Syntactic and Semantic Properties of Benefactive Markers phuea and hai in Thai
Keywords:
benefaction, benefactive construction, benefactive marker, semantic extension, functional extensionAbstract
Benefaction and benefactive construction have received much attention in linguistic study. However, there is little research conducted on benefactive construction in Thai. This current research paper therefore has these specific purposes: to investigate and compare the syntactic as well as semantic properties of two benefactive markers, namely ‘phuea’ and ‘hai’ in Thai, and to analyze factors contributing to these differences. The researcher collected data from the Thai National Corpus (TNC) under the Patronage of Her Royal Highness Princess Mahachakri Sirindhorn. The study revealed that although similar in marking beneficiary, ‘phuea’ and ‘hai’ were both syntactically and semantically different. The two markers were syntactically different in the three following aspects: the omission of beneficiary noun phrase, beneficiary preposing, and co-occurrence with other prepositions. Semantically, the benefactive markers were different in two main aspects: a beneficiary’s awareness of benefaction and co-occurrence with subtypes of beneficiary. Dissimilarity in the original meaning of each marker contributes to differences in syntactic and semantic properties; that is to say, CAUSE is the original meaning of the benefactive marker ‘phuea’, whereas TRANSFERRING POSSESSION is the original meaning of the benefactive marker ‘hai’. Due to this, the patterns of semantic and functional extension of the two forms are dissimilar. This renders the differences in syntactic and semantic properties of both markers.
References
ภาษาไทย
Fine Arts Department, Thailand, Subcommittee considering Thai history in committee on revising Thai history กรมศิลปากร, คณะอนุกรรมการพิจารณาจารึกเกี่ยวกับประวัติศาสตร์ไทย ในคณะกรรมการชำระ ประวัติศาสตร์ไทย. 2005. Prachum Charuek Phark Thee Pat Charuek Samai Sukhothai ประชุมจารึก ภาคที่ 8 จารึกสุโขทัย [Collection of Thai inscriptions in Sukhothai period]. Bangkok: Fine Arts Department, Thailand.
Kingkarn Thepkanjana กิ่งกาญจน์ เทพกาญจนา. 2016. Grammaticalization Kan Klay Pen Roop Wiyakorn Grammaticalization การกลายเป็นรูปไวยากรณ์ [Grammaticalization]. Bangkok: Research and Publication Division, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University.
Charatdao Intratat จรัสดาว อินทรทัศน์. 1996. “Krabuankarn thee khamkariya klaypen khambupphabot nai pasa Thai” กระบวนการที่คำกริยากลายเป็นคำบุพบทในภาษาไทย [Grammaticalization of verbs into prepositions in Thai]. Doctoral Dissertation, Chulalongkorn University.
Chulalongkorn University, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Arts ภาควิชาภาษาศาสตร์ คณะอักษรศาสตร์. 2016. Khlang khormoon pasa Thai hang chart nai phrarachupathum somdetphratheprattanaratchasuda sayamborromratchakumari คลังข้อมูลภาษาไทยแห่งชาติในพระราชูปถัมภ์สมเด็จพระเทพรัตนราชสุดาฯ สยามบรมราชกุมารี [Thai National Corpus under the Patronage of Her Royal Highness Princess Mahachakri Sirindhorn]. http://ling.arts.chula.ac.th/tnc2/, accessed May 14, 2016.
Praya Upakitsilapasarn พระยาอุปกิตศิลปสาร. 2001. Lak Pasa Thai หลักภาษาไทย [Principles in Thai]. Bangkok: Phrae Pittaya.
RatchaBunddittayasatharn ราชบัณฑิตยสถาน. 2003. Sap pasasart chabub RatchaBunddittayasatharn ศัพท์ภาษาศาสตร์ ฉบับราชบัณฑิตยสถาน [Linguistics Terminologies The Royal Institute Version]. Bangkok: RatchaBunddittayasatharn.
Vichin Panupong วิจินตน์ ภาณุพงศ์. 1987. Krongsang Pasa Thai โครงสร้างภาษาไทย: ระบบไวยากรณ์ [The structure of Thai: grammatical system]. Bangkok: Ramkhamhaeng University Press.
