From objective to subjective and to intersubjective functions: The case of the Thai ‘truth’-lexeme
- Authors: Khammee K.1
-
Affiliations:
- University of Phayao
- Issue: Vol 28, No 4 (2024): Discourse-pragmatic markers of (inter)subjective stance in Asian languages: With special focus on Chinese etymons
- Pages: 942-965
- Section: Articles
- URL: https://journals.rudn.ru/linguistics/article/view/42181
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-40496
- EDN: https://elibrary.ru/LMSZDN
Cite item
Full Text
Abstract
Borrowed lexemes developing into discourse markers (DMs) are uniquely valuable research topics from contact linguistic and grammaticalization perspectives. Although a large number of Sino-Thai lexemes are commonly used, there has not been any serious attempt to analyze such lexemes. The aim of this study is to describe diverse discourse functions of the Sino-Thai lexemes involving ciŋ ‘true’ drawing upon corpus data, to analyze their development with respect to grammaticalization mechanisms, to identify their DM properties, to compare with the developments reported in other languages, and to construct a conceptual-functional network. The data obtained from diverse sources, including historical and contemporary dictionaries, online resources, reference grammars, contemporary corpora, among others show that the lexeme ciŋ ‘true’ denotes ‘true, truth, real’ (objective meaning) as a lexical word, but it also functions adverbially as an intensifier marking ‘surely, definitely’ (subjective meaning) which is a natural development of its lexical meaning. In the domain of discourse, the lexeme acquired a number of interactional functions (intersubjective meaning). A review of the Thai DMs based on ciŋ ‘true’ (truth-DMs) in light of grammaticalization parameters shows that changes characterizable as desemanticization, extension, and decategorialization are observable, whereas erosion is either not observed or its reverse is often found. Despite variable degrees of semantic bleaching, the semantic change in the movement from objective to subjective, and further to intersubjective meanings, is prominent. The functional similarity between truth-DMs across languages notwithstanding, the differences are much greater. These findings contribute to the understanding of the role of source semantics as well as its limits in the developmental paths of DMs.
Full Text
1. Introduction
Thai and Chinese belong to different language families, with Thai in Kra-Dai (Tai-Kadai) family, and Chinese in the Sino-Tibetan. Although the two languages are not genealogically connected, they share a number of typological features as a result of both geographic propinquity and China’s historical cultural-intellectual leadership in the region. As a result, Thai has retained a large number of words borrowed from Middle Chinese (Haarmann 2012[1986]: 165, Suthiwan & Tadmor 2009: 601, among others). One such example is the Thai lexeme ciŋ ‘true/real’ (ciŋ per IPA, ching per the Royal Thai General System, jing per the Enhanced Phonemic Transcription, and จริง in Thai script) which is borrowed from Middle Chinese cin ‘true, real, sincere' (Suthiwan & Tadmor 2009: 613), and which has been the root of many derived words and expressions that have developed into discourse markers (DMs). Despite the prevalent use and polyfunctionality of the Thai DM ciŋ and its formal and functional relatives, collectively referred to as ‘ciŋ-DMs’, they have received no scholarly attention to date. This paper, therefore, intends to fill the research gap. The goal of this study is to explore the diverse functions of the ciŋ-DMs in contemporary Thai, drawing upon corpus data, to analyze their development from a grammaticalization perspective, to compare the functions with those reported in other languages, and to create a conceptual-functional network. Thus, this paper aims to answer the following research questions: (i) what are the DM functions of the truth-DMs of the Chinese origin, (ii) to what extent does their development conform to grammaticalization parameters, (iii) what properties do they have, (iv) how similar or different are they from the corresponding DMs in other languages, and (v) what kind of conceptual-functional network do they form?
This paper is organized in the following manner. After this introductory section, Section 2 provides a brief description of the theoretical framework; Section 3 describes the research methods; Section 4 exemplifies the lexical uses and DM uses of ciŋ and its relatives; Section 5 analyzes the development of ciŋ-DMs in view of the grammaticalization parameters, discourse marker properties, crosslinguistic perspectives, and conceptual-functional networks; and Section 6 summarizes major findings and concludes the paper.
2. Theoretical framework
The theoretical framework for this study is grammaticalization theory as pioneered by Meillet (1912), and further elaborated and refined by Kuryłowicz (1975[1965]), Lehmann (2015[1982]), Heine et al. (1991), Heine (1992), Hopper and Traugott (2003), and many other theorists. For analysis of grammaticalization of DMs, the author of this research referenced works by Heine (2013) and Heine et al. (2021), and the discussion of grammaticalization and language contact is drawn largely from Heine and Kuteva (2005), and Shibasaki and Higashiizumi (forthcoming). The analysis of conceptual motivations in the form of networks is due to Narrog and Ito (2007), and Narrog (2010). This synchrony-based reconstruction approach principally draws on the uniformitarian principle (Labov 1994, Romaine 1982), arguably the most fundamental precept in grammaticalization and in historical linguistics more generally. It is particularly notable that Labov (1994: 157) states that “we have no other choice.” with respect to methodological uniformitarianism.
3. Data and research methods
The present research is a conceptual, descriptive analysis of linguistic data, and it has involved no experimentation. The data have been collected from diverse sources, including historical and contemporary dictionaries, lexica, online resources, reference grammars, contemporary corpora, and, importantly, native-speaker intuitions of the author.
The corpus data were taken from two major sources: the Thai National Corpus and the Thai Drama Corpus. The Thai National Corpus is an online, searchable, 33.4-million-word corpus developed by Chulalongkorn University in Bangkok, Thailand. The data mostly date between 1988 and 2017. The Thai Drama Corpus is a 163-thousand-word corpus compiled by Kyungeun Park in 2010. It contains the scripts of 94 episodes from the 14 most popular TV dramas aired between 2005 and 2009.1 As both of these corpora provide only contemporary data, historical information on the Thai language was garnered from other sources such as etymology dictionaries and lexica.
4. Results
Data collection and analysis of usage of ciŋ and its related forms rendered the following results at the lexical and discourse levels.
4.1. Thai lexical use of ciŋ
The lexeme ciŋ is used primarily as either an adjective denoting ‘true, truthful, real, serious, authentic, original, etc.’ or an adverb denoting ‘really, truthfully, well, etc.’ (Royal Thai Dictionary 2011). The word is frequently used for quality marking, as in khɔ̌ɔŋ ciŋ ‘genuine article’, rʉ̂aŋ ciŋ ‘true story’, phûut ciŋ ‘serious talk’, tham ciŋ ‘act sincerely’, etc. Its other common usage is for degree marking, as in talòk ciŋ ‘very funny’, sanùk ciŋciŋ ‘very enjoyable’, nâasǒncay ciŋciŋ ‘very interesting’, etc. (As in the last two examples, ciŋ is often reduplicated for emphasis.)
The lexical usage of ciŋ is largely identical to that of its etymon, the Chinese cin (眞/真). According to SEALANG (n.d.; see entry for ‘จริง’ /ciŋ/), the Middle Chinese ćin (or zhen, tsyn) denoted ‘true, real, factual, genuine, actual, substantial, really, truly’ and ‘highest sincerity one is capable of’, suggesting that it had adjectival, adverbial, and nominal usages.2
4.2. The ciŋ discourse markers
Thai ciŋ-DMs carry diverse discourse functions. Functional classification may vary greatly depending on the granularity of an analysis, because most functions of a form, by virtue of sharing an origin, are closely related to each other and may be consolidated into a more comprehensive category, or may be divided into multiple categories by means of fine-grained feature analysis. The present research has identified seven related, yet distinct functions of the ciŋ-DMs that are reasonably well-defined either by the form’s taking different paths of conceptual extension or by the semantic contribution of the forms participating in the construction of polylexemic DMs, including: (dis)agreement response token, sudden realization/remembrance, surprise, confirmation solicitation, perspective shift, elaboration, and emphasis.
