Anticausatives have no Cause(r): A rejoinder to Beavers and Koontz-Garboden (in this issue)
•A response to Beavers & Koontz-Garboden's reply to Horvath and Siloni (2011a).•We examine and discard BKG's counterarguments one by one.•We present further evidence that reaffirms Horvath & Siloni's conclusion that there is no Cause ingredient in anticausatives. This paper re...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | Lingua 2013-07, Vol.131, p.217-230 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | •A response to Beavers & Koontz-Garboden's reply to Horvath and Siloni (2011a).•We examine and discard BKG's counterarguments one by one.•We present further evidence that reaffirms Horvath & Siloni's conclusion that there is no Cause ingredient in anticausatives.
This paper reaffirms the conclusion of Horvath and Siloni (2011a) that unaccusatives – with or without the so-called reflexive morphology – involve no Cause ingredient whatsoever. Arguments based on the distribution of the modifier by itself, negation, and the Greek cause preposition apo show that. Beavers and Koontz-Garboden's (in this issue) counterarguments to Horvath and Siloni are either based on partial data or confounded by independent factors. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 0024-3841 1872-6135 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.lingua.2013.02.013 |