Social issues in Thai classifier usage

hnguage Sciences, Volume Printed in Great Britain

IO, Number 2, pp. 313-330,

1988.

0388-0001/89

$3.00 + .OO

@ 1989 Pergamon Press plc

Social Issues in Thai Clksifier Usage

Preecha Juntanamalaga Faculty of Asian Studies, Australian National University

ABSTRACT

Previous studies of Thai classifiers have tended to treat them as a “natural” linguistic subsystem with a high degree of modular uniformity and cohesion. Classifier syntax has thus been stated through context-free generalizations and lexical semantics have been described through a uniform taxonomy, e.g. through binary-feature componential analysis, etc. Classifiers have been considered a well-formed syntactic class distinct from nouns. This paper suggests that these approaches are at best academic approximations and they disregard or minimize important facts of sociolinguistic usage. Classifiers as used in modem Standard Thai are partly the result of formal training. In particular, some aspects of classifier semantics and syntax were created in the context of ra:cha:dp (Thai “royal vocabulary”) or an associated style called “polite language”. These forms and constructions may still be stylistically marked, and can be distinguished, in a loose way at least, from others which form a more basic (or perhaps “natural”) core system. This paper suggests that the core system can be studied through a combination of sociolinguistic analysis and historicaLcomparative and acquisitional research.

INTRODUCTION An important syntactic class of words in Thai has been known under various names: numeratives, numeral designations, descriptive words, numeral classifiers, etc., or in Thai, 1hksanba:m.l Haas who was among the first to describe this word class to a linguistic audience, suggested that the term “classifiers” alone “is to be preferred to most of the others, since it is better to avoid emphasis on the use of these words with numerals. While it is true that they are required when numerals are used, they also have many other uses” (1942: 63-64). The most commonly-cited phrase structure for enumeration in Thai is

314

Language Sciences, Volume 10, Number 2 (1988)

Pattern

1: Noun i- Number

+ Classlper

Here Number includes Thai quantifiers similar to ‘some’, ‘many’, “how many’, etc. For example: (1) b9:n sb’:ng ling [house two Classifier] ‘two houses’; and (2) phksln sd’:ng tua [sarong two Chsszjier] ‘two sarongs’. Among the other uses is one to make noun phrases specific or definite. Here the classifier precedes deictic words such as ni: ‘this’ or nsln ‘that’, or it may precede adjectival verbs or other items used in a specifying way.2 The normal phrase structure in this case is Pattern 2: Noun -I- Classifier -I- Specifier

For example: (3) b8:n lfing ni [house Clussz~er this] ‘this house’. Superficially at least, classifiers appear to be syntactically optional in Pattern 2 in contrast to their obligatory status in Pattern 1. Comparing Pattern2 examples with and without classifiers (e.g. tua) present, Haas notes that “the use of a classifier in these circumstances, e.g. ml:tua ni: (‘this dog’), denotes a higher degree of particularization, such as might be rendered in English by the expression“this very dog” (1942: 63-64). Hundius and Kolver (1983: 172) observe that thisconstruction is understood to refer to a single item (assuming that Chssifier in this case is limited what they call a “classifier proper” and excludes collective words). In denoting specific nouns and noun phrases, Thai classifiers have an important function in discourse organization. So, in general, they are more important in the language than merely being measure-like words necessary in counting expressions. The two constructions noted above may be fused into a longer one: Noun + Number i- Classifier •k Specifier, as in midng tua ni: ‘these two dogs’. Jones (1970), Hundius and Kolver (1983), Panupong (1970) and others have discussed several additional subtypes (see below). Items that can occur in the CIassijier positions above have been described in various previous studies. Some of these give the impression of a cognitively homogenous and completely determined structural system. Below we review some of this work and propose that the system as a whole is somewhat looser, although there is probably a basic more fixed core. Parts of the system can be modified by Thai speakers for various communicative purposes. Thai sociolinguistic issues - in particular developments relating to “royal vocabulary” or ra:chn:sip - need to be considered in any realistic analysis of modern Thai classifier usage.

