# Thematic relation

> Mediated Wiki article. Canonical URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Thematic_relation
> Markdown URL: https://mediated.wiki/source/Thematic_relation.md
> Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_relation
> Source revision: 1357164509
> License: Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/)

Linguistic theory giving noun phrases semantic roles

For thematic relations at the syntax-semantics interface, see [theta role](/source/Theta_role).

Grammatical features Related to nouns Animacy Case Dative construction Dative shift Quirky subject Nominative Comitative Instrumental Classifier Measure word Construct state Countability Count noun Mass noun Collective noun Definiteness Gender Genitive construction Possession Suffixaufnahme (case stacking) Noun class Number Singular Dual Plural Singulative–Collective–Plurative Specificity Universal grinder Related to verbs Associated motion Clusivity Conjugation Evidentiality Modality Person Telicity Mirativity Tense–aspect–mood Grammatical aspect Lexical aspect (Aktionsart) Mood Tense Voice General features Affect Boundedness Comparison (degree) Egophoricity Pluractionality (verbal number) Honorifics (politeness) Polarity Reciprocity Reflexive pronoun Reflexive verb Syntax relationships Argument Transitivity Valency Branching Serial verb construction Traditional grammar Predicate Subject Object Adjunct Predicative Semantics Contrast Mirativity Thematic relation Agent Patient Topic and Comment Focus Volition Veridicality Phenomena Agreement Polypersonal agreement Declension Empty category Incorporation Inflection Markedness v t e

In certain theories of [linguistics](/source/Linguistics), **thematic relations**, also known as **semantic roles** or **thematic roles**, are the various roles that a [noun phrase](/source/Noun_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 an [agent](/source/Agent_(grammar));[1] *an apple* is the item that is eaten, so it is a [patient](/source/Patient_(grammar)).

Since their introduction in the mid-1960s by Jeffrey Gruber and [Charles Fillmore](/source/Charles_J._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 the [syntax-semantics interface](/source/Syntax-semantics_interface)),[3] that is, how meaning affects the surface syntactic codification of language. The notion of semantic roles plays a central role especially in [functionalist](/source/Functionalist_linguistics) and language-comparative ([typological](/source/Typological_linguistics)) 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.

## History

The notion of semantic roles was introduced into theoretical linguistics in the 1960s, by Jeffrey Gruber and [Charles Fillmore](/source/Charles_J._Fillmore).[3][2][4] Additionally, [Jackendoff](/source/Jackendoff) 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 from [Chomsky](/source/Chomsky)'s syntactic-centered approach, and in particular the notion of the [autonomy of syntax](/source/Autonomy_of_syntax), and his recent *[Aspects of the Theory of Syntax](/source/Aspects_of_the_Theory_of_Syntax)* (1965).

## Major thematic relations

The following major thematic relations have been identified:[7]

**[Agent](/source/Agent_(grammar))**
- Deliberately performs the action (e.g. *Bill* ate his soup quietly). The actions can be both conscious or unconscious (but unconscious actions are sometimes Force rather than Agent). 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 loves *onions!*).

**Theme**
- Undergoes the action but does not change its state (e.g. I have *two children*. I put *the book* on the table. He gave *the gun* to the police officer. Percival saw *the ball*.) (Sometimes used interchangeably with **patient**.) In syntax, the theme is the direct object of a [ditransitive verb](/source/Ditransitive_verb).

**[Patient](/source/Patient_(grammar))**
- Undergoes the action and changes its state (e.g. The falling rocks crushed *the car*.). (Sometimes used interchangeably with **theme**.) 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 ribbon *with a pair of scissors*.).

**Force or natural cause**
- Mindlessly performs the action (e.g. *The water* destroyed my computer.).

**Location**
- Where the action occurs (e.g. Johnny and Linda played carelessly *in the park*. I'll be *at Julie's house* studying for my test.).

**Direction or goal**
- Where the action is directed towards (e.g. The caravan continued on *toward the distant oasis*. He walked *to school*.).

**Recipient**
- A special kind of goal associated with verbs expressing a change in ownership, possession (e.g. I sent *John* the letter. He gave the book *to her*). In syntax, the recipient or goal is the indirect object of a [ditransitive verb](/source/Ditransitive_verb).

**Source or origin**
- Where the action originated (e.g. The rocket was launched *from Central Command*. She walked *away from him*.).

**Time**
- The time at which the action occurs (e.g. The pitcher struck out nine batters *today*.)

**Beneficiary**
- The entity for whose benefit the action occurs (e.g. I baked *Reggie* a cake. He built a car *for me*. I fight *for 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 away *in order to get some help*.).

