An Analysis of the Properties and Functions of the Thai Marker /wáj/ Based on a Formal Semantic and Pragmatic Approach
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research article aims to analyze the Thai marker /wáj/ through the analytical framework of formal semantics and pragmatics. Drawing on 500 data points from the Thai National Corpus and social media platforms, the study reveals that /wáj/ is a logical operator with a core semantic feature of state maintenance, which varies according to its syntactic distribution. In the post-verbal construction [Verb + /wáj/], it operates at the event level to denote a continuous resultative state, where agentivity acts merely as a variable condition. Conversely, the pre-verbal construction [/wáj/ + Verb] functions at the modal level, suspending truth values to defer events and save face. Furthermore, the findings illustrate the dynamic nature of /wáj/ in an intermediate stage of grammaticalization, exhibiting divergence, layering, and decategorialization. This reflects the status of /wáj/ as a cross-level operator that systematically bridges logical structure with social commitment. The insights gained from this study can be applied to improve grammatical explanations in Thai grammar textbooks, as well as serve as a guideline for teaching Thai as a foreign language.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The Copyright Notice will appear in About the Journal. It should describe for readers and authors whether the copyright holder is the author, journal, or a third party. It should include additional licensing agreements (e.g. Creative Commons licenses) that grant rights to readers (see examples), and it should provide the means for securing permissions, if necessary, for the use of the journal's content.
References
ฟาม เฟือง ฬิญห์ และ จอมขวัญ สุทธินนท์. (2568). การวิเคราะห์คำช่วยกริยา “ไว้” ตามทฤษฎีภาษาศาสตร์ปริชาน. วารสารวจนะ, 13(1), 101–125.
ราชบัณฑิตยสถาน. (2556). พจนานุกรม ฉบับราชบัณฑิตยสถาน พ.ศ. 2554 (พิมพ์ครั้งที่ 2). ราชบัณฑิตยสถาน
สัณห์ธวัช ธัญวงษ์. (2557). กระบวนการกลายเป็นคำไวยากรณ์ของคำ “ไว้” [วิทยานิพนธ์ปริญญามหาบัณฑิต]. จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย. Chulalongkorn University Intellectual Repository. https://doi.org/10.58837/CHULA.THE.2014.1771
Baker, P. (2006). Sociolinguistics and corpus linguistics. Edinburgh University Press.
Beavers, J. (2012). Lexical aspect and the result state. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 30(4), 1145–1188.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University Press.
Copley, B. (2009). The semantics of the future. Routledge.
Dowty, D. (1991). Thematic proto-roles and argument selection. Language, 67(3), 547–619. https://doi.org/10.2307/415037
Dowty, D. R. (1979). Word meaning and Montague grammar. D. Reidel.
Heim, I., & Kratzer, A. (1998). Semantics in generative grammar. Blackwell.
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization (2nd ed.). Cambridge University Press.
Hörberger, F. (2016). The grammaticalized forms of oku and shimau, are they alone? [Bachelor’s thesis]. Lund University. LUP Student Papers. https://lup.lub.lu.se/luur/download?func=downloadFile&recordOId=8890844&fileOId=8890845
Jaszczolt, K. M. (2009). Representing time: An essay on temporality as modality. Oxford University Press.
Kondo, K. (2014). An inquiry into the grammaticalization process of Japanese auxiliary verbs: With special reference to -te shimau and -te oku. Studies in Language Sciences: Journal of the Japanese Society for Language Sciences, 13, 96–123.
Kratzer, A. (1981). The notional category of modality. In H. J. Eikmeyer & H. Rieser (Eds.), Words, worlds, and contexts: New approaches in word semantics (pp. 38–74). de Gruyter.
Kratzer, A. (2004). Telicity and the meaning of objective case. In J. Guéron & J. Lecarme (Eds.), The syntax of time (pp. 389–423). MIT Press.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. University of Chicago Press.
Levin, B., & Rappaport Hovav, M. (1995). Unaccusativity: At the syntax-lexical semantics interface. MIT Press.
Matthewson, L. (2004). On the methodology of semantic fieldwork. International Journal of American Linguistics, 70(4), 369–415.
Portner, P. (2009). Modality. Oxford University Press.
Pustejovsky, J. (1995). The generative lexicon. MIT Press.
Ramchand, G. (2008). Verb meaning and the lexicon: A first phase syntax. Cambridge University Press.
Searle, J. R. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge University Press.
Smith, C. S. (1997). The parameter of aspect (2nd ed.). Kluwer Academic.
Sugimura, Y. (2003). Teoku kōbun to tearu kōbun no hitaishōsei ni tsuite [The asymmetry between the te-aru construction and the te-oku construction]. Studies in Language and Culture, 24(2), 95–110. http://hdl.handle.net/2237/7996
Tomioka, S. (2010). Contrastive topics operate on speech acts. In M. Zimmermann & C. Féry (Eds.), Information structure: Theoretical, typological, and experimental perspectives (pp. 115–138). Oxford University Press.
Vendler, Z. (1957). Verbs and times. The Philosophical Review, 66(2), 143–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2182371