Social Issues in Thai Classifier Usage

CLASSIFIERS

315

AS A WORD CLASS

The relationship between classifiers and common nouns has been approached in several ways. The earliest Thai textbook writers (Krom Suksathikan 1891: 107) considered classifiers to be “pronouns*’ (s8pphana:m). There were said to be 33 of them, at least in the list provided for students to memorize. Later Thai authorities such as Upakit-Silapasan (( 1919) 1971:73) considered classifiers in general to be a subclass of nouns. These nouns had particular duties or functions (dthi:). The noun # classifier distinction for these authorities was not very sharp.3 UpakitSilapasan divided classifiers into five subsets: (natural biological) categories, shapes, collective terms, measure-quantity terms and resultant actions. The last subset was special in being classifier nouns derived from verbs (e.g. mlian ‘a roll’, phip ‘a fold’ and ci:p ‘a pinch’). On the other hand, Panupong (1970: 144 and 1979: 67) and others distinguish classifiers from nouns in an absolute way on the basis of a syntactic test frame (suggested frames vary). This approach perhaps goes back to Haas (1942). Of the large (unlimited?) class defined in this way, a closed subset of”proper classifiers” is further isolated. These are items which seem idiosyncratic and are considered to be distinguishable from collective terms, measures or “repeater-construction” items below. Haas has counted these proper classifiers at 80-90 items, Gandour et al. (1984) at over 100. Whether or not a subset of this sort can be rigorously distinguished remains to be shown. Also discussed by Panupong and others are “repeater” constructions such as khon s&:m khon ‘three people’, where, in this analysis, the first khon is a noun and the second is a homophonous classifier. Repeater constructions almost always have an associated simplified construction: Number + Classifier. Thus the phrase s&m khon is the more common colloquial way of saying ‘three people’; the full repeater construction seems more marked. A problem for the analysis above is that hundreds of nouns - probably an indefinite number - can be counted in this repeater construction (or its simplification, i.e. directly). Thus most abstract nouns, nouns referring to places or permanent locations. nouns referring to time, body parts, etc., can be directly counted.4 Some, as b&n ‘house’ (illustrated below) can be counted either with a “proper classifier” or in the repeater construction, but with change of semantic nuance. A special complication occurs when temporal units or other measure-like expressions are considered. One can say (wan) si:m wan (day) three day ‘three days’, as a repeater (or direct count) construction. But one can also adjectivally qualify a “classifier” of this sort: d:m wan dmkhan (three day important) ‘three

316

Language Sciences, Volume 10, Number 2 (1988)

important days’. Both Allen (I 977: 307) and Hundius and Kiilver (1983: 168) have denied that wan ‘day’ used in this way is a noun. In fact the latter seem to deny that wan ‘day’ is ever a noun.5 On the other hand, there are clearly unlimited acceptable phrases such as pi: kPw ‘the old year’, du’an pbkkati ‘an ordinary month’, wan kd:t ‘birthday’, chdamo:ng rian ‘study hour’, etc. It seems natural to treat all of these examples under the general Thai rule of modification: Nominal+ Qualzj?er. There are many other syntactic rules that apply both to common nouns and to classifiers.6 The attempt to separate classifiers from nouns in an absolute sense (rather than to treat them as a motivated and potentially changing subset) seems to result in a two-sided problem. There would need to be both (i) proliferation of large (or unlimited) sets of semantically identical homonyms in two different word classes; and (ii) repetition of many basic syntactic rules (e.g. for modification). For most linguistic models, this situation would be unwelcome. (Fuller treatment of the noun/classifier relationship is beyond our present scope, but it seems that a solution along the lines of Upakit-Silapasan’s original subset proposal would be promising. It would also be more in harmony with the sociolinguistic and historical observations below.)7 CLASSIFIER

