Cognitive semantic extensions of แม่ (mɛ̂ɛ, ‘mother’) compounds in Thai: A corpus-based analysis of conceptual metaphor, cultural schemas, and prototype effects
Main Article Content
Abstract
This study examines the semantic extensions of the Thai kinship term แม่ (mɛ̂ɛ, ‘mother’) through a corpus-based cognitive semantic approach. Drawing on data from the Thai National Corpus (TNC), the analysis identifies 41 compounds in which mɛ̂ɛ functions as the initial morpheme, spanning domains of kinship, domesticity, economy, authority, origin, spirituality, and pragmatics. The findings reveal a radial category structure organized around the prototypical sense of ‘biological mother,’ with extensions motivated by conceptual metaphors (MOTHER AS SOURCE, MOTHER AS PROTECTOR, MOTHER AS AUTHORITY) and metonymic mappings (MOTHER FOR HOUSEHOLD MANAGER, MOTHER FOR MARKET VENDOR). Frequency data bear out prototype effects: high-frequency compounds such as แม่น้ำ (mɛ̂ɛ-náam, ‘river,’ 3,803 tokens) and แม่บ้าน (mɛ̂ɛ-bâan, ‘housewife,’ 956 tokens) form secondary prototypes, while low-frequency but culturally salient compounds such as แม่ย่านาง (mɛ̂ɛ-yâa-naaŋ, ‘vehicle guardian’) reveal distinctively Thai elaborations rooted in animist traditions. The study contributes to cognitive semantic theory by demonstrating how universal metaphorical structures interact with culture-specific schemas, and to Thai linguistics by identifying mɛ̂ɛ as a cultural keyword encoding Thai conceptualizations of gender, authority, morality, and the sacred.
Article Details

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The articles featured in the Journal of Language and Culture (JLC) constitute academic works representing the viewpoints of the respective author(s). It is crucial to note that these opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the Editorial Board.
All articles published in JLC are released under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0). This license grants permission for unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided proper credit is given to the original author(s) and the source.
References
Århem, K., & Sprenger, G. (Eds.). (2016). Animism in Southeast Asia. Routledge.
Barcelona, A. (Ed.). (2003). Metaphor and metonymy at the crossroads: A cognitive perspective. Mouton de Gruyter. https://doi.org/10.1515/9783110894677
Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University. (n.d.). Thai National Corpus (TNC3). https://www.arts.chula.ac.th/ling/tnc3/
Dube, L. (1997). Kinship and gender in South and Southeast Asia: Patterns and contrasts. J.P. Naik Memorial Lecture. https://archive.nyu.edu/jspui/bitstream/2451/34237/2/9JPNaikReport.pdf
Fillmore, C. J. (1982). Frame semantics. In Linguistic Society of Korea (Ed.), Linguistics in the morning calm (pp. 111–138). Hanshin.
Gaby, A. (2017). Kinship semantics: Culture in the lexicon. In F. Sharifian (Ed.), Advances in cultural linguistics (pp. 173–188). Cultural Linguistics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-10-4056-6_9
Gedney, W. J. (1964). A comparative sketch of White, Black, and Red Tai. Social Science Review, 14, 1–47.
Goddard, C. (2025). The conceptual building blocks of kinship terminologies. Lingua, 313, Article 103841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lingua.2024.103841
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. University of Chicago Press.
Kövecses, Z. (2005). Metaphor in culture: Universality and variation. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511614408
Kövecses, Z. (2015). Where metaphors come from: Reconsidering context in metaphor. Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780190224868.001.0001
Kronenfeld, D. B. (2006). Issues in the classification of kinship terminologies: Toward a new typology. Anthropos, 101, 203–219.
Lakoff, G. (1987). Women, fire, and dangerous things: What categories reveal about the mind. University of Chicago Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Morgan, L. H. (1871). Systems of consanguinity and affinity of the human family. Smithsonian Institution.
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 104(3), 192–233. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.104.3.192
Schneider, D. M. (1984). A critique of the study of kinship. University of Michigan Press.
Sharifian, F. (2011). Cultural conceptualisations and language: Theoretical framework and applications. John Benjamins.
Sharifian, F. (2017). Cultural linguistics. John Benjamins.
Suwannarat, P. (1995). Kham riak yaat nai phasa Thai [Thai kinship terms]. Thammasat University Press.
Thepkanjana, K. (1993). A study of Thai kinship terminology. Chulalongkorn University Press.
Trongdee, T., Sae-ung, W., Sae-wong, U., Dunyala, J., & Xu, Y. (2020). Semantic Extension of the Word ‘Mother’ in Thai, Lao and Chinese. Journal of Language, Religion and Culture, 9(2), 53–76. https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/gshskku/article/view/247678
Wierzbicka, A. (2016). Back to ‘mother’ and ‘father’: Overcoming the Eurocentrism of kinship studies through eight lexical universals. Current Anthropology, 57(4), 408–429. https://doi.org/10.1086/687360
Wierzbicka, A. (2017). The meaning of kinship terms: A developmental and cross-linguistic perspective. In Z. Ye (Ed.), The semantics of nouns (pp. 19–61). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780198736721.003.0002