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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Lingua 2013-07, Vol.131, p.217-230
Hauptverfasser: Horvath, Julia, Siloni, Tal
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
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