SYNTAX AND STYLISTIC

LEVEL

Concerning syntactic variation, Haas (1942:61) called attention to two possible constructions with nti’ng ‘one’. Essentially nti’ng can occur either as Number preceding the classifier in Pattern 1 above or as Specifier following the classifier in Pattern 2. In the latter case it tends to be pronounced with less stress and mid or neutral tone in conversation. In the first case, the normal English translation is ‘one’, in the second case, ‘a’. The syntax of Thai allows Noun in Paztern I and Pattern 2 to be expanded as a noun phrase in certain ways, and also to be left out entirely if it is understood from discourse context, as is frequently the case in informal conversation. For example, one could say lam ni: phae:ng [Classifier this expensive] ‘this one is expensive’, if already talking about or looking at boats (taking lam as classifier). Finally, in informal spoken Thai, it is fairly common to use the construction Noun i- Classifier alone, with ‘one’ understood, as in khii’: buri: tua ‘may (I) have a cigarette’.8 Omission of classifiers also occurs not infrequently in spoken Thai when noun and classifier are both old information. For the question “How many children do they have?” one could answer khit WA: si:m (think that three) ‘I think three’. Similarly, in certain listing contexts it is not unusual to find Noun + Number alone: pht3:cha:y sii:m, ph8:ying sb’:ng (man three, woman two) ‘three men and two women’. This must be an old usage in Thai, since it occurs in the earliest

Social Issues in Thai Classifier Usage

317

inscriptions; it could not be due to recent English influence.9 A different sort of variation, also sociolinguistically sensitive, is treated by Palakornkul (1976: 193, who calls attention to usages like siiim a:ca:n ‘three professors’, where we could say either that the noun ‘professor’ is being counted directly, without a classifier, or - in the approach mentioned above -that the form a:ca:n in this case, since it occurs after a number, in effect is a classifier. Palakornkul observes that constructions of this type are found “especially in journalistic writing*‘. Prescriptive authorities consider constructions of this type incorrect. (Compare with a:ca:n si:m khon, considered correct.) Although examples of this type are common in modern journalism, in more traditional Thai sources one finds similar classifier-less expressions, mostly with sW:ng ‘two’. For example: siJ’:ng phi: nb’:ng (two elder-sibling younger-sibling) ‘the two of them, elder and younger’; sb’:ng phQa mia (two husband wife) ‘married couple’; s6’:ng phii’an klcE: (two friend intimate) ‘two buddies’.

CLASSIFIER VARIATION AND SEMANTIC TAXONOMY Returning to example (1) we can compare (4)(a) and (b) below. (4)

(a) (b)

na:y na:y

mi: mi:

b&n b&n

s8: ng sb’:ng

boss

have

house

two

ling. b&n. Classifier.

Here, in addition to ling as a classifier for houses as in (a), we see that the repeater construction is also possible, as in (b). The nuances are clearly different. For (a), houses as physical objects are intended: ‘The boss has two houses’. For (b), homes or houses as a “social unit” is indicated: ‘The boss has two households’; probably he has a minor wife. (In this case the full repeater cohstruction must be somewhat emphatic. It would be less emphatic to omit the first b&n.) Here the choice of classifier leads to slightly different, but important, interpretations of the sentence. Similarly, one might say: co’:ng (tb) si)(:ng tb (reserve (table) two table/ Classifier) ‘reserve two tables’ in a restaurant, but co’:ng t6 s6’:ng tua (reserve table two Cluss@er) ‘reserve two tables’ in ajknirure store (e.g. presently out of stock, from the next consignment). Note that there is a collective-like application when tables, houses, etc., act as classifiers. Not only repeater constructions are involved in variation of this general type. In (2), tua was used to classify sarongs. Tua as a noun means ‘body’, used as a classifer, it applies to animals and metaphorically, to items with body-like associations - arms, legs, heads, tails (e.g. tables, chairs, kites, etc.). For a sarong, this classifier emphasizes the sarong as a garment to be worn (it has been hemmed and is

