmE], however, the perfect origin of have got is reflected in the fact that the have component of it is an auxiliary, absolutely incompatible with do (*We don't have got enough tea).
_{(Note that an asterisk (*) denotes ungrammatical usage.)}

Besides mentioning that have got is informal and characteristically BrE, CGEL also mentions that it's usually used in the present tense. From the same page:

Have got is restricted to informal style, but is otherwise very common, especially in BrE. The have or have got has no past participle form (*She had had got a Ph.D.): in this respect it is like the ordinary perfect auxiliary. Unlike the perfect have, however, the idiomatic have also has no gerund-participle: ^%She almost regrets having got a Ph.D. has only the non-idiomatic meaning "having obtained", and hence requires gotten in AmE. The plain form is very marginal: ^?She may have got plenty of money but that doesn't mean she can push us around. The preterite [i.e., the past form] is certainly possible (She had got too much work to do), but it is fairly uncommon: have got occurs predominantly in the present tense.
_{(% indicates the grammatical status is grammatical in some dialect(s) only, and ? of questionable grammaticality.)}

---

So, here is my take-home message:
^{(Note that all have gots below refer to have got when it's used to mean "have".)}

• have got can mean have (but remember that you can't always use have got for have),
• have in have got is an auxiliary verb (so She said she hadn't got any money is fine);
• it's fairly uncommon to use have got in the past tense (so the advice "the form of 'to have got' in the past simple tense is 'had' NOT 'had got'" is sound, even though you can use had as well),
• but above all, remember that have got is informal, and
• it's always safe to write have when you mean have got. ;-)

Answer 3

The general rule that "we form the negative past simple of any verb with the auxiliary did for all persons and the particle 'not'" does not apply to verb 'be' and modal verbs (always) and to verb 'have' (for some people, some of the time).

In present simple, everyone says 'She has some money', most people say 'She doesn't have any money', but some people (usually older, more formal British English speakers) say 'She hasn't any money'. In past simple, everyone says 'She had some money', most say 'She didn't have any money', but some say 'She hadn't any money'.

Arising from this is the use of 'have/has/had' as the auxiliary verb in perfect verb tenses. 'She's got some money' has the structure of present perfect, but most people use it with a present simple meaning. But the use of 'has' as an auxiliary verb leads to the negative 'She hasn't got any money'. Past perfect is then 'She hadn't got any money', which is what we find in the reported speech sentence you are asking about.

So the example sentence is correct, but unusual in many varieties of English, and awkward even in those varieties in which it is used. It's a poor choice for an example in a book aimed at learners. 'She said that she didn't have any money' is more common in most varieties of English.