On Intensifiers in Thai and Korean: Grammaticalization and Contrastive Perspectives
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.17507/tpls.1605.36Keywords:
intensifier, grammaticalization, contrastive analysis, monosemy strategy, polysemy strategyAbstract
Intensification is a language universal (Rainer, 2015, p. 1340) since adding emphasis to the meaning of a particular linguistic form is among language users’ basic needs in discourse. Intensification is frequently realized by means of an intensifier, a degree-modifying adverb in many languages. Despite the universal presence of intensifiers across world languages, their morpho-syntactic makeup and lexical strengths may vary (Hendrikx et al., 2024). This paper utilizes a comparative perspective to analyze intensifiers in two languages that are typologically distinct and genealogically unrelated, i.e., Korean and Thai, and reveals that Thai has fewer items with a much higher level of specialization as compared to Korean, reinforcing the claim that Thai uses the polysemy strategy whereas Korean uses the monosemy strategy (Khammee & Rhee, 2022). It further reveals that, unlike Korean, in which diverse source lexemes are involved, Thai intensifiers are built on a more restrictive number of lexemes, utilizing the primary marker complemented with particles, lexical items, or even reduplication. Korean intensifiers are sometimes used in repetitive forms but univerbation of such forms is rather rare. The present paper also presents a number of intriguing aspects of grammaticalization and lexicalization that may be attributed to typological and idiosyncratic differences between the two languages.
References
Biber, D. (1998). Variation across speech and writing. Cambridge University Press.
Bolinger, D. L. (1972). Degree words. Mouton.
Bybee, J. L., Pagliuca, W., & Perkins, R. D. (1994). The evolution of grammar: Tense, aspect, and modality in the languages of the world. The University of Chicago Press.
Bylinina, L., & Sudo, Y. (2015). Varieties of intensification: Remarks on Beltrama and Bochnak ‘Intensification without degrees cross-linguistically’. Natural Language & Linguistic Theory, 33, 881-895.
Culpeper, J., & Kytö, M. (2010). Early Modern English dialogues: Spoken interaction as writing. Cambridge University Press.
Du Bois, J. W. (2007). The stance triangle. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 139-182). Amsterdam.
Du Bois, J. W., Kärkkäinen, E. (2012). Taking a stance on emotion: Affect, sequence, and intersubjectivity in dialogic interaction. Text & Talk, 32, 433-451.
Englebretson, R. (2007). Stancetaking in discourse: An introduction. In R. Englebretson (Ed.), Stancetaking in discourse: Subjectivity, evaluation, interaction (pp. 1-25). John Benjamins.
Gardner, R. (2001). When listeners talk: Response tokens and listener stance. 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 University Press.
Goodwin, C., & Goodwin, M. H. (2004). Participation. In A. Duranti (Ed.), A companion to linguistic anthropology (pp. 222-244). Blackwell.
Haas, M. (1946). Techniques of intensifying in Thai. Word, 2(2), 127-130.
Heine, B., Claudi, U., & Hünnemeyer, F. (1991). Grammaticalization: A conceptual framework. The University of Chicago Press.
Hendrikx, I., Goethem, K. V., & Buntinx, N. (2024). Intensification strength in speech: Language-specific preferences and differences between first and additional language. Dutch Journal of Applied Linguistics, 13, 1-22.
Hopper, P. J., & Traugott, E. C. (2003). Grammaticalization. Cambridge University Press.
Ito, R., & Tagliamonte, S. (2003). Well weird, right dodgy, very strange, really cool: layering and recycling in English intensifiers. Language and Society, 32(2), 257-279.
Iwasaki, S., & Yap, F. H. (2015). Stance-marking and stance-taking in Asian languages. Journal of Pragmatics, 83, 1-9.
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. (2025). Appearances are deceiving: Polysemization and grammaticalization of Korean and Thai lexemes of Chinese origin. Theory and Practice in Language Studies, 15(8), 2738-2749.
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, H. (2008). Processes underlying the development of Korean intensifiers: The cases of memwu, nemwunemwu and nem. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 16, 163-192.
Kim, K. (2016). ‘Positive-emphasis’ use of nemu in Korean in informal discourse. The Linguistic Association of Korea Journal, 24(4), 321-342.
Kuryɫowicz, J. (1975, 1965). The evolution of grammatical categories. In E. Coseriu (Ed.), Esquisses Linguistiques II, 38-54. Fink.
Kwon, J.-I. (1987). Emphatics and its realizing methods. Inmwunkwahak noncip, 19, 57-73.
