Cover not available
Article published In:
Studies in Language
Vol. 46:3 (2022) ► pp.517–558

Creating versatility in Thai demonstratives

ORCID logo | UCLA
| Maejo University , Thailand
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 joint attention triangle based on Diessel’s earlier work and the functional utterance frame 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.
Keywords: demonstratives, Thai, pragmatic uses, grammaticalization, indexical sign, joint attention triangle, functional utterance frame, Salient Information Marking, Topic Marking, Conditional Marking, Stance Marking, Discourse Attention Marking, Hedge Marking, Reactive Response Marking
Article outline
  • 1.Introduction
  • 2.Semantic, syntactic, and functional characteristics of Thai demonstratives in their basic uses
  • 3.The data: Lunchbreak Conversation
  • 4.Basic uses in the data
  • 5.Pragmatic uses in the data
    • 5.1Salient Information Marking (SI)
    • 5.2Topic Marking (TOP)
    • 5.3Conditional Marking (COND)
    • 5.4Stance Marking (STC)
    • 5.5Hedge Marking (HDG)
    • 5.6Discourse Attention Marking (DA)
    • 5.7Reactive Response Marking (RR)
  • 6.Discussion
  • 7.Conclusion
  • Acknowledgements
  • Notes
  • Abbreviations
  • References
Published online: 10 November 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/sl.20083.iwa
References (89)
References
Aijmer, Karin. 1997. I think: An English modal particle. In Toril Swan & Olaf J. Westvik (eds), Modality in Germanic languages. Historical and comparative perspective, 1–47. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. English discourse particles : Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Anderson, Stephen R. & Edward Keenan. 1985. Deixis. In Timothy Shopen (ed.), Language typology and syntactic description. Vol. 31, 259–308. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Arcodia, Giorgio Francesco. 2013. Grammaticalisation with coevolution of form and meaning in East Asia? Evidence from Sinitic. Language Sciences 401. 148–167. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Barth-Weingarten, Dagmar & Elisabeth Couper-Kuhlen. 2002. On the development of final though: A case of grammaticalization. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on grammaticalization, 345–361. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Beeching, Kate & Ulrich Detges (eds.). 2014. Discourse functions at the left and right periphery: Crosslinguistic investigations of language use and language change. Leiden: Brill. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2004. Grammaticalization without coevolution of form and meaning: The case of tense-aspect in East and mainland Southeast Asia. In Bisang, Walter, Nikolaus P. Himmelmann & Björn Wiemer (eds.), What makes grammaticalization? A look from its fringes and its components, 109–138. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. Problems with primary vs. secondary grammaticalization: The case of East and mainland Southeast Asian languages. Language Sciences 471. 132–147. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Blakemore, Diane. 2000. Indicators and procedures: Nevertheless and but . Journal of Linguistics 36(3). 463–486. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2002. Relevance and linguistic meaning : The semantics and pragmatics of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bohnemeyer, Jürgen. 2015. Deixis. International encyclopedia of the social & behavioral sciences, 52–57. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. 1996. Pragmatic markers in English : Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2008. The comment clause in English : Syntactic origins and pragmatic development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2010. The development of I mean: Implications for the study of historical pragmatics. In Susan M. Fitzmaurice & Irma Taavitsainen (eds.), Methods in historical pragmatics, 37–80. Berlin: de Gruyter Mouton.Google Scholar
Brinton, Laurel J. & Elizabeth ClossTraugott. 2005. Lexicalization and language change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Bühler, Karl. 1934. Sprachtheorie (Language Theory). Jena: FischerGoogle Scholar
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
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
Clark, Herbert H. 1996. Using language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Clark, Herbert H. & Eveline V. Clark, 1977. Psychology and language. An introduction to psycholinguistics. New York: Harcourt, Brace and Jovanovich.Google Scholar
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
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