4.2.1. (Dis)agreement response token
Among the most common uses of the Thai DM ciŋ is its function as an agreement response token. It is widely observed across world languages that lexemes denoting ‘true, real, right’ often function as markers of agreement or confirmation response. Examples of this phenomenon include the English right (Gardner 2001, Bolden et al. 2023), Spanish en efecto ‘in truth’ and efectivamente ‘truly’ (Garcés 2014), German stimmt ‘right, true’ (Betz 2015), Hebrew naxon ‘right, true’ (Maschler & Shapiro 2016), Korean cincca ‘(the) real thing’ (Rhee & Zhang 2024), and Korean maca ‘(that’s) right’, (Seongha Rhee p.c.). The conceptual motivation of [true > ‘yes’ ‘I agree’] is straightforward. Intuitively, the development of agreement-marking DMs that arose from ‘true, real, right’ indeed seems to be common across languages. This usage of the Thai DM ciŋ is exemplified in the following excerpt:3
(1) Some villagers are arguing with Seng, a hunter. One couple are against hunting and tell the hunter to respect the lives of animals. The hunter refuses to listen and says that those animals are just animals and that their lives do not matter.
Uncle: [Human beings are not the only species in the world, Seng. There are other species, too.]
Aunt: ciŋ
dm
‘DM ((I) agree!)’
Seng: [Hmm… talking to old people makes me mad. Anyway, I’ll be the future leader of this world. Come on! Old people in this village don’t know what I have experienced.]
(2008 Drama, Thida Wanon Episode #2)
Other uses are closely related to agreement marking. For instance, as observed by Gardner (2001), the agreement DM may be used for back-channeling without claiming the turn, which is also the case in Thai. Furthermore, when the DM ciŋ accompanies a negation marker such as mây ‘no, not’, the DM then functions as a marker of disagreement, a conceptually straightforward functional extension with the operator of negation. Thus, the two forms mây ciŋ ‘not true’ and mây ciŋ rɔ̀ɔk ‘not true’ are used as disagreement response tokens. The two forms are nearly identical in function but the particle rɔ̀ɔk has the softening effect, thus mây ciŋ is more assertive and definitive than mây ciŋ rɔ̀ɔk. These two disagreement markers are exemplified in the following excerpts:
(2) Nuan-Prang and Ong-In are female friends. Ong-In comes from a rich family unlike their male classmate Sao, who is from a poor family. Nuan-Prang and another classmate named Motdaeng are asking Ong-In if she loves Sao. Ong-In hides her true feelings.
Nuan-Prang: [Do you love Sao?]
Ong-In: [Who told you that?]
Motdaeng: [Myself. I told myself. I saw your behavior before him. You must be in love with him a lot. Come on, admit it!]
Ong-In: mây.ciŋ Mótdɛɛŋ chǎn khɔ̌ɔ patìsèet
dm [name] I beg deny
chǎn mâydây chɔ̂ɔp kháw sàk nɔ̀y
I cannot like him just little
phûuchaay àray mâydây-rʉ̂aŋ sàk yàaŋ bʉ̂ʉ bʉ̂ʉ thʉ̂ʉ thʉ̂ʉ
man what incompetent just type dumb dumb dull dull
mây-aw-nǎy mii fɛɛn lɛ́ɛw ìik-tàaŋhàak chǎn mây chɔ̂ɔp
useless have girlfriend pst as.well I not like
‘DM (= No, it’s not true!) Motdaeng! I deny! I don’t like him at all. He is a loser, dull and useless. Also, he (already) has a girlfriend. I don’t like him.’
Motdaeng: [OK, OK, I believe you. But why are you so angry?]
(2007 Drama, Aphi Mahuema Maha Setthi Episode #3)
(3) Saranat and Rungthip are exercising in the evening at the front yard of the house. They see Pawi, their son, about to leave the house. They talk to him and find out that Pawi and Nit (their daughter-in-law) have argued. Rungthip walks into the house to talk to Nit who is crying and packing her belongings.4
Rungthip: [Oh! where are you going, Nit?]
Nit: [Ah… I am going to stay at sister Ni’s house.]
Rungthip: [Umm…you are not a person who always runs away from problems.
I know that Pawi loves you.]
Nit: mây.ciŋ.rɔ̀ɔk khâ kháw ɔ̀ɔkcà klìat Nit cà-taay
dm f:ptcl 3sg:m tend hate [name](=I) extremely
‘DM (= It’s not true). He really hates me.’
Rungthip: [You two are so stubborn. Anyway, you were hurt so much and now you are crying. I have never seen you cry. Put your clothes back in the closet, please. Trust me.]
(2006 Drama, Khing Ko Ra Kha Ko Raeng Episode #9)
4.2.2. Confirmation solicitation
Another function of ciŋ-DMs, closely related to agreement marking, is that of confirmation solicitation. The confirmation or agreement function of real/true-DMs has been discussed in a number of studies, notably regarding the English (that’s) right (Schegloff 1996). The confirmation/agreement function can easily be extended to confirmation solicitation by means of question markers or prosodic variation (e.g., That’s right. – Is that right?; Right? – Right.). In Thai, three variant DMs carry this function of confirmation solicitation: ciŋ pàaw, ciŋ rɔ̌ɔ and ciŋ rɔ̌ɔ pàaw, all involving markers resembling a ‘P or not P’ question. It is evident from their formal shape that these three DMs are closely related in form, as they exhibit variable degrees of erosion, and involve, in addition to the central form ciŋ ‘true’, rɔ̌ɔ ‘or’ (a colloquial form of rŭu ‘or’), and pàaw (an eroded form of plàaw ‘no, nothing, plain’). Thus, their lexical sources may be traced to ciŋ rɔ̌ɔ ‘true or’, ciŋ pàaw ‘true (or) not’, and ciŋ rɔ̌ɔ pàaw ‘true or not’. While these DMs may occur at either left-periphery or right-periphery, a survey of their occurrence patterns in the reference corpora shows distributional asymmetry with strong preference for the right-periphery.5 Solicitation of confirmation, judged from the context, is based on the genuine question ‘(is it) true or not?’ or ‘do you agree?’, but it may also carry a skeptical overtone when the speaker is uncertain about the veracity of the interlocutor’s statement, e.g., ‘is that really true?’, as in the following excerpt.
(4) Duean comes to meet her ex-boyfriend Songchai at work. She throws herself into his arms in a very amorous way. She is in fact not interested in him anymore but feigns intimacy in order to win his favor to solve her problem with his help.
Duean: [Songchai.]
Songchai: [Hey, Duean.]
Duean: [I missed you so badly. I wanted to see you.]
Songchai: ciŋ.rʉ́.pàaw nʉ́k wàa thamŋaan phləən con lʉʉm chán sá-ìik
dm think that work enjoy till forget I ptcl
lɛ́ɛw thîi bɔ̀ɔk wâa mii thúrá dùan nà rʉ̂aŋ àray
then that tell that have business urgent ptcl subject what
‘DM (Really?) I thought you enjoyed your work and forgot
me (completely). You said you had an urgent issue to talk with me. What is it?’
Itti: [Umm...the coming issue of Real Man has to be finished today. But
Mr. Wa has not approved the final draft yet.]
Songchai: [Oh (stressed face)… Where is he now?]
(2005 Drama, Song Sa-ne-ha Episode #7)
Ciŋ-DMs can indicate confirmation request, skepticism, disbelief, or even challenge, in which cases they may be translated as ‘what are you talking about?’, ‘get real!’, or ‘I can’t follow your reasoning, etc.’ This type of usage is well illustrated in the following excerpt:
(5) Three students from poor families, Boem, Sao, and Eak, are discussing finding a part-time job to earn money to pay for their study.
Boem: [Hey, this one! Premium Sport Club, the club for high-society people. They are recruiting workers! Well-paid! If you are interested, let’s go to apply for a job together this evening.]
Sao: [What? Let me see. What kind of work can we do?]
Boem: [Of course, we will apply for a supervisor position.]
Eak: hǒo! ciŋ.rɔ̌ɔ
intj dm
‘Oh, DM (= What are you talking about?)’