Lee, H.-H. (2013). The ways and features of emphasis according to lexical level: Definitions in the Standard Korean Language Dictionary. Hankwukhak Yenkwu, 46, 125-165.
Lichtenberk, F. (1991). Semantic change and heterosemy in grammaticalization. Language, 67(3), 475-509.
Locher, M. A. (2015). Interpersonal pragmatics and its link to (im)politeness research. Journal of Pragmatics, 86, 5-10.
Locher, M. A., & Larina, T. V. (2019). Introduction to politeness and impoliteness research in global contexts. Russian Journal of Linguistics, 23(4), 873-903.
McPherson, L. (2020). A grammar of Seenku. De Gruyter.
Meillet, A. (1912). L'évolution des formes grammaticales. Scientia 12. (Reprinted in Meillet, 1948. Linguistique Historique et Linguistique Générale, 1, 130-148. Edouard Champion)
Muazu, M. A. (2009). Classification and functions of ideophones in Kilba. California Linguistic Notes, 34(2), 1-8.
Mushin, I. (2001). Evidentiality and epistemological stance: Narrative retelling. John Benjamins.
Mustanoja, T. F. (1960). A Middle English syntax: Parts of speech. Societe Neophilologique.
Narrog, H., & Heine, B. (2021). Grammaticalization. Oxford University Press.
Newman, P. (1968). Ideophones from syntactic point of view. Journal of West African Languages, 5(2), 107-117.
Núñez-Pertejo, P. (2013). From degree adverb to response token: Absolutely in Late Modern and Contemporary British and American English. Neuphilologische Mitteilungen, 114, 245-273.
Park, D.-G. (2007). Establishment of emphatic adverb and functional study. Han-Geul, 275, 129-163.
Peters, H. (1994). Degree adverbs in Early Modern English. In D. Kastovsky (Ed.), Studies in Early Modern English (pp. 269-288). Walter de Gruyter.
Quirk, R., Greenbaum, S., Leech, G., & Svartvik, J. (1985). A comprehensive grammar of the English language. Longman.
Rainer, F. (2015). Intensification. In P. O. Müller, I. Ohnheiser, S. Olsen, & F. Rainer (Eds.), Word-formation: An international handbook of the languages of Europe (pp. 1340-1351). De Gruyter Mouton.
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 the stance-marking function of English adverbs: A case of intensifiers. Linguistic Research, 33(3), 395-436.
Rhee, S. (2020). Grammaticalization in Korean. In W. Bisang & A. Malchukov (Eds.), Grammaticalization scenarios: Cross-linguistic variation and universal tendencies (Vol. 1: Grammaticalization scenarios from Europe and Asia, pp. 575-608). Mouton.
Rhee, S. (2021a). On grammaticalization of truthfulness-based emphatic discourse markers. In F. Wu, Y. Yang, & H. Long (Eds.), Grammaticalization and Studies of Grammar (Vol. 10, pp. 461-499). Commercial Press.
Rhee, S. (2021b). Linguistic forms at the border of lexis and grammar: Grammaticalization of adpositions across languages. Global Contents Publishing.
Rhee, S. (2022). Comparatives in Korean: A grammaticalization perspective. Lingua, 265, 1-23.
Rhee, S. (2025). A look into selected Korean literature from the comparative, typological, and cultural linguistic perspectives [Keynote presentation]. 4th Korean Applied Linguistics Symposium, Penn State Institute for Korean Studies.
Rhee, S., & Khammee, K. (2024). Grammaticalization of future-time reference markers in Korean and Thai. GEMA: Online Journal of Language Studies, 24(3), 1-19.
Robert, S. (2020). The challenge of polygrammaticalization for linguistic theory: Fractal grammar and transcategorial functioning. Cognitive Linguistic Studies, 5(1), 106-132.
Stoffel, C. (1901). Intensives and down-toners: A study in English adverbs. Carl Winters Universitätsbuchhandlung.
Tagliamonte, S. (2008). So different and pretty cool! Recycling intensifiers in Toronto, Canada. English Language and Linguistics, 12(2), 361-362.
Tagliamonte, S. & Roberts, C. (2005). So weird; so cool; so innovative; the use of intensifiers in the television series Friends. American Speech, 80(3), 280-300.
White, P. (2003). Beyond modality and hedging: A dialogic view of the language of intersubjective stance. Text, 23(2), 259-284.
Yuttapongtada, M. (2017). Intensifier as Changed from the Impolite Word in Thai. International Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 11(4), 1057-1064.
