1887
  1. Home
  2. e-Journals
  3. Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language”
  4. Volume 46, Issue 3
  5. Article
Volume 46, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0378-4177
  • E-ISSN: 1569-9978
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Beyond their basic function to index exophoric and endophoric referents, Thai demonstratives have a host of pragmatic functions to encode concerns regarding discourse organization, subjectivity, and intersubjectivity. Based on a detailed analysis of demonstratives used in conversation, we attempt to uncover the pattern of grammaticalization for this class of words in Thai, and to propose a mechanism that allows them to develop multiple functions. Since demonstratives are indexical signs and are qualitatively distinct from content words, we must view the grammaticalization process of demonstratives differently from that of content words. In this paper, we use the model of the based on Diessel’s earlier work and the based on the “attractor position” analysis for grammaticalization of nouns and verbs advanced by Bisang (1996) to analyze how exactly demonstratives come to acquire pragmatic functions.

© John Benjamins Publishing Company
Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/sl.20083.iwa
2021-11-10
2024-10-03

  • From This Site

    /content/journals/10.1075/sl.20083.iwa
    dcterms_title,dcterms_subject,pub_keyword
    -contentType:Journal -contentType:Contributor -contentType:Concept -contentType:Institution
    10
    5
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Aijmer, Karin
    1997 I think: An English modal particle. InToril Swan & Olaf J. Westvik (eds), Modality in Germanic languages. Historical and comparative perspective, 1–47. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110889932.1
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110889932.1 [Google Scholar]
  2. 2002 English discourse particles : Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/scl.10
     https://doi.org/10.1075/scl.10 [Google Scholar]
  3. Anderson, Stephen R. & Edward Keenan
    1985 Deixis. InTimothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol.3, 259–308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  4. Arcodia, Giorgio Francesco
    2013 Grammaticalisation with coevolution of form and meaning in East Asia? Evidence from Sinitic. Language Sciences40. 148–167. 10.1016/j.langsci.2013.05.002
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2013.05.002 [Google Scholar]
  5. Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar & Elisabeth Couper-Kuhlen
    2002 On the development of final though: A case of grammaticalization. InIlse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 345–361. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.49.22bar
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.22bar [Google Scholar]
  6. Beeching, Kate & Ulrich Detges
    (eds.) 2014 Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change. Leiden: Brill. 10.1163/9789004274822
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004274822 [Google Scholar]
  7. Bisang, Walter
    1996 Areal typology and grammaticalization: Processes of grammaticalization based on nouns and verbs in East and Mainland South East Asian languages. Studies in Language20(3). 519–597. 10.1075/sl.20.3.03bis
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20.3.03bis [Google Scholar]
  8. 2004 Grammaticalization without coevolution of form and meaning: The case of tense-aspect in East and mainland Southeast Asia. InBisang, Walter, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, 109–138. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110197440.2.109
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110197440.2.109 [Google Scholar]
  9. 2015 Problems with primary vs. secondary grammaticalization: The case of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages. Language Sciences47. 132–147. 10.1016/j.langsci.2014.05.007
     https://doi.org/10.1016/j.langsci.2014.05.007 [Google Scholar]
  10. Blakemore, Diane
    2000 Indicators and procedures: Nevertheless and but. Journal of Linguistics36(3). 463–486. 10.1017/S0022226700008355
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022226700008355 [Google Scholar]
  11. 2002 Relevance and linguistic meaning : The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511486456
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511486456 [Google Scholar]
  12. Bohnemeyer, Jürgen
    2015 Deixis. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, 52–57. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1016/B978‑0‑08‑097086‑8.52031‑5
     https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.52031-5 [Google Scholar]
  13. Brinton, Laurel J.
    1996 Pragmatic markers in English : Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. 10.1515/9783110907582
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110907582 [Google Scholar]
  14. 2008 The comment clause in English : Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511551789
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511551789 [Google Scholar]
  15. 2010 The development of I mean: Implications for the study of historical pragmatics. InSusan M. Fitzmaurice & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Methods in historical pragmatics, 37–80. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.
     [Google Scholar]
  16. Brinton, Laurel J. & Elizabeth ClossTraugott
    2005 Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511615962
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511615962 [Google Scholar]
  17. Bühler, Karl
    1934 Sprachtheorie (Language Theory). Jena: Fischer
     [Google Scholar]
  18. Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere D. & Pagliuca, William
    1994 The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  19. Chafe, Wallace
    1994 Discourse, consciousness, and time: The flow and displacement of conscious experience in speaking and writing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  20. Clark, Herbert H.