318

Language

Sciences, Volume

10, Number 2 (1988)

ready to wear or being worn). Another possible classifier for sarongs is phii’:n. This emphasises a sarong or ‘potential sarong’ thought of more as length of cloth; perhaps it has not even been hemmed yet.10 In a museum, looking at the same stone items, speakers might use an, k6’:n or l&m as classifier for the items depending on whether they were perceived merely as natural stones (k&:n), knife-like tools (l&m) or implements of some uncertain sort (an). This example, and many other similar ones, should show that Thai classifiers do not necessarily stand in an automatic, arbitrary or completely determined relationship with nouns; instead, in many cases the speaker has some choice of selecting alternates in accordance with desired semantic or stylistic nuances.” Palakornkul (1976) presents a more extensive treatment of lexico-semantic issues in classifier variation, in which two main types of variation are recognized. First, for free variation, classifiers are used interchangeably; the example of either bay or M:k used as classifier for fruit is cited. Secondly, for co-variation, several classifiers are available for a single noun but “they are sociolinguistically marked. The choice of a variant depends on speech situations or the social role of speech participants’* (1976: 196). In Palakornkul’s second category, subtypes are distinguished. In some cases, as in sSn or s9:y for string- or strip-like items, there may be some difference among speakers as to perception or interpretation of physical characteristics. The former item is said to emphasize a ‘small string or strip’. (This does not seem to be necessarily a sociolinguistic difference.) In other cases, as in selecting phiin for fruit, rather than bay or M:k, criteria of formality and written vs. spoken discourse seem indicated. This is apparently also true for the special classifier chii’ak for elephants; she reports that tua, the usual classifier for animals is used by most Thai speakers for elephants “in casual speech”.i2 Somewhat similar are what Palakornkul refers to as “obsolete classifiers’* and “substituted”ones: phti:k but now I&m for palm-leaf books, pQ’n but now an for saws and p8:k but now an for fishnets. These are all examples of preferring more generalized classifiers to specific idiosyncratic ones. In her view, an, the general classifier, is now tending to replace specific ones, such as khan, li?m, th$ng or di:m for common items like spoons, combs, pencils and knives. (An alternative view is suggested below.) The bay - I&k - ph&n example is also discussed by Hundius and Kolver (1983: 186-189) with phdn said to connote “a more elegant stylistic level”. They cite additional cases of variation, such as (i) the noun p6 occurring with either the classifier bay, in which case the meaning is ‘lampshade’ or lii:k, in which case the meaning is ‘fishtrap’; and (ii) the noun ru’:si: ‘hermit’ occurring either with classifier ong or ton. Hundius and Kolver plausibly argue that for (i), and similar cases, homophonous nouns should be recognized, i.e. p6 can be two separate words

Social Issues in Thai Classifier Usage

319

with different classifiers relating to features of shape and size. For (ii), on the other hand, what they consider to be the meaning of ‘hermit’ is constant but the connotation shifts. Classified with ong (along with gods, royalty, etc.) the hermit has “an aspect of holiness’* but classified with ton (along with spirits and demons) a darker or more dangerous sort of hermit seems indicated. In spite of this, Hundius and Kolver go on to deny that classifiers “convey meaning in the sense of a qualifying function”, although they grant that for a given noun with some potential “ambivalence” the choice of particular classifier “may show which aspect the speaker has predominantly in mind”. If variation of the type mentioned above is the case, then attempts to sort out Thai classifiers according to some system of binary distinctive features of associated nouns seems too simple a treatment. It might lead to an adhoc classification. Hiranburana (1979: 46-47) in dealing with classifiers for “(+round)” nouns set up features like “(+ / - glass)“, “(-t / - hollow)” and “(+ / - big)“. The scheme also leads to classifying tennis balls, pingpong balls and golf balls with ph6n when they are “(+ formal)“; for the present writer at least, if this usage is possible, it would have to be a joke. Somewhat similar to the structural taxonomy approach is an effort by Placzek (1985) to fit Thai classifiers into a universal shape-based classificatory scheme. He finds it necessary to search for one important “lacking” Thai classifier according to the scheme he presupposes. This approach leads at once to historical-comparative questions and might be of value in seeking a more “basic” part of the Thai classifier system (either synchronically or diachronically), but there is a danger of imposing a preconceived system on the Thai data. CLASSIFIER