Boem: [I don’t want to be a laborer, of course! Alas, (why are you questioning it?)]
(2007 Drama, Aphi Mahuema Maha Setthi Episode #3)
4.2.3. Emphasis
Another function of ciŋ-DMs is to add emphasis to an ensuring statement. Considering the source semantics of ciŋ-DMs, such a functional extension seems well-motivated, and is widely reported across various languages (cf. the intensifier functions of ‘reality, fact’ lexemes, Kim 2003, Yaguchi et al. 2010, Gray 2012, Ricca & Visconti 2014, Rhee 2016, 2021, among many others). The ciŋ-DM for this function is khwaam ciŋ ‘truth,’ in which khwaam is a nominalizing prefix (cf. khwaam-sùk [nomz-happy] ‘happiness’). This development is analogous to the English emphasis markers used at the left-periphery fact and the fact, which are the truncated forms of the fact is that (Kim 2003). As khwaam ciŋ typically occurs at the left-periphery, its reference is cataphoric, serving as a preface to noteworthy information that is about to be presented, effectively saying, ‘let me tell you this’ or ‘this is important’. This usage is exemplified in the following excerpt:
(6) Pawi (= Wi) and Nit got married through an arrangement. Pawi’s lover Phiangphen (= Phen) is jealous and does not like Nit. She and her close friend, Bencharat (= Ben), are quarreling with Nit.
Nit: [You spinsters! I think you and Phiangphen might not find any good men to be your husbands.]
Bencharat: [You, b****!]
Nit: [Hey, don’t go to Singapore. Go to Cannes because you are going to be an old maid in Cannes*.]
(later…. Phiangphen is calling her lover Pawi to tell him about the quarrel she and her friend had with his wife Nit.)
Phiangphen: phanrayaa phîi Wi nîa ráaykàat mâak ləəy ná-khá
wife brother [name](= you) dm evil very really ptcl
khwaam.ciŋ Phen kɔ̂ɔ mây yàakcà thoo maa rópkuan
dm [name](=I) also not want call come disturb
phîi Wi lɛ́ɛw lâ-khâ tɛ̀ɛ-kɔ̂ɔ òt sǒŋsǎan phîi Ben mâydây.
brother [name] then ptcl but avoid pity sister [name] cannot
thùuk man dàa sá sàat-sǐa-thee-sǐa ləəy nâ-khâ
pass 3sg:pej scold like severely really ptcl
‘Your wife is so mean. DM (= This is very important), I didn’t want to call to disturb you. But poor Ben (I can’t help pitying her)! She got verbally attacked very severely by her (your miserable wife Nit).
[Hey! You don’t want to say anything?]
Pawi: [I… I have no comment. That’s all? I have things to finish.]
Phiangphen: [Yes. That’s all.]
(talks to herself) [He is not jealous about her chasing men. It means that he does not love her. (That’s good.)]
(2006 Drama, Khing Ko Ra Kha Ko Raeng Episode #9)
(*Cannes is a homophone of ‘house-beam’, where men cannot find any woman if she is sitting on it.)
4.2.4. Surprise
The next function of ciŋ-DMs is that of marking surprise. Lexemes denoting ‘real, true’ developing into mirative DMs have been reported by Maschler and Estlein (2008) for Hebrew be’emet ‘in truth’. Thai ciŋ-DMs are similar in that respect. The ciŋ-DM with the function is taay ciŋ, in which taay denotes ‘die’. Recruiting ‘die’ for formation of a DM seems to be similar to the English dead used as an intensifier, as in dead sure, dead right, dead in time (cf. Blanco-Suárez 2014, Rhee 2016). This usage is illustrated in the following:
(7) Phatthra is talking on the phone when her sister Pharani comes into the room and overhears some part of the conversation.
Phatthra: àray ná khá taay.ciŋ pen àray mâak rʉ́-pàaw khá
what ptcl f:ptcl dm be what severe q f:ptcl
ɔ̌ɔ ... khɔ̀ɔpkhun mâak khâ
dm thank.you very f:ptcl
‘What? DM (=Oh my God!) Is she in a grave condition? Oh… Thank you very much.’
Pharani: [What happened, Phat?]
Phatthra: [Nit got clipped by a motorbike last night. But she is alright.]
Pharani: [Oh my God!] (She is shocked and sinks into a sofa.)
(2006 Drama, Khing Ko Ra Kha Ko Raeng Episode #9)
Since surprise may be of variable strengths and either desirable or undesirable in nature, taay ciŋ can mark various kinds of surprise. From a data survey, however, taay ciŋ tends to mark a ‘happy’ surprise, typically occurring in a monologue, unlike the instance illustrated in (7) above. When it is uttered, the prosody includes a soft tone and elongated intonation at the end, e.g., taay ci~ŋ.
4.2.5. Sudden realization/remembrance
Another function closely related to the ‘surprise’ function described above is that of marking sudden realization or remembrance. It has been shown in some studies that certain real/true-DMs are used in signaling ‘remembering’ (e.g., English that’s right, Heritage 1998, Korean cham, Rhee 2021). Since sudden remembrance/realization also involves an element of surprise, the two functions are similar. The difference between them is that the sudden realization/remembrance involves the speaker’s memory lapse or inability to perceive something encountered earlier, whereas the surprise function usually involves something the speaker is encountering for the first time. Since sudden realization/remembrance often involves a lapse of memory and thus delinquency, the usage is typically associated with the speaker’s feelings of guilt, implying ‘It’s a shame that only now I remember/realize it.’ If the situation involves the speaker’s infringement on the interlocutor, the DM carries an apologetic tone, implying ‘I’m sorry’. Furthermore, unlike taay ciŋ in the surprise function, it tends to be directed to the interlocutor (rather than monologual), spoken fast (rather than slow and elongated) with an excited tone (rather than a soft tone), and apologetic (rather than happy) in the sudden realization/remembrance function. This is exemplified in the following two excerpts:
(8) Sitrang is in front of her daughter’s bedroom door. Wondering if her daughter is already asleep, she speaks softly at the door.
Sitrang: [Ong-In, my sweetheart, are you sleeping?]
Ong-In: [I’m sleeping now.]
Sitrang: ǒo taay.ciŋ taay.ciŋ mɛ̂ɛ ləəy maa rópkuan kaan-nɔɔn
Oh dm dm mother(=I) dm come disturb sleep
khɔ̌ɔŋ lûuk ləəy châymǎy khá
of kid(=you) dm q f:ptcl
‘Oh! DM (I’m sorry)! DM (I’m sorry)! Did I disturb your sleep?’
Ong-In: [Oh yep. Oops! Nope. You are not disturbing me. But how come you haven’t gone to bed this late tonight? Be careful. When you wake up tomorrow, you may not look beautiful (because of lack of sleep).]
Sitrang: [I could not sleep because I’m worried about you.]
(2007 Drama, Aphi Mahuema Maha Setthi Episode #3)
(9) Praphot calls Pen, his wife. She forgot to call her brother-in-law Yak to make an arrangement to visit her father-in-law who has been hospitalized. She has been busy working and completely forgot about her promise to call Yak.
Praphot: [Are you OK? Brother Yak said no one called him. (in worried voice)]
Pen: taay.ciŋ lʉʉm sǐa sanìt
dm forget pst completely
‘DM (Oh dear!) (I) completely forgot.’
(She is disconcerted unable to speak further, and then continues.)
[I still don’t feel well. (I) don’t want to spread germs.]
(2009, Fiction, Phu Ru Phu Tuen Phu Tromtrom, TNC)
Another type of sudden realization is marked by the periphrastic DM tɛ̀ɛ thîi ciŋ lɛ́ɛw nîa consisting of tɛ̀ɛ ‘but’, thîi ‘at’, ciŋ ‘true’, lɛ́ɛw ptcl, and nîa ‘this:ptcl’. Despite the compositional complexity, this construction is fully univerbated as a single expression which Thai speakers perceive naturally and intuitively rather than analytically. The expression is a unitized DM commonly used to offer an alternative suggestion, translatable as ‘Wait, why don’t you...?’ or ‘Oh, I hit upon an idea!’ This function closely resembles that of the English real/true-DM actually, which is used to signal ‘I suddenly thought of something better’ (cf. Aijmer 2016),
as illustrated in the following:
(10) Ong-In wants to go out to work at the university with friends during the weekend. Her mother (Sitrang) tries to convince her to stay home and invite her friends instead, since she is afraid that her daughter will see Sao, the poor man that she does not like.