**Cause**
- What caused the action to occur in the first place; not *for what*, rather *because 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 an **agent**, an **instrument**, a **force**, or possibly a **cause**. 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) of *actor* and *undergoer*. This notion of semantic macroroles was introduced by [Van Valin](/source/Van_Valin)'s Ph.D. thesis in 1977, developed in [role and reference grammar](/source/Role_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 the [interface between semantics and syntax](/source/Syntax%E2%80%90semantics_interface).[10]

Linguistic approaches that have adopted, in various forms, this notion of semantic macroroles include: the Generalized Semantic Roles of [Foley](/source/William_A._Foley) and Van Valin Role and reference grammar (1984), [David Dowty](/source/David_Dowty)’s 1991 theory of thematic proto-roles,[11] Kibrik's Semantic hyperroles (1997), [Simon Dik](/source/Simon_Dik)'s 1989 [Functional discourse grammar](/source/Functional_discourse_grammar), and some late 1990s versions of [Head-driven phrase structure grammar](/source/Head-driven_phrase_structure_grammar).[3][8]

In Dowty’s theory of thematic proto-roles, semantic roles are considered as [prototype notions](/source/Prototype_theory), 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.

## Relationship to case

In many languages, such as [Finnish](/source/Finnish_language), [Hungarian](/source/Hungarian_language), [Turkish](/source/Turkish_language), and some Asiatic languages like Korean and Japanese, thematic relations may be reflected in the [case](/source/Grammatical_case)-marking on the noun. For instance, Hungarian has an [instrumental case](/source/Instrumental_case) ending (-val/-vel), which explicitly marks the instrument of a sentence. Languages like English often mark such thematic relations with prepositions. In Korean, agents or other subjects are often marked with -이/-가 (-i/-ga), while -을/-를 (-eul/-reul) indicates a patient, theme, or other object.[12]

## Passive sentences

Passive sentences, sentences in which the subject does not perform the action but instead receives it (e.g. The house is being built) can be tricky. They often require thematic reanalysis because the typical order of thematic roles is reversed. In a passive sentence, the patient or theme becomes the subject and the agent becomes optional and can be marked by "by". The posterior left parietal region is used in encoding thematic roles, possibly at the very stage where a reanalysis occurs.[13]

## Thematic roles in the brain

While the posterior left parietal area is in charge of passive sentence thematic relations, typical, active sentences' thematic role analyses take place in a wide range of brain regions, including the left temporo-parietal sites, superior temporal sulcus, middle temporal sulcus, and inferior parietal lobule.[13]

One study conducted by Kuperberg et al. (2007) examined that the N400 (a marker for semantic processing) response becomes smaller when a sentence contains a thematic role violation. They tested two possible explanations: Lexico-semantic priming (the wrong word is still related in meaning), or an early P600 (syntactic processing and repair) response that overlaps with and reduces the N400. To test the role of lexico-semantic priming, they compared N400s for thematic relation violations where the wrong word was related in meaning versus unrelated. If priming is the cause, the related violations should show a smaller N400 than the unrelated ones. To test the role of an overlapping P600, Kuperberg and her team compared the N400 for unrelated thematic role violations with the N400 for pragmatic violations (which do not trigger a P600). If earlier findings were mainly due to lexico-semantic priming, then the N400 for unrelated thematic relation violations should look the same as the N400 for pragmatic violations. But if the smaller N400 is caused by the thematic relation violation itself (because of an overlapping P600), then the N400 for unrelated thematic role violations should be smaller than the N400 for pragmatic violations.[14]

## Conflicting terminologies

The term *thematic relation* is frequently confused with [theta role](/source/Theta_role). Many linguists (particularly [generative grammarians](/source/Generative_grammar)) use the terms interchangeably. This is because theta roles are typically named by the most prominent thematic relation with which they are associated. Different theoretical approaches often closely tie different [grammatical relations](/source/Grammatical_function) of [subject](/source/Subject_(grammar)) and [object](/source/Object_(grammar)), etc., to semantic relations. In the [typological tradition](/source/Morphosyntactic_alignment), 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**
- 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.

**[Theta roles](/source/Theta_role)**
- Theta roles are syntactic structures reflecting positions in the [argument structure](/source/Verb_argument) of the verb they are associated with. A noun may only bear one theta role. Only arguments bear theta roles. [Adjuncts](/source/Adjunct_(grammar)) do not bear theta roles.

**[Grammatical relations](/source/Grammatical_function)**
- These 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 the **meaning** of the verb and the **meaning** of the noun. Theta roles are about the **number 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 verb *give* requires three arguments (see [valency](/source/Valency_(linguistics))). 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 that *Reggie* 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 is *Reggie*, the object (O) is *the kibble*, *to Fergus* is an oblique, and *on Friday* is an adjunct.