Sunandha Anchaleenukoon สุนันท์ อัญชลีนุกูล. 2004. Rabob kham pasa Thai ระบบคำภาษาไทย [Thai morphological system]. Bangkok: Research and Publication Division, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University.
Orathai Dejthamrong อรทัย เดชธำรง. 1970. “Nathi khong khamwa ‘hai’ nai pasa Thai” หน้าที่ของคำว่า “ให้” ในภาษาไทย [Grammatical functions of the word hai in Thai language]. Master thesis, Chulalongkorn University.
ภาษาอังกฤษ
Anttila, Raimo. 1989. Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan L. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: the role of frequency. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda, eds., 602-623. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere, and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Clark, Marybeth. 1978. Coverbs and Case in Vietnamese. Pacific Linguistics Series B-No.48. Canberra: Australian National University.
Detges, Ulrich. and Waltereit, Richard. 2002. Grammaticalization vs. Reanalysis: a Semantic-Pragmatic Account of Functional Change in Grammar. Zeischrift für Sprachwissenschaft (ZS), 21(2): 151-195.
Diller, Anthony. 2001. Grammaticalization and Tai syntactic change. In Essays in Tai Linguistics, Kalaya Tingsabadh, M.R. and Arthur S. Abramson, eds., 139-176. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
Diller, Anthony. 2006. Thai Serial Verbs: Cohesion and Culture. In Serial Verb Constructions A cross-linguistic typology, Robert M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Aikhenvald, eds, 161-177. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eckardt, Regine. 2012. Grammaticalization and semantic change. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning Change in Grammaticalization: An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Finch, Geoffrey. 2005. Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gelderen, Elly van. 2011. The Linguistic Cycle: Language Change and the Language Faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hagège, Claude. 2010. Adpositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Iwasaki, Shoichi, & Yap, Foong-Ha. 1998. ‘Give’ constructions in Thai and beyond: A cognitive and grammaticalization perspective. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Tai Studies, Somsonge Burusphat, ed., 371-382.
Jenny, Mathias. 2010. Benefactive Strategies in Thai. In Benefactives and Malefactives: Typological Perspectives and Case Studies, Fernando Zúñiga and Seppo Kittilä, eds., 377-392. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jenny, Mathias. 2015. ‘Give’ and ‘get’ in the languages of Myanmar. In Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia The State of the Art, Nick J. Enfield and Bernard Comrie, eds., 155–208. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
Kittilä, Seppo. 2005. Recipient-prominence vs. beneficiary-prominence. Linguistic Typology, 9(2): 269-297
Kittilä, Seppo, & Zúñiga, Fernando. 2010. Introduction Benefaction and malefaction from a cross-linguistic perspective. In Benefactives and Malefactives: Typological Perspectives and Case Studies, Fernando Zúñiga and Seppo Kittilä, eds., 1-14. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kurzon, Dennis, & Adler, Silvia. 2008. Introduction. In Adpositions Pragmatic, semantic and syntactic perspectives, Dennis Kurzon and Silvia Adler, eds., 1-11. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar Volume I Theoretical prerequisites. California: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald. 2009. Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lehmann, Christian. 2006. Participant roles, thematic roles and syntactic relations. In Voice and Grammatical Relations: In Honor of Masayoshi Shibatani, Tasaku Tsunoda and Taro Kageyama, eds., 153-174. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Li, Charles. and Thompson, S Sandra. 1974. Co-verbs in Mandarin Chinese: Verbs or Prepositions? Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 2(3): 257-278.
Lord, Carol, Yap, Foong-Ha, & Iwasaki, Shoichi. 2002. Grammaticalization of ‘give’: African and Asian perspectives. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization, Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald, eds., 217-236. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Newman, John. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rice, Sally and Kabata, Kaori. 2007. Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the ALLATIVE. Linguistic Typology, 11: 451-514.
Rangkupan, Suda. 2005. The Syntax and Semantics of GIVE-Complex Constructions in Thai. Language and Linguistics (8.1): 193-234.