    1996 Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511620539
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511620539 [Google Scholar]
  21. Clark, Herbert H. & Eveline V. Clark
    1977 Psychology and language. An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich.
     [Google Scholar]
  22. Cooke, Joseph R.
    1968 Pronominal reference in Thai, Burmese, and Vietnamese (University of California Publications in Linguistics 52). Berkeley: University of California Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  23. 1989 Thai sentence particles and other topics (Pacific Linguistics Series A, No. 80). Department of Linguistics, Research School of Pacific Studies: Australian National University.
     [Google Scholar]
  24. de Vries, Lourens
    1995 Demonstratives, referent identification and topicality in Wambon and some other Papuan languages. Journal of Pragmatics24. 513–533. 10.1016/0378‑2166(94)00068‑P
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(94)00068-P [Google Scholar]
  25. Degand, Liesbeth & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen
    2011 Introduction: Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification of discourse markers. Linguistics49(2). 287–294. 10.1515/ling.2011.008
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.008 [Google Scholar]
  26. Degand, Liesbeth & Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul
    2015 Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers? More than a terminological issue. Journal of Historical Pragmatics16(1). 59–85. 10.1075/jhp.16.1.03deg
     https://doi.org/10.1075/jhp.16.1.03deg [Google Scholar]
  27. Diessel, Holger
    1999 Demonstratives: Form, function and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.42
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.42 [Google Scholar]
  28. 2006 Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics17(4). 463–489. 10.1515/COG.2006.015
     https://doi.org/10.1515/COG.2006.015 [Google Scholar]
  29. 2012 Bühler’s two-field theory of pointing and naming and the deictic origins of grammatical morphemes. InKristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems & Tanja Mortelmans (eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections, 37–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/slcs.130.02die
     https://doi.org/10.1075/slcs.130.02die [Google Scholar]
  30. Diewald, Gabriele
    2011 Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse function. Linguistics49(2). 365–390. 10.1515/ling.2011.011
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.011 [Google Scholar]
  31. Du Bois, John W.
    1991 Transcription design principles for spoken discourse research. Pragmatics1(1). 71–106. 10.1075/prag.1.1.04boi
     https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.1.1.04boi [Google Scholar]
  32. 2007 The stance triangle. InRobert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/pbns.164.07du
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pbns.164.07du [Google Scholar]
  33. Enfield, Nick J.
    2003a The definition of what-d’you-call-it: Semantics and pragmatics of recognitional deixis. Journal of Pragmatics35(1). 101–117. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(02)00066‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(02)00066-8 [Google Scholar]
  34. 2003b Demonstratives in space and interaction: Data from Lao speakers and implications for semantic analysis. Language79(1). 82–117. 10.1353/lan.2003.0075
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.2003.0075 [Google Scholar]
  35. Fillmore, Charles
    1975/1997 Lectures on deixis. Stanford: CSI Publications. (Originally distributed as Fillmore (1975) Santa Cruz Lectures on Deixis by the University of Indiana Linguistics Club).
     [Google Scholar]
  36. Fischer, Kerstin
    2006 Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier. 10.1163/9780080461588
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9780080461588 [Google Scholar]
  37. Foley, William A. & Robert D. Van Valin Jr.
    1984 Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  38. Ford, Cecilia E.
    1993 Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511554278
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511554278 [Google Scholar]
  39. 1997 Speaking conditionally: Some contexts for if-clauses in conversation. InAngeliki Athanasiadou & René Dirven (eds.), On conditionals again, 387–413. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.143.21for
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.143.21for [Google Scholar]
  40. Frank-Job, Barbara
    2006 A Dynamic–Interactional approach to discourse markers. InKerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 395–413. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
     [Google Scholar]
  41. Givón, Talmy
    1982 Logic vs. pragmatics, with human language as the referee: Toward an empirically viable epistemology. Journal of pragmatics6(2). 81–133. 10.1016/0378‑2166(82)90026‑1
     https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-2166(82)90026-1 [Google Scholar]
  42. Haas, Mary
    1964 Thai-English student’s dictionary. Stanford: Stanford University Press. 10.1515/9781503622708
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9781503622708 [Google Scholar]
  43. Haiman, John
    1978 Conditionals are topics. Language54. 565–589. 10.1353/lan.1978.0009
     https://doi.org/10.1353/lan.1978.0009 [Google Scholar]
