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 Siloniʹs evidence, when examined in greater detail, either does not argue against such an analysis, or in some cases even supports it.