Ong-In: [Mom, have you seen my sports car key?]
Sitrang: [Where are you going?]
Ong-In: [I have an appointment with friends to work at the university.]
Sitrang: [Friends?]
Ong-In: [Yep. Nuan and Motdaeng... (finds the key) ahh.. I’ve got it! Thanks, Mom.]
Sitrang: tɛ̀ɛ.thîi.ciŋ.lɛ́ɛw.nîa thammay nǔu mây chuan yay Nuan kàp
dm why kid(=you) not invite [title] [name] and
Mótdɛɛŋ maa nâŋlên thîi bâan lɛ́ɛw dǐaw mɛ̂ɛ hây Aranchara
[name] come relax at home then later mother(=I) ask [name]
sʉ́ʉ khanǒm arɔ̀y arɔ̀y khâwmaa nâŋ thaan kan diikwàa aw mǎy
buy snack tasty tasty come sit eat together better take q
‘DM (Wait, I’ve got an idea!), (why don’t) you invite Nuan and Motdaeng to come here. I’ll ask Aranchara to buy good snack for you guys. (How’s that?)’
(2007 Drama, Aphi Mahuema Maha Setthi Episode #3)
Still another DM of sudden realization/remembrance is ciŋ sì, consisting of ciŋ ‘true’ and sì ptcl. Its function is nearly identical with the DM tɛ̀ɛ thîi ciŋ lɛ́ɛw nîa described above, signaling ‘I’ve got an idea’ or ‘I just remembered’. This function is shown in the following:
(11) At a filming studio, Mr. Daeng, a drama director, is very angry with Philatlak (= Phi) because she forgot to bring the costumes that they need today in shooting. Their assistants, Koen and Chit, are also trying to find solutions.
Koen: [Err… Chit Chit, didn’t Lucy say we could use her costumes?]
Chit: [Ah… Lucy said there are no costumes left in her shop because the magazine Real Man took them all to shoot their ads.]
Director: [Errrr… This is so disappointing! Cancel everything! No more shooting!]
Koen: [Hey hey hey! Uncle Daeng! Please wait wait wait…]
əə əə ciŋ.sì nɔ́ɔŋ Phi naŋsʉ̌ʉ RealMan nîà pen khɔ̌ɔŋ khun Wathit
hey hey dm sister [name] book [name] dm be of Mr [name]
chây-máy raw nâacà khuy kàp kháw dâay ná ə̀ə ... tɛ̀ɛ
q we may talk with him can ptcl er but
nɔ́ɔŋ Phi à yaŋkhoŋ mâydây fɔ́ɔŋ rʉ̂aŋ bòtsǎmphâat an nán ná
sister [name] ptcl still not listen story interview clf that ptcl
‘Hey hey! DM (= I’ve got an idea.) Phi! The Real Man magazine belongs to Wathit? We might talk with him. Er... but you haven’t listened to that interview yet, (right?).’
Philatlak: [Not yet. But I don’t get involved with him (her ex-boyfriend) anymore. You can fine me. I’m OK. Or you can deduct it from my pay. Please…please.]
(2005 Drama, Song Sa-ne-ha Episode #7)
4.2.6. Elaboration
Among the most commonly used ciŋ-DMs in Thai is ciŋ ciŋ lɛ́ɛw, consisting of ciŋ ‘true’ ciŋ ‘true’, and lɛ́ɛw ptcl. The final lɛ́ɛw is an intensifying particle to mark emphasis, one also used for completion of an event or state, comparable to the English past tense. The DM ciŋ ciŋ lɛ́ɛw signals that an elaboration is to follow, conveying the message ‘let me tell you more’. This function also closely resembles that of the English DM actually, which signals elaboration, addition, justification, clarification, etc. (Aijmer 2016), as illustrated in the following:
(12) Ong-In (= In) and Sao attend the same university. They like each other but their economic statuses are very different. Ong-In comes from a rich family while Sao is from a poor one. He works part-time at a golf resort, where Ong-In is a VIP member.
Sao: [The world of rich people includes only golf courses and beautiful grass. But in the world of countryside people, plants and soil are their life. That’s not a place for high-class girls to hang out in. The volunteer camp in the countryside might not be suitable for you.]
Ong-In: [High-class girls… I really hate that word!]
Sao: ciŋ.ciŋ.lɛ́ɛw nɔ́ɔŋ In mây khuancà maa dəən yùu thîinîi
dm sister [name] not should come walk at here
dûaysám nɔ́ɔŋ In khuancà pay tii-kɔ́ɔp yùu thîi nûun lɛ́ɛw
even sister [name] should go play.golf at place that then
phîi kɔ̂ɔ khuancà pen khon kèp lûuk-kɔ́ɔp hây nɔ́ɔŋ In
brother(=I) also should be person collect golf.ball to sister [name]
‘DM (Let me tell you), you shouldn’t be here (the workers’ zone). You should go and play golf over there. And I should be the person who collects golf balls for you.’
[If someone sees a VIP customer like you walking with me, it might not be good.]
Ong-In: [By saying this… do you mean that I should get out of here?]
(2007 Drama, Aphi Mahuema Maha Setthi Episode #3)
4.2.7. Perspective shift
The last functional category of ciŋ-DMs is perspective shift, signaled by the reduplicated ciŋ ciŋ ‘true true’ and ciŋ ciŋ à, where à is a particle. With these DMs, the speaker signals that they are shifting their perspective from the current one to a new one, whereby they reinstate the crux of the state of affairs, disregarding all peripheral issues, either presented or imagined. It is paraphrasable as ‘putting aside all other issues’, and may also signal that the speaker is returning to the main issue after digression. Since shift can be highly contrastive on the part of the interlocutor, who is still in the ongoing perspective, this DM is perceived as a signal of forthcoming disalignment. The development of ciŋ ciŋ and ciŋ ciŋ à is unique in that, in Thai, the general effect of reduplication is intensification rather than disalignment. This function also resembles that of the English DM actually, whose core meaning is ‘contrast or opposition’ (Aijmer 2016) or ‘correct[ing] a prior utterance or an implication and emphasiz[ing] divergence’ (Haselow 2013). Also notable is that these reduplicative DMs ciŋ ciŋ and ciŋ ciŋ à carry the function of prefacing not only the shift of the speaker’s perspective but also disalignment from the previous speaker, thus often challenging the veracity of the previous speaker’s claim or statement. The following excerpts illustrate the functions of perspective shift: one for reinstating the crux of the state of affairs and the other for assuming a new, completely different perspective.
(13) Nuan-Prang invited her friends to a volunteer camp in a rural area because she wanted to see a man there with whom she fell in love. However, she keeps changing her mind as to whether to go or not, and her friends are annoyed.
Ong-In: [What? I just told my dad that we won’t go to the camp. Now you want us to register again? Hey! How come you are so capricious?]
Motdaeng: [You keep changing your mind! I’m confused!]
Nuan-Prang: [I am sorry. So, then… I won’t go, OK? (feeling guilty)]
Ong-In: hə́əy dǐawkɔ̀ɔn dǐawkɔ̀ɔn khʉʉ chǎn wâa ciŋ.ciŋ man kɔ̂ɔ
hey wait wait dm I think dm it also
lɛ́ɛwtɛ̀ɛ thəə ná thâa thəə yàak samàk kɔ̂ɔ samàk
depend you ptcl if you want apply dm apply
sì aw ləəy dǐaw chǎn pay samàk penphʉ̂an kɔ̂ɔdâay
ptcl take ptcl then I go apply together all.right
‘Hey! Wait wait! Well, I think DM (= putting aside all peripheral issues) it’s you who can make a decision. If you want to register to join the camp, do so. Go ahead! I’ll go with you.’