USAGE

AND RA CHASAP (ROYAL

VOCABULARY)

The variation mentioned above suggests, in the words of oneThai authority, that “for using classifiers, linguistic convention is the most important factor. It is impossible to make rules that such-and-such a noun type always has a particular classifier” (Thonglo 1952: 264). As Hundius and Kolver (1983: 189) observe: “the classifier network in its core is not one of mechanical concord between classes of words”. Rather, it functions “in accordance with and in adaptation to the processes of nominal conceptualization** (1983: 189). How this happens can relate to social and cultural factors. For Thai, the “royal linguistic register” or “royal vocabulary” (ra:cha:s&p) and related “polite language” (kham suphf:p or pha:s&:suphg:p) has included various created rules of classifier use.13 A good example of classifier usage and “adaptation to the processes of nominal conceptualization” is in an order of King Mongkut (Rama IV, r. 18511868), that was issued in 1854: “Elephants and horses are animals with a noble lineage. They should not be referred to with tua, (as in)sb’:ng tua (‘two (animals)‘). LIC

10:2-p

320

Language

Sciences,Volume

10, Number 2 (1988)

Instead one must say ch9:ng nti’ng (‘one elephant’), sb’:ng eha:ng (‘two eIephants’), mP:ni’ng (‘one horse’), sb’:ng mP: (‘two horses’). But for animals other than these, tua should be used” (Prachum prakat R. 4 1960: I :65). In other words, the king ordered that horses and elephants be counted directly, without the classifier tua, to indicate that they had a status superior to other animals. In subsequent versions of “royal vocabulary”, this direct counting principle (avoiding use of the classifier tua) is extended to other animals as well. However in the later versions a repeating construction is specified: n6k s6’:ng n6k ‘two birds’. The repeating construction is also specified for previous tur-items that were in that class for metaphorical reasons - because they had animal-like features; thus for the royal register one is to say siYa slb’:ng &‘a ‘two shirts’ and t6 sii’:ng t6 ‘two tables’ (Phibanthaen 1952: 136). Note in the latter case that the nuance mentioned above (tables as objects or as quasi-units) is apparently lost. Elephants, it appears, may either be counted with this construction or, especially if tame, with a new special classifier: chfi’ak. This form probably comes from a 19thcentury expression for ‘elephant Iasoo’ (chtiak khl6’:ng; Bradley 1873: 174). No explicit rules are given for how deictics and other specifiers are to be arranged in royal-register expressions, but one presumes they are to be used directly, without an intervening classifier tua. Tua is not the only classifier to be avoided in this later version of rules for the royal linguistic register. The classifiers an (normally a general inanimate-object classifier) and bay (normally for small leaf-like or for roundish objects) are also to be replaced by repeater constructions: mbybanthat sb’:ng maybanthat ‘two rulers’ (compare: mPybanth& sii’:ng an, the common current expression) and cha:m s&m cha:m ‘three bowls’ (compare with cha:m si:m bay; Phibanthaen 1952: 142,138). later, other idiosyncratic classifiers were invented in a way similar to chfi’ak for elephants. A form pQ’:n that was used to refer to blades of saws (Bradley 1873: 401) was specified as classifier for the noun ‘saw’ (Way). These examples might seem to indicate that in the royal register there is a general principle of avoiding explicit proper classifiers, but this is certainly not the case. In one widely-used manual (Phibanthaen 1952) a list of over one hundred classifiers is specified for this register, along with nouns for which they should be used. Some of these classifiers are derived from Khmer (e.g. khan&t, for gardens), Pali or Sanskrit (e.g. phdn for fruit and vegetables). Others are original Tai nouns or occasionally verbs (as in phti:k ‘to tie’, specified to classify manuscripts). Classifier elaboration may be related to taboo associations. Thus the noun kh&y ‘egg’ came to have vulgar associations with the testes, according to Bradley (I 873: 488). It was replaced in royal vocabulary by fo’:ng which Bradley states originally referred to water bubbles. This avoidance-form was to be used in the repeater

