In certain theories oflinguistics,thematic relations, also known assemantic roles orthematic roles, are the various roles that anoun phrase may play with respect to the action or state described by a governing verb, commonly the sentence's main verb. For example, in the sentence "Susan ate an apple",Susan is the doer of the eating, so she is anagent;[1]an apple is the item that is eaten, so it is apatient.
Since their introduction in the mid-1960s by Jeffrey Gruber andCharles Fillmore,[2][3] semantic roles have been a core linguistic concept and ground of debate between linguist approaches, because of their potential in explaining the relationship between syntax and semantics (also known as thesyntax-semantics interface),[3] that is how meaning affects the surface syntactic codification of language. The notion of semantic roles play a central role especially infunctionalist and language-comparative (typological) theories of language and grammar.
While most modern linguistic theories make reference to such relations in one form or another, the general term, as well as the terms for specific relations, varies: "participant role", "semantic role", and "deep case" have also been employed with similar sense.
The notion of semantic roles was introduced into theoretical linguistics in the 1960s, by Jeffrey Gruber andCharles Fillmore,[3][2][4] and alsoJackendoff did some early work on it in 1972.[3][5][6]
The focus of these studies on semantic aspects, and how they affect syntax, was part of a shift away fromChomsky's syntactic-centered approach, and in particular the notion of theautonomy of syntax, and his recentAspects of the Theory of Syntax (1965).
deliberately performs the action (e.g.Bill ate his soup quietly). The actions can be both conscious or unconscious. In syntax, the agent is the argument of a transitive verb that corresponds to the subject in English.
Experiencer
the entity that receives sensory or emotional input (e.g.Susan heard the song.I cried).
Stimulus
entity that prompts sensory or emotional feeling – not deliberately (e.g. David lovesonions!).
Theme
undergoes the action but does not change its state (e.g. We believe in oneGod. I havetwo children. I putthe book on the table. He gavethe gun to the police officer.) (Sometimes used interchangeably withpatient.) In syntax, the theme is the direct object of aditransitive verb.
undergoes the action and changes its state (e.g. The falling rocks crushedthe car.). (Sometimes used interchangeably withtheme.) In syntax, the patient is the single object of a (mono)transitive verb.
Instrument
used to carry out the action (e.g. Jamie cut the ribbonwith a pair of scissors.).
Force or natural cause
mindlessly performs the action (e.g.An avalanche destroyed the ancient temple.).
Location
where the action occurs (e.g. Johnny and Linda played carelesslyin the park. I'll beat Julie's house studying for my test.).
Direction or goal
where the action is directed towards (e.g. The caravan continued ontoward the distant oasis. He walkedto school.).
Recipient
a special kind of goal associated with verbs expressing a change in ownership, possession (e.g. I sentJohn the letter. He gave the bookto her). In syntax, the recipient or goal is the indirect object of aditransitive verb.
Source or origin
where the action originated (e.g. The rocket was launchedfrom Central Command. She walkedaway from him.).
Time
the time at which the action occurs (e.g. The pitcher struck out nine batterstoday.)
Beneficiary
the entity for whose benefit the action occurs (e.g. I bakedReggie a cake. He built a carfor me. I fightfor the king.).
Manner
the way in which an action is carried out (e.g.With great urgency, Tabitha phoned 911.).
Purpose
the reason for which an action is performed (e.g. Tabitha phoned 911 right awayin order to get some help.).
Cause
what caused the action to occur in the first place; notfor what, ratherbecause of what (e.g.Because Clyde was hungry, he ate the cake.).
There are not always clear boundaries between these relations. For example, in "the hammer broke the window",hammer might be labeled anagent, aninstrument, aforce, or possibly acause. Nevertheless, some thematic relation labels are more logically plausible than others.
Grouping into the two macroroles of actor and undergoer
In many functionally oriented linguistic approaches, the above thematic roles have been grouped into the two macroroles (also called generalized semantic roles or proto-roles) ofactor andundergoer. This notion of semantic macroroles was introduced byVan Valin's Ph.D. thesis in 1977, developed inrole and reference grammar, and then adapted in several linguistic approaches.[8][9]
According to Van Valin, while thematic roles define semantic relations, and relations like subject and direct object are syntactic ones, the semantic macroroles of actor and undergoer are relations that lie at theinterface between semantics and syntax.[10]
Linguistic approaches that have adopted, in various forms, this notion of semantic macroroles include: the Generalized Semantic Roles ofFoley and Van Valin Role and reference grammar (1984),David Dowty’s 1991 theory of thematic proto-roles,[11] Kibrik's Semantic hyperroles (1997),Simon Dik's 1989Functional discourse grammar, and some late 1990s versions ofHead-driven phrase structure grammar.[3][8]
In Dowty’s theory of thematic proto-roles, semantic roles are considered asprototype notions, in which there is a prototypical agent role that has those traits characteristically associated to it, while other thematic roles have less of those traits and are accordingly proportionally more distant to the prototypical agent.[6] The same goes for the opposite pole of the continuum, the patient proto-role.
In many languages, such asFinnish,Hungarian andTurkish, thematic relations may be reflected in thecase-marking on the noun. For instance, Hungarian has aninstrumental case ending (-val/-vel), which explicitly marks the instrument of a sentence. Languages like English often mark such thematic relations with prepositions.
