d. Beth gave Harry aflower.
[≈Beth caused Harry to receive/get aflower]
e. Beth killed Harry.
[≈Beth caused Harry to die]
f. Beth persuaded Harry to talk.
[≈Beth caused Harry to decide to talk]
(3) Beth V 2 NP X≈Beth cause NP to V 1 XIn cases (a–c) theverbsin (1) and (2) are morphologicallyidentical,in cases (d–f) they are different;but the paraphrase
relation is unifor mthroughout. As Fodor (1970) points out, this paraphrase relation is not exact (see McCawley 1978
and Jackendoff 1990a: ch. 7 for some reasons why);Fodor uses thisas an argumentagainst lexical decomposition. But
the fact that the very same not quite paraphrasable relation occurs over and over, in language after language, suggests
that something of linguistic importance is going on—but not at the level of decomposition into words.
So, following custom, let us introduce an abstract term CAUSE for the semantic element the verbs in (2) have in
common. In many approaches to lexical semantics this is taken as a primitive. However, Talmy 1985 (reanalyzed in
Jackendoff 1990a: ch. 7 and Jackendoff 1996a; an earlier partial analysis is Gruber 1965) shows that CAUSE is not
simplex; it is one of a family of concepts related through feature decomposition. They all invoke a basic situation
involving two characters; one, the“Antagonist,”is trying to get something to happen to the other, the“Agonist.”
CAUsing is a situation in which the Antagonist succeeds in opposition to the Agonist's resistance or inaction. For
instance, in (2a) Beth (Antagonist) acts on the window (Agonist), which would not tend to break (Action)unless Beth
acted on it. But there are other combinations, for example:
(4) a. Beth pressured/urged Harry to talk (but he didn't talk/and he did talk).
[Beth acts in opposition to Harry, possibly not succeeding.]
b. Beth helped/aided/assisted Harry in washing the dishes (but they didn'tfinish/and theyfinished)
[Beth acts in concert with Harry, possibly succeeding]
c. Beth let Harry talk/allowed Harry to talk.
[Beth ceases to oppose Harry]There is no word that expresses the basic function these all have in common; Jackendoff calls it cs, and Talmy resorts
toan annotated diagram. Thetwoanalysesdiffer inthefeatures positedtodistinguishcausing, pressuring,helping, and
letting; but on either analysis the features involved have no simple lexical paraphrase.