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten. 2010. The role of benefactives and related notions in the typology of purpose clauses. In Benefactives and Malefactives: Typological Perspectives and Case Studies, Fernando Zúñiga and Seppo Kittilä, eds., 121-146. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1996. Applicatives and benefactives: A cognitive account. In Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning, Masayoshi Shibatani and Sandra A Thompson, eds., 157-194. Oxford: Clarendon.
Song, Jae Jung. 2010. Korean benefactive particles and their meanings. In Benefactives and Malefactives: Typological Perspectives and Case Studies, Fernando Zúñiga and Seppo Kittilä, eds., 393-418. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Thepkanjana, Kingkarn. 2010. Ditransitive constructions in Thai. In Studies in Ditransitive Constructions A Comparative Handbook, Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath and Bernard Comrie, eds., 409-426. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Thepkanjana, Kingkarn & Uehara, Satoshi. 2008. The verb of giving in Thai and Mandarin Chinese as a case of polysemy: A comparative study. Language Sciences, 30(6): 621-651. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. langsci.2007.04.001
Thepkanjana, Kingkarn, & Uehara, Satoshi. 2015. Effects of Constituent Orders on Functional Extension Patterns of the Verbs for ‘Give’: A Contrastive Study of Thai and Mandarin Chinese. Language and Linguistics 16(1): 43–68.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1988. Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 406-416. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda, eds., 624-647. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Valin, Robert D. 2001. An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Valin, Robert D., & LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zúñiga, Fernando. 2014. Benefaction proper and surrogation. Studies in Language, 38(3): 543-565.
Fine Arts Department, Thailand, Subcommittee considering Thai history in committee on revising Thai history กรมศิลปากร, คณะอนุกรรมการพิจารณาจารึกเกี่ยวกับประวัติศาสตร์ไทย ในคณะกรรมการชำระ ประวัติศาสตร์ไทย. 2005. Prachum Charuek Phark Thee Pat Charuek Samai Sukhothai ประชุมจารึก ภาคที่ 8 จารึกสุโขทัย [Collection of Thai inscriptions in Sukhothai period]. Bangkok: Fine Arts Department, Thailand.
Kingkarn Thepkanjana กิ่งกาญจน์ เทพกาญจนา. 2016. Grammaticalization Kan Klay Pen Roop Wiyakorn Grammaticalization การกลายเป็นรูปไวยากรณ์ [Grammaticalization]. Bangkok: Research and Publication Division, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University.
Charatdao Intratat จรัสดาว อินทรทัศน์. 1996. “Krabuankarn thee khamkariya klaypen khambupphabot nai pasa Thai” กระบวนการที่คำกริยากลายเป็นคำบุพบทในภาษาไทย [Grammaticalization of verbs into prepositions in Thai]. Doctoral Dissertation, Chulalongkorn University.
Chulalongkorn University, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of Arts ภาควิชาภาษาศาสตร์ คณะอักษรศาสตร์. 2016. Khlang khormoon pasa Thai hang chart nai phrarachupathum somdetphratheprattanaratchasuda sayamborromratchakumari คลังข้อมูลภาษาไทยแห่งชาติในพระราชูปถัมภ์สมเด็จพระเทพรัตนราชสุดาฯ สยามบรมราชกุมารี [Thai National Corpus under the Patronage of Her Royal Highness Princess Mahachakri Sirindhorn]. http://ling.arts.chula.ac.th/tnc2/, accessed May 14, 2016.
Praya Upakitsilapasarn พระยาอุปกิตศิลปสาร. 2001. Lak Pasa Thai หลักภาษาไทย [Principles in Thai]. Bangkok: Phrae Pittaya.
RatchaBunddittayasatharn ราชบัณฑิตยสถาน. 2003. Sap pasasart chabub RatchaBunddittayasatharn ศัพท์ภาษาศาสตร์ ฉบับราชบัณฑิตยสถาน [Linguistics Terminologies The Royal Institute Version]. Bangkok: RatchaBunddittayasatharn.
Vichin Panupong วิจินตน์ ภาณุพงศ์. 1987. Krongsang Pasa Thai โครงสร้างภาษาไทย: ระบบไวยากรณ์ [The structure of Thai: grammatical system]. Bangkok: Ramkhamhaeng University Press.