The termthematic relation is frequently confused withtheta role. Many linguists (particularlygenerative grammarians) use the terms interchangeably. This is because theta roles are typically named by the most prominent thematic relation that they are associated with. Different theoretical approaches often closely tie differentgrammatical relations ofsubject andobject, etc., to semantic relations. In thetypological tradition, for example, agents/actors (or "agent-like" arguments) frequently overlap with the notion of subject (S).
These ideas, when they are used distinctly, can be distinguished as follows:
Thematic relations
are purely semantic descriptions of the way in which the entities described by the noun phrase are functioning with respect to the meaning of the action described by the verb. A noun may bear more than one thematic relation. Almost every noun phrase bears at least one thematic relation (the exception are expletives). Thematic relations on a noun are identical in sentences that are paraphrases of one another.
are syntactic structures reflecting positions in theargument structure of the verb they are associated with. A noun may only bear one theta role. Only arguments bear theta roles.Adjuncts do not bear theta roles.
express the surface position (in languages like English) or case (in languages like Latin) that a noun phrase bears in the sentence.
Thematic relations concern the nature of the relationship between themeaning of the verb and themeaning of the noun. Theta roles are about thenumber of arguments that a verb requires (which is a purely syntactic notion). Theta roles are syntactic relations that refers to the semantic thematic relations.
For example, take the sentence "Reggie gave the kibble to Fergus on Friday."
Thematic relations:Reggie is doing the action so is the agent, but he is also the source of the kibble (note Reggie bears two thematic relations);the kibble is the entity acted upon so it is the patient; Fergus is the direction/goal or recipient of the giving. Friday represents the time of the action.
theta roles: The verbgive requires three arguments (seevalency). In generative grammar, this is encoded in terms of the number and type of theta roles the verb takes. The theta role is named by the most prominent thematic relation associated with it. So the three required arguments bear the theta roles named the agent (Reggie) the patient (or theme) (the kibble), and goal/recipient (Fergus).On Friday does not receive a theta role from the verb, because it is an adjunct. Note thatReggie bears two thematic relations (Agent and Source), but only one theta role (the argument slot associated with these thematic relations).
grammatical relations: The subject (S) of this sentence isReggie, the object (O) isthe kibble,to Fergus is an oblique, andon Friday is an adjunct.
^abcdeBornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., Comrie, B. & Friederici, A. (2009).Introduction - Semantic Roles as a core linguistic concept, pp.1-2, in I. Bornkessel et al. (Eds),Semantic Role Universals and Argument Linking (pp. 1-14). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
You can helpexpand this article with text translated fromthe corresponding article in German. (August 2015)Click [show] for important translation instructions.
View a machine-translated version of the German article.
Machine translation, likeDeepL orGoogle Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia.
Consideradding a topic to this template: there are already 1,774 articles in themain category, and specifying|topic= will aid in categorization.
Do not translate text that appears unreliable or low-quality. If possible, verify the text with references provided in the foreign-language article.
Youmust providecopyright attribution in theedit summary accompanying your translation by providing aninterlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary isContent in this edit is translated from the existing German Wikipedia article at [[:de:Semantische Rolle]]; see its history for attribution.
You may also add the template{{Translated|de|Semantische Rolle}} to thetalk page.
Davis, Anthony R.:Thematic roles. In: Claudia Maienborn, Klaus von Heusinger, Paul Portner (Hrsg.):Semantics: an international handbook of natural language meaning. Vol. 1. Berlin 2011, S. 399–420.handbook of natural language meaning. Vol. 1. Berlin 2011, S. 399–420.
Fillmore, Charles. 1968. The Case for Case. In Universals in Linguistic Theory, eds. Emmon Bach and R.T. Harms. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Fillmore, Charles. 1971.Types of lexical information. In Semantics. An interdisciplinary reader in philosophy, linguistics and psychology, eds. D. Steinberg and L. Jacobovitz: Cambridge University Press.
Frawley, W. (1992).Linguistic Semantics. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.ISBN0805810749. (Chapter V. Thematic Roles, pp. 197–249)
Angela D. Friederici, Anja Hahne, Axel Mecklinger:Temporal structure of syntactic parsing. Early and late event-related potential effects. In:Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory and Cognition. 22–5, (1996), S. 1219–1248.
Gruber, Jeffrey. 1965. Studies in lexical relations, MIT: Ph.D.
Gruber, JeffreyThematic relations in syntax. In: Mark R. Baltin, Chris Collins (Hrsg.):The handbook of contemporary syntactic theory. Blackwell, Oxford 2000, ISBN 0-631-20507-1, S. 257–298.
Harley, Heidi. In press. Thematic Roles. In Patrick Hogan, ed. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Linguistics. Cambridge University Press.
Jackendoff, Ray. 1990.Semantic structures. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
McRae, Ken and Ferretti, Todd R. and Amyote, Liane:Thematic roles as verb-specific concepts. In:Language and cognitive processes. 12-2/3, (1997) 137–176.
Primus, Beatrice:Semantische Rollen. Winter, Heidelberg 2012, ISBN 978-3-8253-5977-5
Primus, Beatrice:Participant roles. In: Nick Riemer (Hrsg.):The Routledge Handbook of Semantics. London 2016, S. 403–418.
Van Valin, Robert (2008)Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2008, ISBN 0-521-63566-7