Social Issues in

Thai Classifier

Usage

321

construction for counting: (fo’:ng) s6’:ng fo’:ng, etc. The classifier 1Q:kmay have been avoided for similar reasons. Classifiers were also used to specify degrees of social status for people. Special rules referred to how items like ong, na:y, etc., were to be used. Even as late as 1942 Haas reported a status-based hierarchy for the use of the human classifiers phdong, thin, na:y, khon, with ong and rB:p indicated for monks (see below). The use of classifiers in the royal vocabulary register is thus part of a more general pattern of avoidance of common forms and their replacement by substitutes on the one hand and of special lexical elaboration on the other. At least in part, this register was a deliberate creation effected through royal orders like that of King Mongkut cited above; other aspects of the system have grown up in court usage and among the aristocracy over the centuries. FORMAL

VS. NATURAL

CLASSIFIER

ACQUISITION

Abbreviated versions of lists like that mentioned above are also specified for the register of “polite vocabulary” or “polite speech”(kham suphi:p, pha:sk:supha:p). This register would be used, e.g. for formal writing, official government correspondence, speeches, etc., and would be taught in educational institutions. Not all royal vocabulary usages are prescribed for general polite speech or writing. The prohibitions against using tua, bay and an as classifiers are lifted for this register. On the other hand, many forms are carried over, sometimes with shifts. Ph6n remains the correct classifier for fruit.14 Fo’:ng is prescribed as the correct “high” classifier for eggs, although khiy may be used as the common noun (hence, khAy si:m fo’:ng ‘three eggs’). This contrasts with bay or Ifi:k used as a classifier with eggs in common speech. For wild elephants, tua is considered by some authorities as the norm, while for tame elephants they specify chd’ak is to be used in the polite speech register. To star a sentence in which tua is used with elephants as ungrammatical, as Allen (1977: 297) has done, is to ignore what Thai speakers actually say most of the time. Classifier lists for “polite vocabulary” have been regularly found in textbooks for nearly a hundred years, as noted above. They are intended to prepare candidates for examinations. The fact that such lists need to be studied at all proves that some of the more “exotic” classifiers are in a sense “unnatural” and difficult for many Thai speakers, especially for those from less-educated social backgrounds or for whom Central Thai is not the first dialect .*5Unusual idiosyncratic forms, such as pQ’:n as the classifier for saws or law as the classifier for musical wind instruments, might need to be explicitly learned or memorized. Their acquisition would depend partly on formal education and even speakers who had learned such classifiers in a formal way at school might not necessarily use them in real life situations. For practical

322

Language

Sciences,

Volume 10, Number 2 (1988)