Sunandha Anchaleenukoon สุนันท์ อัญชลีนุกูล. 2004. Rabob kham pasa Thai ระบบคำภาษาไทย [Thai morphological system]. Bangkok: Research and Publication Division, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University.
Orathai Dejthamrong อรทัย เดชธำรง. 1970. “Nathi khong khamwa ‘hai’ nai pasa Thai” หน้าที่ของคำว่า “ให้” ในภาษาไทย [Grammatical functions of the word hai in Thai language]. Master thesis, Chulalongkorn University.
ภาษาอังกฤษ
Anttila, Raimo. 1989. Historical and Comparative Linguistics. Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Bybee, Joan L. 2003. Mechanisms of change in grammaticalization: the role of frequency. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda, eds., 602-623. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bybee, Joan L., Perkins, Revere, and Pagliuca, William. 1994. The Evolution of Grammar. Tense, Aspect, and Modality in the Languages of the World. Chicago & London: The University of Chicago Press.
Clark, Marybeth. 1978. Coverbs and Case in Vietnamese. Pacific Linguistics Series B-No.48. Canberra: Australian National University.
Detges, Ulrich. and Waltereit, Richard. 2002. Grammaticalization vs. Reanalysis: a Semantic-Pragmatic Account of Functional Change in Grammar. Zeischrift für Sprachwissenschaft (ZS), 21(2): 151-195.
Diller, Anthony. 2001. Grammaticalization and Tai syntactic change. In Essays in Tai Linguistics, Kalaya Tingsabadh, M.R. and Arthur S. Abramson, eds., 139-176. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
Diller, Anthony. 2006. Thai Serial Verbs: Cohesion and Culture. In Serial Verb Constructions A cross-linguistic typology, Robert M. W. Dixon and Alexandra Aikhenvald, eds, 161-177. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eckardt, Regine. 2012. Grammaticalization and semantic change. In The Oxford Handbook of Grammaticalization, Bernd Heine and Heiko Narrog, eds. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Eckardt, Regine. 2006. Meaning Change in Grammaticalization: An Enquiry into Semantic Reanalysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Finch, Geoffrey. 2005. Key Concepts in Language and Linguistics. Hampshire: Palgrave Macmillan.
Gelderen, Elly van. 2011. The Linguistic Cycle: Language Change and the Language Faculty. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Goldberg, Adele. 1995. Constructions: A Construction Grammar Approach to Argument Structure. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hagège, Claude. 2010. Adpositions. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Iwasaki, Shoichi, & Yap, Foong-Ha. 1998. ‘Give’ constructions in Thai and beyond: A cognitive and grammaticalization perspective. In Proceedings of the First International Conference on Tai Studies, Somsonge Burusphat, ed., 371-382.
Jenny, Mathias. 2010. Benefactive Strategies in Thai. In Benefactives and Malefactives: Typological Perspectives and Case Studies, Fernando Zúñiga and Seppo Kittilä, eds., 377-392. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Jenny, Mathias. 2015. ‘Give’ and ‘get’ in the languages of Myanmar. In Languages of Mainland Southeast Asia The State of the Art, Nick J. Enfield and Bernard Comrie, eds., 155–208. Berlin/Boston: Walter de Gruyter.
Kittilä, Seppo. 2005. Recipient-prominence vs. beneficiary-prominence. Linguistic Typology, 9(2): 269-297
Kittilä, Seppo, & Zúñiga, Fernando. 2010. Introduction Benefaction and malefaction from a cross-linguistic perspective. In Benefactives and Malefactives: Typological Perspectives and Case Studies, Fernando Zúñiga and Seppo Kittilä, eds., 1-14. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Kurzon, Dennis, & Adler, Silvia. 2008. Introduction. In Adpositions Pragmatic, semantic and syntactic perspectives, Dennis Kurzon and Silvia Adler, eds., 1-11. Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Langacker, Ronald. 1987. Foundations of cognitive grammar Volume I Theoretical prerequisites. California: Stanford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald. 2008. Cognitive Grammar: A Basic Introduction. New York: Oxford University Press.
