WHAT-Questions in Thai: Focusing on Soliloquy-Based Discourse Markers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1509.07Keywords:
soliloquy, discourse marker, discursive strategy, ‘What’, ThaiAbstract
Although most utterances are other-directed, some utterances are self-directed, e.g., soliloquy. It has been observed that soliloquies and other forms of self-talk that satisfy diverse personal needs are sometimes strategically manipulated so that the utterances, while marked as soliloquy in form, are uttered audibly enough for the discourse participant to hear, in a delicate double play of manipulating the form (i.e., monologue) and the manner of delivery (i.e., interlocutor-orientation). In Thai, a set of interrogative constructions involving the interrogative pronoun àray ‘what’, is typically used in dialogues with intent to pose a question to the addressee, yet with no interrogative illocutionary force by virtue of diverse linguistic and paralinguistic cues. These cues include the absence of interactional particles, the presence of non-interrogative intonational contour, and the absence of paralinguistic cues (e.g., gesture, gaze, etc.) that typically occur with other-directed questions. For these reasons, these discourse markers (DMs) are simultaneously feigned soliloquies and feigned questions. They are used as pause-fillers or markers of emotional stance, such as (negative) surprise, frustration, discontent, disapproval, sarcasm, etc. As has been reported in other languages, such as Korean, these soliloquy-based DMs carry a strong engaging effect on the addressees, despite them being aware that the question is not intended to solicit an answer.
References
Aijmer, K. (2002). English discourse particles: Evidence from a corpus. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Aijmer, K, Foolen, A., & Simon-Vandenbergen, A.-M. (2006). Pragmatic markers in translation: A methodological proposal. In K. Fischer (Ed.), Approaches to discourse markers (pp. 101-114). Berlin: Elsevier.
Angkapanichkit, J. (2012). ?araj jàaŋ níi: The grammatical functions and social categories as a new final particle in Thai language. MFU Connexion, 1(1), 94-109.
Beeching, K. (2002). Gender, politeness and pragmatic particles in French. Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Brinton, L. J. (1996). Pragmatic markers in English: Grammaticalization and discourse functions. Berlin: Mouton.
Brinton, L. J. (2024). The rise of what-general extenders in English. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 25(1), 104-136.
Cambridge English Dictionary, The. (n.d.). 2024 online version.
Cheshire, J. (2007). Discourse variation, grammaticalisation and stuff like that. Journal of Sociolinguistics, 11(2), 155-193.
Davidse, K., Vandelanotte, L., & Cuyckens, H. (Eds.). (2010). Subjectification, intersubjectification and grammaticalization. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139-182). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Enfield, N. J. (2003). The definition of what-d’you-call-it: Semantics and pragmatics of recognitional deixis. Journal of Pragmatics, 35, 101-117.
Enfield, N. J. (2009). ‘Case relations’ in Lao, A radically isolating language. In A. Malchukov & A. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Case (pp. 808-819). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Englebretson, R. (2007). Stancetaking in discourse: an introduction. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 1-25). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H. (1992). Assessments and the construction of context. In A. Duranti & C. Goodwin (Eds.), Rethinking context: Language as an interactive phenomenon (pp. 147-189). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Goodwin, C. & Goodwin, M. H. (2004). Participation. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 222-244). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Haspelmath, M. (2011). The gradual coalescence into ‘words’ in grammaticalization. In B. Heine and H. Narrog (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of grammaticalization (pp. 342-355). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heine, B. (2013). On discourse markers: Grammaticalization, pragmaticalization, or something else? Linguistics, 51(6), 1205-1247.
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Heine, B., Kaltenböck, G., Kuteva, T., & Long. H. (2021). On the rise of discourse markers. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hopper, P. J. & Traugott, E. C. (2003, 1993). Grammaticalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Iggesen, O. A. (2005). Asymmetrical case marking. In M. Haspelmath, M. S. Dryer, D. Gil, & B. Comrie (Eds.), The world atlas of language structures (pp. 206-209). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Iggesen, O. A. (2008). Asymmetry in case marking: Nominal vs. pronominal systems. In A. L. Malchukov & A. Spencer (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of case (pp. 246-257). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Iwasaki, S. & Dechapratumwan, P. (2022). Creating versatility in Thai demonstratives. Studies in Language, 46(3), 517-558.
Iwasaki, S. & Yap, F. H. (2015). Stance-marking and stance-taking in Asian languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 83, 1-9.
Jucker, A. H. (2002). Discourse markers in Early Modern English. In R. Watts & P. Trudgill (Eds.), Alternative histories of English (pp. 210-230). London: Routledge.
Khammee, K. (2024). From objective to subjective and to intersubjective functions: The case of the Thai ‘truth’-lexeme. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 28(4), 942-965.
Khammee, K., Liang-Itsara, A., & Rhee, S. (2024). Demonstratives and speaker stance in Thai. Journal of Pragmatics, 227, 19-36.
Khammee, K. & Rhee, S. (2022). Same and different ways of seeing faces: The cases of Korean and Thai. The Journal of Linguistic Science, 103, 361-381.
Khammee, K. Rhee, S. (2025). The goal-over-source asymmetry in Thai and Korean. Language and Cognition 17, e27, 1-26.
Kim, M. (2020). Korean general extenders tunci ha and kena ha ‘or something’: Approximation, hedging, and pejorative stance in cross-linguistic comparison. Pragmatics, 30(4), 560-588.