  44. Halliday, Michael & Ruqaiya Hasan
    1976 Cohesion in English. London: Longman.
     [Google Scholar]
  45. Hancil, Sylvie, ‎Alexander Haselow & ‎Margje Post
    (eds) 2015 Final particles. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110375572
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110375572 [Google Scholar]
  46. Hanks, William F.
    1992 The indexical ground of deictic reference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  47. 2000 Indexicality. Jounral of Linguistic Anthropology9(1–2). 124–126. 10.1525/jlin.1999.9.1‑2.124
     https://doi.org/10.1525/jlin.1999.9.1-2.124 [Google Scholar]
  48. Hayashi, Makoto & Kyung-eun Yoon
    2006 A cross-linguistic exploration of demonstratives in interaction: with particular reference to the context of word-formulation trouble. Studies in Language30(3). 485–540. 10.1075/sl.30.3.02hay
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.30.3.02hay [Google Scholar]
  49. Heath, Jeffrey
    1980 Nunggubuyu deixis, anaphora, and culture. Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on pronouns and anaphora, 151–165.
     [Google Scholar]
  50. Heine, Bernd
    2002 On the role of context in grammaticalization. InIlse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on Grammaticalization, 83–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.49.08hei
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.49.08hei [Google Scholar]
  51. 2013 On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else?Linguistics51(6). 1205–1247. 10.1515/ling‑2013‑0048
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling-2013-0048 [Google Scholar]
  52. Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck & Tania Kuteva
    2013 An outline of discourse grammar. InShannon T. Bischoff & Carmen Jany (eds.), Functional approaches to language, 155–206. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. 10.1515/9783110285321.155
     https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110285321.155 [Google Scholar]
  53. Heine, Bernd & Mechthild Reh
    1984 Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Buske Helmet Verlag.
     [Google Scholar]
  54. Himmelmann, Nikolaus P.
    1996 Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses. Studies in anaphora. Amsterdam: John Bebjamins. 10.1075/tsl.33.08him
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.33.08him [Google Scholar]
  55. Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
    2003 Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9781139165525
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781139165525 [Google Scholar]
  56. Ishiyama, Osamu
    2019 Diachrony of personal pronouns in Japanese: A functional and cross-linguistic perspective. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/cilt.344
     https://doi.org/10.1075/cilt.344 [Google Scholar]
  57. Iwasaki, Shoichi
    2008 Bipolar distribution of a word and grammaticalization in Thai: A discourse perspective. InAnthony V. N. Diller, Jerold A. Edmondson & Yongxian Luo (eds.), The Tai-Kadai languages, 468–483. New York: Routledge.
     [Google Scholar]
  58. 2013 Japanese, Rev. edn.Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/loall.17
     https://doi.org/10.1075/loall.17 [Google Scholar]
  59. 2015 A multiple-grammar model of speakers’ linguistic knowledge. Cognitive Linguistics26(2). 161–210. 10.1515/cog‑2014‑0101
     https://doi.org/10.1515/cog-2014-0101 [Google Scholar]
  60. . (Forthcoming). Stance triangle and double dialogicality. Text and TalkSpecial Issue.
     [Google Scholar]
  61. Iwasaki, Shoichi & Preeya Ingkaphirom
    2000 Creating speech register in Thai conversation. Language in Society29(4). 519–554. 10.1017/S0047404500004024
     https://doi.org/10.1017/S0047404500004024 [Google Scholar]
  62. Iwasaki, & Preeya Ingkaphirom
    2005 A reference grammar of Thai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  63. Kaltenböck, Gunther, Bernd Heine & Tania Kuteva
    2011 On thetical grammar. Studies in Language35(4). 852–897. 10.1075/sl.35.4.03kal
     https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.35.4.03kal [Google Scholar]
  64. König, Ekkehard
    2020 Beyond exophoric and endophoric uses. Additional discourse functions of demonstratives. InÅshild Naess, Anna Margetts & Yvonne Treis (eds.), Demonstratives in discourse, 21–42. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  65. Kuno, Susumu
    1973 The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge: MIT Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  66. Levinson, Stephen C.