(2007 Drama, Aphi Mahuema Maha Setthi Episode #3)
(14) Duean asked Waeo out to settle their conflict.
Duean: [Hey! Are you still angry with me? I asked you to come here today because I wanted to apologize to you for what I did to you.]
(While talking she takes out a brown envelope from her pocket and puts it on the table.)
Waeo: [What is it?]
Duean: [It’s…a small present.]
Waeo: [Ah…you rub me on the back after having smacked me on the head.]
Duean: [I don’t mean it. I just want us to be friends like before.]
Waeo: (Waeo hurriedly puts the envelop in her bag.)
thîi.ciŋ.à Duean kàp phîi à kɔ̂ɔ thamŋaan kan maa
dm [name] and sister(=I) ptcl also work together come
naan à-ná man kɔ̂ɔ tɔ̂ŋ mii bâaŋ à-ná ây kràthópkràthâŋ
long ptcl it also must have some ptcl the conflict
kan nà tɛ̀ɛ khráŋ nía man rɛɛŋ pay nɔ̀y ná
each.other ptcl but time this it severe go little ptcl
‘DM (Come to think of it), you and me, we have worked together for a long time. Conflict is possible. But this time, it was quite severe.’
Duean: [I promise that this won’t happen again. I have felt guilty all the time. Especially, (bad) things that I did to Phi (your close friend)… I feel ashamed.]
(2005 Drama, Song Sa-ne-ha Episode #7)
5. Discussion
5.1. Grammaticalization
A number of grammaticalization mechanisms and principles have been proposed in current research, notably by Lehmann (2015[1982]), Heine et al. (1991), Hopper (1991), and Kuteva et al. (2019). This discussion will consider Thai ciŋ-DMs in the light of the four parameters proposed in Kuteva et al. (2019), i.e., desemanticization, extension, decategorialization, and erosion. In addition, a brief discussion on (inter)subjectivity will be presented.
5.1.1. Desemanticization
Desemanticization refers to loss of meaning, and is commonly known by its figurative label ‘semantic bleaching’. This phenomenon can be observed in some functions of the Thai ciŋ-DMs having transformed from the core meaning of ciŋ ‘true, real, right’, to other functions such as sudden realization/remembrance, perspective shift, elaboration, surprise, etc. These functions, however, are not completely devoid of the ‘true, real, right’ meaning. For instance, the sudden realization/remembrance function is based on the perception that what has been realized or remembered is a truth and thus merits mention. The notion that something is truthful and thus noteworthy also exists in one form or another in the development of the functions of perspective shift, elaboration, and surprise. Despite being related to the original semantics, the named functions are the result of sufficient semantic bleaching, which has made the relationship largely opaque to contemporary speakers of Thai.
While some functions have undergone substantive desemanticization, some Thai ciŋ-DMs still retain much of the source meaning of ‘true, real, right’, such as those used for agreement (in the form of a statement), disagreement (with a negation marker), emphasis, and confirmation/agreement solicitation (with a question marker). When the source of meaning is retained, it is known as ‘persistence’ (Hopper 1991), and is common in grammaticalization, suggesting that semantic bleaching is gradual and gradient, and that different functions of the DMs with shared origin may exhibit very different degrees of desemanticization.
5.1.2. Extension
Extension as a grammaticalization parameter refers to expansion of usage context. Usage contexts largely depend on the word class of the lexeme in question. The source lexeme ciŋ is mostly used as an adjective and adverb whose primary categorial function is modification of a noun (e.g., khɔ̌ɔŋ ciŋ ciŋ ‘true article’), an adjective (e.g., sanùk ciŋ ‘very fun’), or a verb (e.g., phûut ciŋ ‘talk seriously’). As an adjective, ciŋ may occur as a subject complement (e.g., Man ciŋ ‘It’s true’ or Man ciŋ rʉ̌ʉ mây ciŋ? ‘Is it true or not true?’) or independently in the contexts of ellipsis (e.g. Ciŋ ‘True’).
The usage contexts of the ciŋ-DMs are not restricted to the modifier or complement position. In fact, in line with the properties of DMs discussed in 5.2 below, most instances of ciŋ-DMs occur as stand-alone forms. For instance, all excerpts in the foregoing exposition (excluding [13], in which the DM ciŋ ciŋ occurs clause-internally, between the main clause and the complement clause [i.e., the medial position]) involve ciŋ-DMs either standing alone or at a non-modifying, left-periphery position. Examples such as these make it obvious that ciŋ has undergone extension in its development into more various DMs.
5.1.3. Decategorialization
Decategorialization as a grammaticalization parameter refers to the loss of primary category features. The source lexeme ciŋ belongs to the main categories adjective and adverb, which notably, belong to the third tier (nouns and verbs being in the first and second tiers, respectively; Heine & Kuteva 2007: 111) in the hierarchical structure of language evolution. Several categorial properties are associated with adjectives and adverbs. In their meticulous description of the parameter, Heine and Kuteva (2007: 40) list salient properties of decategorialization as: (a) loss of ability to be inflected, (b) loss of ability to take on derivational morphology, (c) loss of ability to take modifiers, (d) loss of independence as an autonomous form, increasing dependence on some other form, (e) loss of syntactic freedom, e.g., loss of the ability to be moved around in a sentence in ways that are characteristic of the non-grammaticalized source item, (f) loss of ability to be referred to anaphorically, and (g) loss of members belonging to the same grammatical paradigm.
Due to the typological features of Thai, which is an isolating and analytic language, only a few of these properties apply, such as (c) the ability to take modifiers, and (e) syntactic freedom. In terms of modifiability, the source lexeme ciŋ ‘true, real’ as a primary category member (adjective, adverb) was once able to take a modifier, typically an adverb (ciŋ maak ‘very true, very real’), but this ability has been lost with ciŋ-DMs. In terms of syntactic freedom, the source lexeme ciŋ, as an adjective, was formerly able to be placed in a pre-nominal position, i.e., as a noun modifier, but the ciŋ-DMs that may still be classifiable in form as adjectivals can no longer modify a noun. It is noteworthy, however, that the reduplicative ciŋ ciŋ is still used as a modifier, but it functions as an intensifying modifier, different from the heterosemous DM ciŋ ciŋ.
5.1.4. Erosion
Erosion refers to the loss of phonetic volume. In line with the typological characteristics of an isolating language that is characteristically resistant to formal change, Thai ciŋ-DMs evince a minimal level of erosion. Documentation of Thai historical data is limited and thus there is no diachronic grounds for ordering the ciŋ-DMs and their functions according to their emergence. In this situation, possible examples of erosion include a set of ciŋ-DMs for confirmation solicitation, i.e.,
ciŋ rɔ̌ɔ pàaw, ciŋ pàaw, and ciŋ rɔ̌ɔ, if the last two are phonetically eroded from the first, and a pair of the disagreement-marking ciŋ-DMs, mây ciŋ rɔ̀ɔk and mây ciŋ, if the latter is an eroded form of the former. However, this possibility is highly unlikely because the directionality seems to be reversed. This is particularly true with the latter set, mây ciŋ rɔ̀ɔk and mây ciŋ, because the first is more mitigative than the second, and the difference is due to the presence of the particle rɔ̀ɔk, which has a softening effect (see 3.2.2 above). Considering this, mây ciŋ rɔ̀ɔk seems to be a modified form of mây ciŋ, instead of mây ciŋ having been the reduced form of mây ciŋ rɔ̀ɔk. Other studies have previously observed that the hypothesized directionality of condensation is reversed with DM developments, namely the study by Méndez-Naya (2006) for the English DM right.