## Other issues

Some linguists and other academics consider the nature of thematic relations to be problematic. While many believe that thematic roles are "innate, core knowledge" and "cross-culturally universal",[15] others heavily disagree. It is a murky subject and scholars have had difficulty defining it since its emergence in the 1960s. Recently, studies have argued that the agent role is universal but others are not.[15] Not enough data has been published in this particular field to lead to a definitive answer.

## See also

- [Morphosyntactic alignment](/source/Morphosyntactic_alignment)

- [Case grammar](/source/Case_grammar)

- [Theta roles](/source/Theta_roles)

- [Semantic role labeling](/source/Semantic_role_labeling), a natural language processing task to automatically determine thematic roles

- [Lexical function](/source/Lexical_function)

- [Subcategorization](/source/Subcategorization)

## References

### Citations

1. **[^](#cite_ref-1)** Dahl, Östen. ["Lectures on linguistic complexity"](https://web.archive.org/web/20200519141451/https://www.keel.ut.ee/sites/default/files/www_ut/lectures_on_linguistic_complexity.pdf) (PDF). *UNIVERSITY of TARTU, Institute of Estonian and General Linguistics*. Archived from [the original](http://www.keel.ut.ee/sites/default/files/www_ut/lectures_on_linguistic_complexity.pdf) (PDF) on 2020-05-19. Retrieved 2016-02-08.

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-VanValin2008_2-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-VanValin2008_2-1) Van Valin Jr, R. D. (2008). *[A6 Frame Semantics for Verbs](http://www.phil-fak.uniduesseldorf.de/suche/?q=frame+semantics&sa.x=0&sa.y=0)*. Functional Concepts and Frames – Proposal.

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-Bornkessel2009_3-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-Bornkessel2009_3-1) [***c***](#cite_ref-Bornkessel2009_3-2) [***d***](#cite_ref-Bornkessel2009_3-3) [***e***](#cite_ref-Bornkessel2009_3-4) Bornkessel, I., Schlesewsky, M., Comrie, B. & Friederici, A. (2009). *[Introduction - Semantic Roles as a core linguistic concept](https://books.google.com/books?id=cukkO31NYEcC&pg=PA2)*, pp.1-2, in I. Bornkessel et al. (Eds), *Semantic Role Universals and Argument Linking* (pp. 1-14). Berlin, New York: De Gruyter Mouton.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-GruberFillmore_4-0)** Gruber (1965), Fillmore (1968)

1. **[^](#cite_ref-5)** Jackendoff, R. S. (1972). Semantic interpretation in generative grammar.

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-RappaportHovav2015_6-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-RappaportHovav2015_6-1) Rappaport Hovav, M., & [Levin, B.](/source/Beth_Levin_(linguist)) (2015). *[The Syntax‐Semantics Interface](https://books.google.com/books?id=rUhICgAAQBAJ&pg=PA600)*, pp. 602–603 in The handbook of contemporary semantic theory, pp. 593-624.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-7)** Thomas E. Payne. [Summary of Semantic Roles and Grammatical Relations](http://pages.uoregon.edu/tpayne/EG595/HO-Srs-and-GRs.pdf), 19 October 2007

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-VanValin2004_8-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-VanValin2004_8-1) [Van Valin](/source/Van_Valin) Jr, R. D. (2004) *[Semantic macroroles in role and reference grammar](https://books.google.com/books?id=S2OUX4RMK3cC&pg=PA62)* p.62-4, in *Semantische rollen*, pp. 62-82.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-VanValin1999_9-0)** Van Valin, R. D. (1999). "[Generalized semantic roles and the syntax-semantics interface](http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.475.5165&rep=rep1&type=pdf). In: *Empirical issues in formal syntax and semantics*, 2, 373–389.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-VanValin2005p67_10-0)** Van Valin Jr, R. D. (2005). *[Exploring the syntax-semantics interface](https://books.google.com/books?id=HuX-3xV5BpwC&pg=PR67)*, p. 67. Cambridge University Press.

1. **[^](#cite_ref-11)** Dowty D.R (1991). Thematic Proto-Roles and Argument Selection. Language 67: 547-619

1. **[^](#cite_ref-:0_12-0)** Toyryla, Laura (2020-01-16). ["Korean Particles - Complete your sentences with these words"](https://www.90daykorean.com/korean-particles/). *90 Day Korean*. Retrieved 2025-12-07.

