Anticausatives are weak scalar expressions, not reflexive expressions

Abstract

We discuss conceptual and empirical arguments from Germanic, Romance and Slavic languages against an analysis treating anticausative verbs as derived from their lexical causative counterparts under reflexivization. Instead, we defend the standard account to the semantics of the causative alternation according to which anticausatives in general, and anticausatives marked with reflexive morphology in particular, denote simple one-place inchoative events that are logically entailed by their lexical causative counterparts. Under such an account, anticausative verbs are weak scalar expressions that stand in a semantico-pragmatic opposition to their strong lexical causative counterparts. Due to this scalar relation, the use of an anticausative can trigger the implicature that the use of its lexical causative counterpart is too strong. As usual with implicatures, they can be ‘metalinguistically’ denied, cancelled, or reinforced and we argue that these mechanisms explain all central empirical facts brought up in the literature in favor of a treatment of anticausatives as semantically reflexive predicates. Our results reinforce the view that the reflexive morphemes used in many (Indo-European) languages to mark anticausatives do not necessarily trigger reflexive semantics. However, we also show that a string involving a reflexively marked (anti-)causative verb can be forced into a semantically reflexive construal under particular conceptual or grammatical circumstances.