English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

I propose a variant of the hypothesis that expressions often formalized with the inchoative operator  become  are really causative constructions without Causers. I test the claims in a detailed semantic and syntactic analysis of most uses of English  get . This verb is of interest because, in most of its uses, it can be analyzed as a spellout of  become  ( cause  [−agentive]  in my system), sometimes enriched with other (e.g., possessive, agentive, benefactive) predications. Claims include (i) that agentive structures like  I got ready  involve morphologically unmarked reflexivization/middle voice, (ii) that the semantic compositionality of  get -passives has been underestimated, (iii) that  get  sheds important light on the nature of directional PPs, (iv) that ditransitive get enriches our understanding of English double object constructions, (v) that  voice  heads may or may not introduce a Causer argument predetermined by the embedded predicate, (vi) that  become  and  cause -type verbs can impose arbitrary selection restrictions on the secondary predicates with which they appear. The semantic analyses are expressed in abstract syntax, but can be translated into other frameworks.

The BECOME=CAUSE hypothesis and the polysemy of get