    1983 Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511813313
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511813313 [Google Scholar]
  67. Lewis, Diana M.
    2011 A discourse-constructional approach to the emergence of discourse markers in English. Linguistics49(2). 415–43. 10.1515/ling.2011.013
     https://doi.org/10.1515/ling.2011.013 [Google Scholar]
  68. Li, Charles
    1976 Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  69. Linde, Charlotte
    1979 Focus of attention and the choice of pronouns in discourse. Syntax and Semantics12. 337–354. 10.1163/9789004368897_015
     https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004368897_015 [Google Scholar]
  70. Minami, Fujio
    1974 Gendai Nihongo no Koozoo (The structure of modern Japanese). Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.
     [Google Scholar]
  71. Mithun, Mrianne
    1987 The grammatical nature and discourse power of demonstratives. Proceedings of the 13th Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society (BLS 13 1987), 184–194. Available at: https://journals.linguisticsociety.org/proceedings/index.php/BLS/article/view/1824/1596 (last access17 October 2021). 10.3765/bls.v13i0.1824
     https://doi.org/10.3765/bls.v13i0.1824 [Google Scholar]
  72. Naess, Åshild, Anna Margetts & Yvonne Treis
    (eds.) 2020 Demonstratives in discourse. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  73. Palakornkul, Angkab
    1972 A socio-linguistic study of pronominal strategy in spoken Bangkok Thai. Austin: University of Texas at Austin PhD dissertation.
  74. Prince, Ellen
    1980 Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. InPeter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 223–256. New York: Academic Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  75. Ridge, Eleanor
    2020 Morphosyntactic and functional asymmetries in Vatlongos discourse demonstratives. InÅshild Naess, Anna Margetts & Yvonne Treis (eds.), Demonstratives in discourse, 69–101. Berlin: Language Science Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  76. Sakita, Tomoko I.
    2013 Discourse markers as stance markers: Well in stance alignment in conversational interaction. Pragmatics & cognition21(1). 81–116. 10.1075/pc.21.1.04sak
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.21.1.04sak [Google Scholar]
  77. Schiffrin, Deborah
    1987 Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 10.1017/CBO9780511611841
     https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511611841 [Google Scholar]
  78. 2001 Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. InDeborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, Vol.1, 54–75. Malden, MA: Blackwell.
     [Google Scholar]
  79. Sidner, Candace L.
    1983 Focusing in the comprehension of definite anaphora. Computational Models of discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  80. Singnoi Unchalee
    Singnoi Unchalee 2001 Discourse functions of Thai demonstratives: A case on pragmatically controlled irregular functions. InPapers from the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (SEALS XI), 645–657.
     [Google Scholar]
  81. Tabor, Whitney & Elizabeth Closs Traugott
    1998 Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. InAnna Giacalone Ramat & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), The limits of grammaticalization, 229–272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. 10.1075/tsl.37.11tab
     https://doi.org/10.1075/tsl.37.11tab [Google Scholar]
  82. Takubo, Yukinori & Satoshi Kinsui
    1997 Discourse management in terms of mental spaces. Journal of Pragmatics28(6). 741–758. 10.1016/S0378‑2166(97)00073‑8
     https://doi.org/10.1016/S0378-2166(97)00073-8 [Google Scholar]
  83. Tomasello, Michael
    1995 Joint attention as social cognition. InChris Moore & Philip J. Dunham (eds.), Joint Attention: Its origin and role in development, 103–130. New York: Psychology Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  84. 1999/2009 The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  85. 2008 Reference: Intending that others jointly attend. Pragmatics and Cognition6(1–2). 229–243. 10.1075/pc.6.1‑2.12tom
     https://doi.org/10.1075/pc.6.1-2.12tom [Google Scholar]
  86. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs
    1995 The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at theICHL XII, Manchester. Version of 11/97. Available atwww.stanford.edu/~traugott/ect-papersonline.html (last access17 October 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
  87. 2012 Intersubjectification and clause periphery. English Text Construction5(1). 7–28. 10.1075/etc.5.1.02trau
     https://doi.org/10.1075/etc.5.1.02trau [Google Scholar]
  88. Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher
    2002 Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
     [Google Scholar]
  89. Wittayapanyanon (Saito), Sunisa
    2017 Study of pragmatic final particles in “Corpus data on spoken Thai”. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 94. 111–136. Available at202.13.5.192/bitstream/10108/90284/1/jaas094003_ful.pdf (last access17 October 2021).
     [Google Scholar]
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.20083.iwa
Loading
Creating versatility in Thai demonstratives
Studies in Language. International Journal sponsored by the Foundation “Foundations of Language” 46, 517 (2022); https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20083.iwa
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.20083.iwa
/content/journals/10.1075/sl.20083.iwa
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): Conditional Marking; demonstratives; Discourse Attention Marking; functional utterance frame; grammaticalization; Hedge Marking; indexical sign; joint attention triangle; pragmatic uses; Reactive Response Marking; Salient Information Marking; Stance Marking; Thai; Topic Marking

Most Cited

This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error