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-:1_13-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-:1_13-1) Finocchiaro, Chiara; Capasso, Rita; Cattaneo, Luigi; Zuanazzi, Arianna; Miceli, Gabriele (2015-10-01). ["Thematic role assignment in the posterior parietal cortex: A TMS study"](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S002839321530141X). *Neuropsychologia*. **77**: 223–232. [doi](/source/Doi_(identifier)):[10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2015.08.025](https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.neuropsychologia.2015.08.025). [ISSN](/source/ISSN_(identifier)) [0028-3932](https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0028-3932). [PMID](/source/PMID_(identifier)) [26318240](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26318240).

1. **[^](#cite_ref-14)** Kuperberg, Gina R.; Kreher, Donna A.; Sitnikova, Tatiana; Caplan, David N.; Holcomb, Phillip J. (2007-03-01). ["The role of animacy and thematic relationships in processing active English sentences: Evidence from event-related potentials"](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0093934X06000022). *Brain and Language*. **100** (3): 223–237. [doi](/source/Doi_(identifier)):[10.1016/j.bandl.2005.12.006](https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.bandl.2005.12.006). [ISSN](/source/ISSN_(identifier)) [0093-934X](https://search.worldcat.org/issn/0093-934X). [PMID](/source/PMID_(identifier)) [16546247](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16546247).

1. ^ [***a***](#cite_ref-RissmanMajid2019_15-0) [***b***](#cite_ref-RissmanMajid2019_15-1) Rissman, Lilia; Majid, Asifa (December 2019). ["Thematic roles: Core knowledge or linguistic construct?"](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6863944). *Psychonomic Bulletin & Review*. **26** (6): 1850–1869. [doi](/source/Doi_(identifier)):[10.3758/s13423-019-01634-5](https://doi.org/10.3758%2Fs13423-019-01634-5). [ISSN](/source/ISSN_(identifier)) [1531-5320](https://search.worldcat.org/issn/1531-5320). [PMC](/source/PMC_(identifier)) [6863944](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6863944). [PMID](/source/PMID_(identifier)) [31290008](https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31290008).

### Works cited

You can help expand this article with text translated from the corresponding article in German. (August 2015) Click [show] for important translation instructions. View a machine-translated version of the German article. Machine translation, like DeepL or Google Translate, is a useful starting point for translations, but translators must follow the LLM translation guideline, revise errors as necessary and confirm that the translation is accurate, rather than simply copy-pasting machine-translated text into the English Wikipedia. Consider adding a topic to this template: there are already 1,962 articles in the main 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. You must provide copyright attribution in the edit summary accompanying your translation by providing an interlanguage link to the source of your translation. A model attribution edit summary is Content 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 the talk page. For more guidance, see Wikipedia:Translation.

- Carnie, Andrew. 2007. *[Syntax: A Generative introduction](https://books.google.com/books?id=or-Y3c9dY4UC&q=%22thematic+relation%22)*. 2nd Edition. Blackwell Publishers.

- 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.

- Dowty, David (1979). [*Word meaning and Montague grammar. The semantics of verbs and times in Generative Semantics and in Montague's PTQ*](https://books.google.com/books?id=dvlKSiystvQC&q=Word+meaning+and+Montague+grammar.+The+semantics+of+verbs+and+times+in+Generative+Semantics+and+in+Montague%27s+PTQ) (First ed.). Dordrecht: [D. Reidel](/source/D._Reidel). [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [978-90-277-1009-3](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-90-277-1009-3).

- 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](https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/85939/WPL_02_November_1968_065.pdf?sequence=1). 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. [ISBN](/source/ISBN_(identifier)) [0805810749](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0805810749). (Chapter V. Thematic Roles, pp. 197–249)

- [Angela D. Friederici](/source/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, Jeffrey *Thematic 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.

- Higginbotham, James (1999) *Thematic Roles*, pp. 837–8, in: *[The MIT Encyclopedia of the Cognitive Sciences](http://web.mit.edu/morrishalle/pubworks/papers/1999_Halle_MIT_Encyclopedia_Cognitive_Sciences-paper.pdf)*, Edited by Keil & Wilson (1999) Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.

- Jackendoff, Ray. 1983. *[Semantics and cognition](https://books.google.com/books?id=a0fQYPHBc4gC)*. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.

- Jackendoff, Ray. 1990. *[Semantic structures](https://books.google.com/books?id=7wbYlHis6OEC)*. 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

- Van Valin Jr, R. D. (1977). *[Aspects of Lakhota Syntax](https://pure.mpg.de/rest/items/item_402211/component/file_402210/content)*. University of California, Berkeley.

Authority control databases International GND National United States Israel Other Yale LUX

---
Adapted from the Wikipedia article [Thematic relation](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_relation) by Wikipedia contributors ([contributor history](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thematic_relation?action=history)). Available under [Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/). Changes may have been made.