In defense of the reflexivization analysis of anticausativization

Horvath and Siloni (2011) argue against an analysis of anticausativization as reflexivization as presented especially by Koontz-Garboden (2009) for languages in which anticausatives exhibit overt reflexive marking. We show that Horvath and Siloni's evidence, when examined in greater detail, either does not argue against such an analysis, or in some cases even supports it.

► Arguments and data in Horvath and Siloni (2011) against the reflexivization analysis of Koontz-Garboden are problematic.
► Some data are more complicated than presented.
► Some arguments are misunderstood.