de Vries, Lourens. 1995. Demonstratives, referent identification and topicality in Wambon and some other Papuan languages. Journal of Pragmatics 241. 513–533. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Anne-Marie Simon-Vandenbergen. 2011. Introduction: Grammaticalization and (inter)subjectification of discourse markers. Linguistics 49(2). 287–294. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Degand, Liesbeth & Jacqueline Evers-Vermeul. 2015. Grammaticalization or pragmaticalization of discourse markers? More than a terminological issue. Journal of Historical Pragmatics 16(1). 59–85. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diessel, Holger. 1999. Demonstratives: Form, function and grammaticalization. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2006. Demonstratives, joint attention, and the emergence of grammar. Cognitive Linguistics 17(4). 463–489. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2012. Bühler’s two-field theory of pointing and naming and the deictic origins of grammatical morphemes. In Kristin Davidse, Tine Breban, Lieselotte Brems & Tanja Mortelmans (eds.), Grammaticalization and language change: New reflections, 37–50. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Diewald, Gabriele. 2011. Pragmaticalization (defined) as grammaticalization of discourse function. Linguistics 49(2). 365–390. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Du Bois, John W. 1991. Transcription design principles for spoken discourse research. Pragmatics 1(1). 71–106. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2007. The stance triangle. In Robert Englebretson (ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction, 139–182. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Enfield, Nick J. 2003a. The definition of what-d’you-call-it: Semantics and pragmatics of recognitional deixis. Journal of Pragmatics 35(1). 101–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
2003b. Demonstratives in space and interaction: Data from Lao speakers and implications for semantic analysis. Language 79(1). 82–117. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
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
Fischer, Kerstin. 2006. Approaches to discourse particles. Amsterdam: Elsevier. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Foley, William A. & Robert D. Van Valin Jr. 1984. Functional syntax and universal grammar. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ford, Cecilia E. 1993. Grammar in interaction: Adverbial clauses in American English conversations. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
1997. Speaking conditionally: Some contexts for if-clauses in conversation. In Angeliki Athanasiadou & René Dirven (eds.), On conditionals again, 387–413. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Frank-Job, Barbara. 2006. A Dynamic–Interactional approach to discourse markers. In Kerstin Fischer (ed.), Approaches to discourse particles, 395–413. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Givón, Talmy. 1982. Logic vs. pragmatics, with human language as the referee: Toward an empirically viable epistemology. Journal of pragmatics 6(2). 81–133. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haas, Mary. 1964. Thai-English student’s dictionary. Stanford: Stanford University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Haiman, John. 1978. Conditionals are topics. Language 541. 565–589. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Halliday, Michael & Ruqaiya Hasan. 1976. Cohesion in English. London: Longman.Google Scholar
Hancil, Sylvie, ‎Alexander Haselow & ‎Margje Post (eds). 2015. Final particles. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hanks, William F. 1992. The indexical ground of deictic reference. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
2000. Indexicality. Jounral of Linguistic Anthropology 9(1–2). 124–126. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heath, Jeffrey. 1980. Nunggubuyu deixis, anaphora, and culture. Chicago Linguistics Society: Parasession on pronouns and anaphora, 151–165.Google Scholar
Heine, Bernd. 2002. On the role of context in grammaticalization. In Ilse Wischer & Gabriele Diewald (eds.), New reflections on Grammaticalization, 83–102. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2013. On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics 51(6). 1205–1247. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd, Gunther Kaltenböck & Tania Kuteva. 2013. An outline of discourse grammar. In Shannon T. Bischoff & Carmen Jany (eds.), Functional approaches to language, 155–206. Berlin: Walter de Gruyter. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Heine, Bernd & Mechthild Reh. 1984. Grammaticalization and reanalysis in African languages. Hamburg: Buske Helmet Verlag.Google Scholar
Himmelmann, Nikolaus P. 1996. Demonstratives in narrative discourse: A taxonomy of universal uses. Studies in anaphora. Amsterdam: John Bebjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Hopper, Paul J. & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 2003. Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, Shoichi. 2008. Bipolar distribution of a word and grammaticalization in Thai: A discourse perspective. In Anthony V. N. Diller, Jerold A. Edmondson & Yongxian Luo (eds.), The Tai-Kadai languages, 468–483. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
. 2013. Japanese, Rev. edn. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2015. A multiple-grammar model of speakers’ linguistic knowledge. Cognitive Linguistics 26(2). 161–210. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. (Forthcoming). Stance triangle and double dialogicality. Text and Talk Special Issue.
Iwasaki, Shoichi & Preeya Ingkaphirom. 2000. Creating speech register in Thai conversation. Language in Society 29(4). 519–554. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Iwasaki, & Preeya Ingkaphirom. 2005. A reference grammar of Thai. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaltenböck, Gunther, Bernd Heine & Tania Kuteva. 2011. On thetical grammar. Studies in Language 35(4). 852–897. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