Kim, M. S., Rhee, S. & Smith, H. Y. (2021). The Korean discourse particle kulssey across discreet positions and contexts in talk-in-interaction. Journal of Pragmatics, 182, 16-41.
Koo, H. J. (2015). On discourse strategy of hypothetical quotatives in Korean. Discourse and Cognition, 22(2), 1-27.
Koo, H. J. & Rhee, S. (2013). On an emerging paradigm of sentence-final particles of discontent: A grammaticalization perspective. Language Sciences, 37, 70-89.
Koo, H. J. & Rhee, S. (2019). From self-talk to grammar: The emergence of multiple paradigms from self-quoted questions in Korean. Lingue e Linguaggi, 31, 255-278.
Kuryɫowicz, J. (1975, 1965). The evolution of grammatical categories. In E. Coseriu (Ed.), Esquisses Linguistiques II, 38-54. Munich: Fink.
Kuteva, T., Heine, B., Hong. B., Long, H., Narrog, H. & Rhee, S. (2019). World lexicon of grammaticalization (2nd edn.) Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kuteva, T., Rhee, S., Ziegeler, D., & Sabban, J. (2018). On sentence-final “what” in Singlish: Are you the Queen of England, or what? Journal of Language Contact, 11(1) 32-70.
Lakshmi, B. (1991). Convergence: A perspective from question words. Language Sciences, 13(2), 197-205.
Lehmann, C. (2015, 1982). Thoughts on grammaticalization (3rd edn). Berlin: Language Science Press.
Matisoff, J. A. (1991). Areal and universal dimensions of grammatization in Lahu. In E. C. Traugott & B. Heine (Eds.), Approaches to Grammaticalization, 2 vols. (vol. 1, pp. 383-453). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Meillet, A. (1912). L'évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia 12. (Reprinted in Meillet, 1948. Linguistique Historique et Linguistique Générale. 1, pp. 130-148. Paris: Edouard Champion).
Overstreet, M. (1999). Whales, candlelight, and stuff like that: General extenders in English discourse, New York: Oxford University Press.
Overstreet, M. & Yule, G. (1997). On being inexplicit and stuff in contemporary American English. Journal of English Linguistics, 25(3), 250-258.
Palacios Martin, I. M. & Núñez Perejo, P. (2015). “Go up to Miss Thingy”. “He’s probably like a whatsit or something”: Placeholders in focus. The differences in use between teenagers and adults in spoken English. Pragmatics, 25(3), 425-451.
Rhee, S. (2013). “I know I'm shameless to say this”: Grammaticalization of the mitigating discourse marker makilay in Korean. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 97, 480-486.
Rhee, S. (2014). “I know you are not, but if you were asking me”: On emergence of discourse markers of topic presentation from hypothetical questions, Journal of Pragmatics, 60, 1-16.
Rhee, S. (2016a). From quoting to reporting to stance-marking: Rhetorical strategies and intersubjectification of reportative. Language Sciences, 55, 36-54.
Rhee, S. (2016b.) On the emergence of pragmatic markers from pseudo-question constructions in English and Korean: A grammaticalization perspective. Language and Linguistics, 70, 423-458.
Rhee, S. (2019). From false promises, fake quotations, and feigned questions into grammar: Grammaticalization of manipulative discourse strategies. Japanese/Korean Linguistics, 25, 1-20.
Rhee, S. (2020a.) On determinants of discourse marker functions: Grammaticalization and discourse-analytic perspectives. Linguistic Research, 37(2), 289-325.
Rhee, S. (2020b). Pseudo-hortative and the development of the discourse marker eti poca ‘well, let’s see’ in Korean. Journal of Historical Pragmatics, 21(1), 53-82.
Rhee, S. & Khammee, K. (2022). On sources of goals: Grammaticalization of allatives in Thai. Southeast Asia Journal, 32(3), 109-138.
Rhee, S. & Koo, H. J. (2021). On divergent paths and functions of ‘background’-based discourse markers in Korean. In A. Haselow & S. Hancil (Eds.), Studies at the Grammar-Discourse Interface (pp. 77-100). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Schwegler, A. (1990). Analyticity and syntheticity. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Thai Royal Academy Dictionary, The. (n.d.). Online version. The Royal Society of Thailand.
Traugott, E. C. & Dasher, R. B. (2002). Regularity in semantic change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Vasavarnond, P. (1996). Discourse marker na in Bangkok Thai casual conversations. Master’s thesis. Chulalongkorn University, Thailand.
Yap, F. H. & Chor, W. O.-W. (2014). Epistemic, evidential and attitudinal markers in clause-medial position in Cantonese. In E. Leiss & W. Abraham (Eds.), Modes of modality: Modality, typology and universal grammar (pp. 219-260). Amsterdam: John Benjamins.
Yap, F. H., Chor, W. O.-W., & Lam, M. (2011). Whatchamacallit-type expressions in Cantonese: Analyzing mat, matje, meje, and me. ms. The Hong Kong Polytechnic University.
Yap, F. H., Kashyap, A. K., & Tao, H. (2023). Interrogatives and speaker stance: From information-seeking to interpersonal (dis)affiliation. Special issue, Attitudinal Interrogatives in Interactive Talk. Journal of Pragmatics, 205, 111-121.