There is a more convincing reason to believe that the groups of similar forms involve addition rather than erosion. A prominent, general characteristic of Thai ciŋ-DMs is that they often recruit particles and reduplication to create a form with identical, similar, or related functions. This is indeed a common lexicalization and grammaticalization strategy in Thai, called ‘polysemy strategy’; examples include ‘face’ lexicalization (Khammee & Rhee 2022), ‘small’ lexicalization (Khammee & Rhee 2024), and future markers (Rhee & Khammee 2024), among others. For this idiosyncrasy, although DMs are typically short in form across languages (cf. Brinton 2017, Heine et al. 2021), ciŋ-DMs and many grammaticalized forms in general, are often polylexemic in Thai. Therefore, it can be said that the parameter of erosion is not generally observed with Thai ciŋ-DMs.
5.1.5. (Inter)subjectification
In terms of semantic change, desemanticization is a common process observable in grammaticalization (see 5.1.1 above). However, as Heine et al. (1991) note, semantic change in grammaticalization cannot be characterized as a uniformly reductive change, because while there is loss there is gain as well, hence ‘the loss-and-gain model’ (Heine et al. 1991: 110). Many studies have shown that subjectification and intersubjectification are two noteworthy concomitants of grammaticalization, even though these are independent of grammaticalization processes (Traugott 2010). It would appear that what is gained in grammaticalization of DMs is (inter)subjective meanings.
When subjectivity is understood as the relationship to the speaker and his or her beliefs and attitudes, and intersubjectivity as the relationship to the addressee and his or her face, an interesting aspect emerges from the development of
ciŋ-DMs. The semantics of ciŋ ‘true, real, right’ basically relate to the objective world, i.e., something as existing in reality or as corresponding to the real states of affairs in the world, for example, ‘a real person’ (manút ciŋ) as opposed to a fictional character, ‘a true story’ (rʉ̂aŋ ciŋ) as opposed to a fictitious one, ‘a real flower’ (dɔ̀ɔkmáay ciŋ) as opposed to an artificial flower, ‘a genuine thing’
(khɔ̌ɔŋ ciŋ) as opposed to an imitation, etc. The notion of ‘real’ or ‘true’ seems to be highly susceptible to the extension into evaluative world, that is, the subjective world. For instance, ‘a true person’ (khon ciŋ) is likely to refer to someone who embodies virtues and desirable qualities. Even khɔ̌ɔŋ ciŋ ‘a genuine thing’ can be used with the evaluative, subjective meaning to refer to a difficult but important event in life such as an entrance exam. Considering that the etymon of ciŋ in Middle Chinese denoted ‘true, real, factual, genuine, actual, substantial, really, truly’ as well as ‘highest sincerity one is capable of’ (see 4.1 above), it is likely that the lexeme already carried the objective and subjective meanings at the time of borrowing.
Evidently, the objective and subjective meanings have persisted in the development of some functions of ciŋ-DMs, for example, in DMs denoting agreement (confirming truthfulness or correctness), emphasis (highlighting focused, genuine qualities), surprise and sudden realization (both highlighting unexpectedness of a newly encountered real-life event or news), etc. As the development of ciŋ into ciŋ-DMs proceeded further, it acquired diverse interactional meanings, i.e., those of the intersubjective world. For instance, such functions as confirmation solicitation, elaboration, perspective shift, etc. are interactional (by virtue of involving interlocutors) and intersubjective (by virtue of considering the addressee’s social and epistemic states). Therefore, from a broad picture, the semantico-functional development of ciŋ can be characterized as occurring from objective, to subjective, and on to intersubjective meanings.
5.2. Properties of discourse markers
In their seminal work, Heine et al. (2021: 6) characterize DMs as (a) invariable expressions which are (b) semantically and syntactically independent from their environment, (c) set off prosodically from the rest of the utterance in some way, and (d) having function that is metatextual, anchored in the situation of discourse, and serving the organization of texts, the attitudes of the speaker, and/or speaker-hearer interaction.
Thai ciŋ-DMs are largely invariable expressions, even though some of them contain a seemingly optional but often crucial particle as a component in their construct, e.g., mây ciŋ and mây ciŋ rɔ̀ɔk, ciŋ ciŋ and ciŋ ciŋ lɛ́ɛw, ciŋ ciŋ and
ciŋ ciŋ à, etc., thereby confirming (a). All ciŋ-DMs are syntactically independent, typically occurring at left-periphery or as a stand-alone, thus confirming (b). Their prosody as observed in their realization in everyday interaction, although not appearing in the referenced written corpora, is distinctive and set off from the rest of the utterance, thereby confirming (c). As for the metatextuality, Thai ciŋ-DMs carry the function of organizing discourse materials, facilitating communicative interaction with the interlocutor, and expressing subjective and intersubjective stances, thus confirming (d). It can be said, therefore, that Thai ciŋ-DMs exhibit all diagnostic characteristics of DMs.
5.3. Crosslinguistic comparison
While a full-scale, crosslinguistic comparison is beyond our immediate capacity and is not feasible for the space limitations of this paper, a brief discussion on Thai ciŋ-DMs from a crosslinguistic perspective is in order. A number of studies have addressed real/true-DMs in individual languages, as briefly listed above in 4.2.1. In particular, most reported cases of real/true-DMs carry some functions of the Thai ciŋ-DMs, such as agreement (or disagreement with a negation marker, or confirmation solicitation with a question marker), as in the English (that’s) right, Spanish en efecto, efectivamente, German stimmt, Hebrew naxon, Korean cengmal, cincca, maca, etc.6
Languages differ with respect to the other, more elaborate functions, largely due to the high level of multifunctionality of DMs and divergent paths taken by the real/true-lexemes in the course of their development (cf. Aijmer 1986, Jucker 2002, Aijmer et al. 2006, Defour et al. 2010, Simon-Vandenbergen & Willems 2011, Ricca & Visconti 2014). It is particularly notable that when a language has multiple real/true-DMs, their functions may diverge drastically. For instance, the English actually, unlike its semantic relative right, carries the shift function of disalignment. In other words, English actually, like Thai ciŋ, signals that there is some incompatibility between the proposition to follow and the one expressed or implied in the context (Haselow 2013, Aijmer 2016). A similar functional development has been reported in Italian with the DM veramente, used for a ‘mitigated rebuttal’ (Ricca & Visconti 2014: 142) and with the French vraiment in rebuttal contexts (‘contextes réfutatifs’, Rodríguez Somolinos 2011). In this context, the discussion of Japanese shinni ‘truly’, developed from the Chinese etymon ‘true’, by Higashiizumi et al. (2024) carries an important implication with respect to effects of genres and registers. The authors observe skewing of ‘truth’-related words by written and colloquial genres, suggesting that the functional divergence can be observed not only across languages but also within languages.
For our purposes, a more interesting investigation of Thai ciŋ-DMs is one in comparison with the development of its etymon in Chinese, the donor language. As briefly alluded to in 4.1 above, the lexical uses of the Thai ciŋ largely coincide with those of the etymon ćin (or zhen, tsyn) of Middle Chinese. According to Rhee and Zhang (2024), the Chinese etymon qing/zhen signified ‘true’ and the Chinese lexemes comparable to Thai ciŋ-DMs are zhende (zhēn ‘true’ + de ‘of/ptcl’) and zhenshi (zhēn ‘true’ + shi ‘be so, be correct’). According to the authors, zhende occurred very infrequently until Yuan Dynasty times (1271–1368 CE), and more frequently occurred in the Ming dynasty (14th–17th centuries) and Qing dynasty (17th–1912). Its use as a DM is first attested in the 20th century for various functions, such as emphasis, preface to noteworthy information, surprise, and preface to upcoming disalignment. The DM zhensi has a longer history, having first occurred in the Warring States period (5th–3rd BCE). The adverbial usage with the meaning of ‘truly’ occurred in the 17th century. Its DM usage is first attested in the Qing dynasty times, and it became functionally diversified in 20th century Modern Chinese when it began to be used to express discontent, sudden remembrance, reproach, and annoyance. Although the two DMs originated from the same source, their functions diverged significantly.