König, Ekkehard. 2020. Beyond exophoric and endophoric uses. Additional discourse functions of demonstratives. In Åshild Naess, Anna Margetts & Yvonne Treis (eds.), Demonstratives in discourse, 21–42. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Kuno, Susumu. 1973. The structure of the Japanese language. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Levinson, Stephen C. 1983. Pragmatics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Lewis, Diana M. 2011. A discourse-constructional approach to the emergence of discourse markers in English. Linguistics 49(2). 415–43. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Li, Charles. 1976. Subject and topic. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Linde, Charlotte. 1979. Focus of attention and the choice of pronouns in discourse. Syntax and Semantics 121. 337–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Minami, Fujio. 1974. Gendai Nihongo no Koozoo (The structure of modern Japanese). Tokyo: Taishukan Shoten.Google Scholar
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: [URL] (last access 17 October 2021). DOI logo
Naess, Åshild, Anna Margetts & Yvonne Treis (eds.). 2020. Demonstratives in discourse. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Palakornkul, Angkab. 1972. A socio-linguistic study of pronominal strategy in spoken Bangkok Thai. Austin: University of Texas at Austin PhD dissertation.
Prince, Ellen. 1980. Towards a taxonomy of given-new information. In Peter Cole (ed.), Radical pragmatics, 223–256. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Ridge, Eleanor. 2020. Morphosyntactic and functional asymmetries in Vatlongos discourse demonstratives. In Åshild Naess, Anna Margetts & Yvonne Treis (eds.), Demonstratives in discourse, 69–101. Berlin: Language Science Press.Google Scholar
Sakita, Tomoko I. 2013. Discourse markers as stance markers: Well in stance alignment in conversational interaction. Pragmatics & cognition 21(1). 81–116. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Schiffrin, Deborah. 1987. Discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
. 2001. Discourse markers: Language, meaning, and context. In Deborah Tannen, Heidi E. Hamilton & Deborah Schiffrin (eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis, Vol. 11, 54–75. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Sidner, Candace L. 1983. Focusing in the comprehension of definite anaphora. Computational Models of discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Singnoi Unchalee. 2001. Discourse functions of Thai demonstratives: A case on pragmatically controlled irregular functions. In Papers from the Eleventh Annual Meeting of the Southeast Asian Linguistics Society (SEALS XI), 645–657.Google Scholar
Tabor, Whitney & Elizabeth Closs Traugott. 1998. Structural scope expansion and grammaticalization. In Anna Giacalone Ramat & Paul J. Hopper (eds.), The limits of grammaticalization, 229–272. Amsterdam: John Benjamins. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Takubo, Yukinori & Satoshi Kinsui. 1997. Discourse management in terms of mental spaces. Journal of Pragmatics 28(6). 741–758. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, Michael. 1995. Joint attention as social cognition. In Chris Moore & Philip J. Dunham (eds.), Joint Attention: Its origin and role in development, 103–130. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
. 1999/2009. The cultural origins of human cognition. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
. 2008. Reference: Intending that others jointly attend. Pragmatics and Cognition 6(1–2). 229–243. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs. 1995. The role of the development of discourse markers in a theory of grammaticalization. Paper presented at the ICHL XII, Manchester. Version of 11/97. Available at [URL] (last access 17 October 2021).
. 2012. Intersubjectification and clause periphery. English Text Construction 5(1). 7–28. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Traugott, Elizabeth Closs & Richard B. Dasher. 2002. Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Wittayapanyanon (Saito), Sunisa. 2017. Study of pragmatic final particles in “Corpus data on spoken Thai”. Journal of Asian and African Studies, 941. 111–136. Available at [URL] (last access 17 October 2021).
Cited by (4)

Cited by four other publications

Ernanda & Foong Ha YAP
2024. Phrasal alternation and Kerinci demonstrative (i)neh: Implications for spatial and socio-interactional deixis. Journal of Pragmatics 222 ► pp. 40 ff. DOI logo
Khammee, Kultida, Aphiwit Liang-Itsara & Seongha Rhee
2024. Demonstratives and speaker stance in Thai. Journal of Pragmatics 227 ► pp. 19 ff. DOI logo
Seraku, Tohru
2024. Placeholders in crosslinguistic perspective: abilities, preferences, and usage motives. Linguistics 0:0 DOI logo
Chan, Ariel
2023. The use of animal classifiers as a stance negotiation strategy in Cantonese interactional discourse. Text & Talk 43:5 ► pp. 599 ff. DOI logo

This list is based on CrossRef data as of 5 july 2024. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.