Bruening (2018) uses the facts of anaphora and depictive modification to justify non-small-clause analyses of resultative constructions, caused-motion constructions, verb-particle constructions, and double object constructions: these constructions behave differently from canonical small clause constructions in terms of anaphora and depictive modification. In this reply, we argue against treating these tests as reliable diagnostics of small clauses. For one thing, we show that small clauses may have two different kinds of interpretations: they can be either semantically complete or incomplete. For another, Bruening’s (2018) arguments rely on some particular assumptions about anaphora and depictive modification that, we argue, are not without problems. If we adopt another set of reasonable assumptions, those facts of anaphora and depictive modification can be accounted for via the two kinds of interpretations for small clauses and thus do not argue in favor of non-small-clause analyses of the relevant constructions.