A comparison of the grammaticalization scenarios of real/true-DMs in Thai and Chinese shows that some functions are common to the two languages, such as emphasis, surprise, and remembrance/realization. Notably, certain functions found in Chinese are not found in Thai, such as preface to noteworthy information, preface to upcoming disalignment, discontent, sudden reproach, and annoyance. Conversely, certain functions found in Thai are not found in Chinese, such as agreement, disagreement, confirmation solicitation, elaboration, and perspective shift. These states of affairs suggest that developmental paths of the DMs that evolved from the same etymon may not exhibit a great degree of similarity. They may show some commonalities, possibly attributable to the common reasoning patterns from the source semantics, but the differences are greater, possibly due to taking different paths of reasoning, with selective focus on particular aspects of meaning or influence of the context. This would be consonant with some earlier observations that lexemes from the same etymon in different languages can be widely different in the development of the DMs from such lexemes to the point of being ‘false friends’ (e.g., English actually and French actuellement, Defour et al. 2010).
5.4. Conceptual-functional network
Semantic and functional changes are gradual and gradient since changes are actualized through constant semantic negotiation between interlocutors. Therefore, even large gaps between the meaning and functions in the source lexeme and the resultant grammatical forms are often nothing more than cumulative effects of incremental changes that have occurred through inferences. This phenomenon is well captured by the Metonymic-Metaphorical Model (Heine et al. 1991) as well as the Invited Inferencing Theory of Semantic Change Model (Traugott & Dasher 2002). The effect of the gradient nature of grammaticalization is evident in the relationship of diverse functions that arise from the same form, and the relationship creates a conceptual-functional network (cf. Narrog & Ito 2007, Narrog 2010). Networks (re-)constructed on the basis of the inventory of synchronic functions rather than functions historically ordered through diachronic trajectory are hypothetical in nature, but this approach ‘from synchrony to diachrony’ can be particularly useful in contexts where historical data are scarce (cf. Givón 1971, 2015: 1–26, among others).
The core meanings of the source lexeme ciŋ are ‘true’ and ‘real’, and from these the basic functions of ‘agreement’ and ‘emphasis’ have emerged. Diverse functions have developed from these two key concepts, together with additional devices such as particles, reduplication, prosody, and supplementary lexemes. With the help of these additional devices, the ciŋ-DMs of agreement have further developed the functions of disagreement (with negation) and confirmation solicitation (with appeal contour or question markers). The emphasis marking has developed through two divergent paths, one first towards elaboration and further towards perspective shift, and another first towards surprise and further towards sudden realization. In the path towards surprise, the addition of the lexeme taay ‘die, death’ seems to have played an important role. The network of paths of lexeme development is graphically presented in Figure 1.7
Figure 1. The conceptual-functional network of Thai ciŋ-DMs
6. Summary and conclusion
This paper aimed to identify the functions of truth-DMs in Thai, to analyze their development, to compare them with corresponding DMs in other languages. The analysis showed that the Thai truth-DMs, developed from the Sino-Thai ciŋ, carry the following functions: (dis)agreement response token, confirmation solicitation, emphasis, surprise, sudden realization/remembrance, elaboration, and perspective shift.
A review of ciŋ-DMs in light of grammaticalization parameters shows that changes characterizable as desemanticization, extension, and decategorialization are observable, whereas erosion is either not observed or, rather, its reverse is often found. Despite variable degrees of semantic bleaching, the semantic change in the direction from objective to subjective and further to intersubjective meanings, is prominent.
A brief review with other languages, especially Chinese, the donor language, reveals many similarities, supposedly due to the lexical source semantics and common cognitive operations, as well as differences, supposedly due to variation of such cognitive operations or contributions of the participating forms in the periphrastic DMs. An in-depth study comparing the real/true-DMs from the same Chinese etymon in other languages is warranted as a future investigation.
Abbreviations
clf: classifier; dm: discourse marker; f: feminine; intj: interjection; pass: passive; pej: pejorative; pst: past; ptcl: particle; q: question; sg: singular
1 Special thanks go to Professor Kyungeun Park for granting free use of her corpus for this research.
2 In Chinese historical periodization, Middle Chinese spans from the 4th to the 12th centuries. The SEALANG data, available at sealang.net/thai/chinese/middle.htm, are based on the works by Thomas Chin, William Baxter, Sergei Starostin, and others. In addition to lexical uses, the SEALANG data indicates the word was used as a family name. According to Bo Hong (p.c.), the Chinese etymon of Thai ciŋ is qing (情) ‘true’, which was later replaced by cin (眞/真). Despite the possibility of etymological difference, the Thai ciŋ being the truth-DM remains unaffected.
3 In the examples presented in this paper, lines that do not require morphemic glosses are given in English translation within square brackets, and supplementary information not indicated in the original text is provided in parentheses for clarity in translation.
4 A few notable peculiarities of address or person reference exist in Thai. Thais often use nicknames that are typically monosyllabic or truncated names (as Wa for Wathit in (11)) since most Thai names are polysyllabic and difficult to remember or say. Kinship terms, e.g., phîi ‘older sibling’, are often used in non-kin relations for affection, as in (6) and (12). It is also common to refer to oneself or one’s addressee in the third person, or to use one’s own (nick)name (as Nit in (3)) or addressee’s name (as Phi in (11)), instead of first person and second person pronouns.
5 As Reijirou Shibasaki (p.c.) kindly points out, the left/right distinction is problematic with the languages with right-to-left writing conventions, e.g., Arabic, Hebrew, and some traditional styles of writing in East Asian languages. Following the spirit of the researchers who pioneered the notions of left- and right-periphery, the left-periphery can be equated with ‘before’ the clause and the right-periphery with ‘after’ the clause.
6 Solicitation of confirmation or agreement may be marked by an ‘appeal intonation contour’ (Du Bois et al. 1992: 30, Maschler & Shapiro 2016) instead of a specialized question marker.
7 Special thanks go to Reijirou Shibasaki (p.c.) for suggesting a refined network model.
About the authors
Kultida Khammee
University of Phayao
Author for correspondence.
Email: annenfants@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-5620-7487
earned her PhD in Applied Linguistics from Mahidol University, Thailand, and has been teaching at University of Phayao, Thailand, since 2012. Her research interests include text analysis, cognitive linguistics, cultural studies, and language change from cross-linguistic and typological perspectives. She has authored and co-authored a number of articles published in Journal of Pragmatics, GEMA Online® Journal of Language Studies, World Journal of English Language, among others, and a book chapter in Culture-Bound Syndromes in Popular Culture (2024, Routledge).
Phayao, ThailandReferences
- Aijmer, Karin. 1986. Why is actually so popular in spoken English? In Gunnel Tottie & Ingegerd Bäcklund (eds.), English in speech and writing: A symposium, 119-129. Uppsala: Almqvist & Wilsell International.
- Aijmer, Karin. 2016. Revisiting actually in different positions in some national varieties of English. In Francisco Alonso Almeida, Laura Cruz Garcia & Victor M. Gonzales Ruiz (eds.), Corpus-based studies on language varieties, 115-143. Bristol: Peter Lang.
- Aijmer, Karin, Ad Foolen & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen. 2006. Pragmatic markers in translation: A methodological proposal. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 101-114. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
- Betz, Emma. 2015. Indexing epistemic access through different confirmation formats: Uses of responsive (das) stimmt in German interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 87. 251-266.
- Blanco-Suárez, Zeltia. 2014. The competition between the intensifiers dead and deadly. In Hilde Hasselgård, Jarle Ebeling & Signe Oksefjell Ebeling (eds.), Corpus perspectives on patterns of lexis, 71-90. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Bolden, Galina B., Alexa Hepburn & Jenny Mandelbaum. 2023. The distinctive uses of right in British and American English interaction. Journal of Pragmatics 205. 78-91.
- Brinton, Laurel J. 2017. The Evolution of Pragmatic Markers in English: Pathways of Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Defour, Tine, Ulrique D’Hondt, Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen & Dominique Willems. 2010. In fact, en fait, de fait, au fait: A contrastive study of the synchronic correspondences and diachronic development of English and French cognates. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen 111 (4). 433-463.