Langacker, Ronald. 2009. Investigations in cognitive grammar. Berlin/New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Lehmann, Christian. 2006. Participant roles, thematic roles and syntactic relations. In Voice and Grammatical Relations: In Honor of Masayoshi Shibatani, Tasaku Tsunoda and Taro Kageyama, eds., 153-174. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Li, Charles. and Thompson, S Sandra. 1974. Co-verbs in Mandarin Chinese: Verbs or Prepositions? Journal of Chinese Linguistics, 2(3): 257-278.
Lord, Carol, Yap, Foong-Ha, & Iwasaki, Shoichi. 2002. Grammaticalization of ‘give’: African and Asian perspectives. In New Reflections on Grammaticalization, Ilse Wischer and Gabriele Diewald, eds., 217-236. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Newman, John. 1996. Give: A Cognitive Linguistic Study. New York: Mouton de Gruyter.
Rice, Sally and Kabata, Kaori. 2007. Crosslinguistic grammaticalization patterns of the ALLATIVE. Linguistic Typology, 11: 451-514.
Rangkupan, Suda. 2005. The Syntax and Semantics of GIVE-Complex Constructions in Thai. Language and Linguistics (8.1): 193-234.
Schmidtke-Bode, Karsten. 2010. The role of benefactives and related notions in the typology of purpose clauses. In Benefactives and Malefactives: Typological Perspectives and Case Studies, Fernando Zúñiga and Seppo Kittilä, eds., 121-146. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Shibatani, Masayoshi. 1996. Applicatives and benefactives: A cognitive account. In Grammatical Constructions: Their Form and Meaning, Masayoshi Shibatani and Sandra A Thompson, eds., 157-194. Oxford: Clarendon.
Song, Jae Jung. 2010. Korean benefactive particles and their meanings. In Benefactives and Malefactives: Typological Perspectives and Case Studies, Fernando Zúñiga and Seppo Kittilä, eds., 393-418. Philadelphia: John Benjamins.
Thepkanjana, Kingkarn. 2010. Ditransitive constructions in Thai. In Studies in Ditransitive Constructions A Comparative Handbook, Andrej Malchukov, Martin Haspelmath and Bernard Comrie, eds., 409-426. Berlin/New York: De Gruyter Mouton.
Thepkanjana, Kingkarn & Uehara, Satoshi. 2008. The verb of giving in Thai and Mandarin Chinese as a case of polysemy: A comparative study. Language Sciences, 30(6): 621-651. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. langsci.2007.04.001
Thepkanjana, Kingkarn, & Uehara, Satoshi. 2015. Effects of Constituent Orders on Functional Extension Patterns of the Verbs for ‘Give’: A Contrastive Study of Thai and Mandarin Chinese. Language and Linguistics 16(1): 43–68.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1988. Pragmatic strengthening and grammaticalization. Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Berkeley Linguistics Society. 406-416. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley Linguistics Society.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 2003. Constructions in grammaticalization. In The Handbook of Historical Linguistics, Brian D. Joseph and Richard D. Janda, eds., 624-647. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Dasher, Richard B. 2002. Regularity in Semantic Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Valin, Robert D. 2001. An Introduction to Syntax. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Van Valin, Robert D., & LaPolla, Randy J. 1997. Syntax: Structure, meaning and function. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Zúñiga, Fernando. 2014. Benefaction proper and surrogation. Studies in Language, 38(3): 543-565.
Downloads
Published
2018-01-30
How to Cite
ปิยมหพงศ์ พ., & เทพกาญจนา ก. (2018). Syntactic and Semantic Properties of Benefactive Markers phuea and hai in Thai. Journal of Letters, 46(2), 345–407. Retrieved from https://so03.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/jletters/article/view/110561
Issue
Section
Articles
License
Copyright and plagiarism
Authors are responsible for obtaining permission to use copyrighted materials from copyright owners. Authors are responsible for observing requisite copyright law when quoting or reproducing copyrighted materials. Quotations and reproductions of content from other published sources must be accompanied by a reference and all sources should be clearly listed in the references section. Quotations and reproductions of content from external sources without due attribution could be considered a severe infringement of academic conduct and may constitute a legal offence under the Copyright Act of B.E. 2537. Any legal ramifications arising from the infringement of copyright regulations would be the sole responsibility of the author(s).