- Du Bois, John W., Susanna Cumming, Stephan Schuetze-Coburn & Danae Paolino (eds.). 1992. Discourse Transcription (Santa Barbara Papers in Linguistics 4). Department of Linguistics, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara.
- Garcés, María Pilar Gómez. 2014. Gramaticalización y tradiciones discursivas: El proceso de creación de los marcadores de confirmación. Revue Romane 29 (2). 264-292.
- Gardner, Rod. 2001. When Listeners Talk: Response Tokens and Listener Stance. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Givón, Talmy. 1971. Historical syntax and synchronic morphology: An archaeologist’s field trip. Chicago Linguistic Society 7. 394-415.
- Givón, Talmy. 2015. The Diachrony of Grammar. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Gray, Mark. 2012. On the interchangeability of actually and really in spoken English: Quantitative and qualitative evidence from corpora. English Language and Linguistics 16 (1). 151-170.
- Haarmann, Harald. 2012[1986]. Language in Ethnicity: A View of Basic Ecological Relations. Berlin: Mouton.
- Haselow, Alexander. 2013. Arguing for a wide conception of grammar: The case of final particles in spoken discourse. Folia Linguistica 47 (2). 375-424.
- Heine, Bernd. 1992. Grammaticalization chains. Studies in Language 16 (2). 335-368.
- Heine, Bernd. 2013. On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics 51 (6). 1205-1247.
- Heine, Bernd, Ulrike Claudi & Friederike Hünnemeyer. 1991. Grammaticalization: A Conceptual Framework. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
- Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck, Tania Kuteva & Haiping Long. 2021. The Rise of Discourse Markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2005. Language Contact and Grammatical Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Heine, Bernd & Tania Kuteva. 2007. The Genesis of Grammar: A Reconstruction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
- Heritage, John. 1998. Oh-prefaced response to inquiry. Language in Society 27. 291-334.
- Higashiizumi, Yuko, Reijirou Shibasaki & Keiko Takahashi. 2024. From truth to truly: The case of shinni ‘truly’ in Japanese. Russian Journal of Linguistics 28 (4). 843-864. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-40518
- Hopper, Paul J. 1991. On some principles of grammaticalization. In Elizabeth C. Traugott & Bernd Heine (eds.), Approaches to grammaticalization, 2 vols. Vol. 1, 17-35. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth C. Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Jucker, Andreas H. 2002. Discourse markers in Early Modern English. In Richard Watts & Peter Trudgill (eds.), Alternative histories of English, 210-230. London: Routledge.
- Khammee, Kultida & Seongha Rhee. 2022. Same and different ways of seeing faces: The cases of Korean and Thai. The Journal of Linguistic Science 103. 361-381.
- Khammee, Kultida & Seongha Rhee. 2024. Cultural meanings of ‘small’: Similar yet different semantic networks of diminutives in Thai and Korean. Selected Conference Proceedings Papers of the SOAS GLOCAL 2022 Conference in Asia. 188-200.
- Kim, Hi-Jean. 2003. The-Fact-Is-That and related constructions: A usage-based approach and implications in English education. Doctoral dissertation, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Seoul.
- Kuteva, Tania, Bernd Heine, Bo Hong, Haiping Long, Heiko Narrog & Seongha Rhee. 2019. World Lexicon of Grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Kuryłowicz, Jerzy. 1975[1965]. The evolution of grammatical categories. In Eugenio Coseriu (ed.), Esquisses linguistiques II, 38-54. Munich: Fink.
- Labov, William. 1994. Principles of Linguistic Change. Volume 1: Internal Factors. Oxford: Blackwell.
- Lehmann, Christian. 2015[1982]. Thoughts on Grammaticalization (3rd ed.). Berlin: Language Science Press.
- Maschler, Yael & Roi Estlein. 2008. Stance-taking in Hebrew casual conversation via beˈemet (‘really, actually, indeed’, lit. ‘in truth’). Discourse Studies 10 (4). 283-316.
- Maschler, Yael & Carmit Miller Shaprio. 2016. The role of prosody in the grammaticization of Hebrew naxon (‘right/true’): Synchronic and diachronic aspects. Journal of Pragmatics 92. 43-73.
- Meillet, Antoine. 1912. L'évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia 12. (Reprinted in Meillet. 1948. Linguistique Historique et Linguistique Générale 1. 130-148. Paris: Edouard Champion).
- Méndez-Naya, Belén. 2006. Adjunct, modifier, discourse marker: On the various functions of right in the history of English. Folia Linguistica Historica 40. 141-169.
- Narrog, Heiko. 2010. A diachronic dimension in maps of case functions. Linguistic Discovery 8 (1). 233-254.
- Narrog, Heiko & Shinya Ito. 2007. Re-constructing semantic maps: The comitative-instrumental area. Sprachtypolgie und Universalienforschung (STUF) 60 (4). 273-292.
- Rhee, Seongha. 2016. On the emergence of the stance-marking function of English adverbs: A case of intensifiers. Linguistic Research 33 (3). 395-436.
- Rhee, Seongha. 2021. On grammaticalization of truthfulness-based emphatic discourse markers. In Fuxiang Wu, Yonglong Yang & Haiping Long (eds.), Grammaticalization and studies of grammar 10, 461-499. Beijing: Commercial Press.
- Rhee, Seongha. 2022. Where to go at the end: Polylexicalization and polygrammaticalization of Kaz ‘edge’ in Korean. Russian Journal of Linguistics 26 (3). 571-595. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-30616
- Rhee, Seongha & Kultida Khammee. 2024. Grammaticalization of future-time reference markers in Korean and Thai. GEMA: Journal of Language Studies 24 (3). 1-19.
- Rhee, Seongha & Lin Zhang. 2024. The way of the truth: The case of Korean DM cincca in comparison with Chinese DMs zhenshi and zhende. Russian Journal of Linguistics 28 (4). 818-842. https://doi.org/10.22363/2687-0088-40500
- Ricca, Davide & Jacqueline Visconti. 2014. On the development of the Italian truth adverbs davvero and veramente. In Irma Taavitsainen, Andreas H. Jucker & Jukka Tuominen (eds.), Diachronic corpus pragmatics, 133-154. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
- Rodríguez Somolinos, Amalia. 2011. Assertion de la vérité et engagement du locuteur: L’évolution de voirement et de vraiment en français (XIIe-XVIIe siècle). Langages 184. 91-110.
- Romaine, Suzanne. 1982. Socio-Historical Linguistics: Its Status and Methodology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Schegloff, Emanuel A. 1996. Confirming allusions: Toward an empirical account of action. The American Journal of Sociology 102 (1). 161-216.
- Shibasaki, Reijirou & Yuko Higashiizumi. Forthcoming. An introduction. In Yuko Higashiizumi & Reijirou Shibasaki (eds.), The emergence of pragmatic markers in East Asian languages (Studies in pragmatics). Leiden: Brill.
- Simon-Vandenbergen, Anne-Marie & Dominique Willems. 2011. Crosslinguistic data as evidence in the grammaticalization debate: The case of discourse markers. Linguistics 41. 1123-1161.
- Suthiwan, Titima & Uri Tadmor. 2009. Loanwords in Thai. In Martin Haspelmath & Uri Tadmor (eds.), Loanwords in the World’s languages - a comparative handbook, 599-616. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
- Traugott, Elizabeth C. 2010. (Inter)subjectivity and (inter)subjectification: A reassessment. In Kristin Davidse, Lieven Vandelanotte & Hubert Cuyckens (eds.), Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization, 29-71. Berlin: De Gruyter Mouton.
- Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
- Yaguchi, Michiko, Yoko Iyeiri & Yasumasa Baba. 2010. Speech style and gender distinctions in the use of very and real/really: An analysis of the corpus of spoken professional American English. Journal of Pragmatics 42. 585-597.
data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/1d67c/1d67c0928459bf82f4647fb5ba6a9f76fe1ea22a" alt=""