purposes such speakers might “relapse” and use classifier forms they had previously used, e.g. for saws, the general inanimate classifier an, rather than pB’:n, the classifier that is formally correct (perhaps “too correct”). Strong support for the general picture above comes from a study by Gandour et al. (1984) on classifier acquisition by Thai children. They found that classifier “errors” were still being made by Thai children as old as ten, who were presumably otherwise fluent speakers of Central Thai. Errors in the older age group involved relatively idiosyncratic classifiers. For example, these children failed to use “correct” forms di:m for pens, d6’:k for arrows and joss-sticks, met for pearls, etc. The children based their “incorrect” responses on analogy, usually substituting semantically-motivated classifiers which they were using more generally. Younger preschool children tended to distinguish animate-inanimate classes quite early and to use the general classifier an for many inanimate items instead of other specialized forms. They also counted nouns with the repeater construction, i.e. used nouns “as their own classifier”, omitting proper classifiers altogether (Gandour et al. 1984: 472). In terms of acquisition, then, Standard Thai classifiers should not be considered a “cognitively uniform*’ system. Learning tua for animals or khon for people is on a different level from learning chQ’akfor tame elephants (elegant speech-level), p@:n for saws (elegant speech-level) and p9:k for pens (royal speech-level).*6 Instead, some classifier distinctions and particular classifier lexemes are clearly more basic than others. The core ones are acquired earlier and more naturally. Other forms must be taught to children explicitly by parents, siblings, etc., with a certain amount of effort. Still other forms are learned during the course of formal education, as in the first official Thai language textbook for general use (Krom Suksathikan 1891: 103-107). Finally, some forms are found in manuals and may be memorized for examinations but are rarely acquired at all, at least in any practical sense, by the majority of contemporary Thai speakers. HISTORICAL SUMMARY Conklin (1981) has surveyed classifier semantics and syntax in a number of Tai languages, mainly comparing published sources, although she did not attempt a full reconstruction, a proto-Tai classifier system. For purposes here we restrict attention to Li’s (1977) Southwestern Tai group (henceforth SWT), represented in Conklin’s work by White Tai, Lanna (Kam Muang), Shan, Lue and Central Tai. Jones (1970) has also made extensive syntactic comparisons involving Central Thai, Shan and Black and WhiteTai. To Conklin’s and Jones’general observations we add our own field data on Lanna, Southern Thai, Lao, Black Tai and the Assamese varieties, Aiton and Phake (see Table 1). (Our field data was elicited

Social Issues in Thai Classifier Usage

323

Table 1 Some Tai Classifier Comparisons

Items specified

CT

Fruit

lu: k20 nuay5 * bay3 phonl

Lao

ST

nuay5

loSO nuay5

NT

BT

Aiton

Phake

nuay5 kren6

nuay5

luk16 huay5

luk16 ho’y5

Trees

ton10

ton10

to’nl0

ton10

ton10

ton10

ton10

Animals

tua2 chuak20t

to:2

tua2

tua2

to:2

tua2

tua2

Eggs

lu:k20 bay3 fo’: ng4

nuay5

luk16 huay5

luk16 holy5

luk16 an3

luk16 an3

xa: ng9

an3

an3

an3

an3

an3

pap14

an3

an3

co’kl5

an3

an3

phu:9

ko’:2

ko’:2

lo:k20

nuay2

nuay2 kaen6 lo: k20

Mountains lu:k20

lu:k20

NC

phu:4

Cars

khan4

khan4

khan4

kan4

Knives

lem9 an3 da:mll

lem9

laem9 an3 da:mll

lem9

lem9 phu:kl7* chabapl5

pu’ml0

hual

lem9 pap14

Books

Glasses lu:k20 (drinking) bay3 NC People

khon4 than8 na:y4 ong3 phra16ong3 (etc.)

po’m2

thu’an5

co’k15

khon4

nuay2

nuay2

khon4

kon4

Continued

over

324

Language Sciences, Volume 10, Number 2 (1988)

Table I continued

NOTES: CT, Central Thai; ST, Southern Thai; NT, Northern or Lanna Thai; BT, Black Thai. Number refers to etymological tone categories following the system of Gedney (1972:434)* Archaic;? tame elephants (literary); NC, noun used in classifier position. Data represent responses from a uniform set of pictures.

using a constant set of pictures to obtain classifiers from speakers of the various languages/ dialects.) For the SWT languages there is considerable difference in the details of classifier usage, but comparison suggests some core features. It can hardly be doubted that proto-SWT was a classifier language, although the details of syntax are obscure and beyond our present scope.17 In any case, this language probably had as classifiers several forms that survive in almost all SWT varieties. These would include regular cognates for Central Thai an, which was probably a general inanimate classifier, tua (or possibly its alternate to:, also meaning ‘body’) used for animals, t6n used for trees, etc. Slightly less general are cognates for niiay (now ‘unit’ in Central Thai) for fruits and small roundish items and several other measure-like classifiers, such as phiY:n, for lengths of cloth. Interestingly, the treatment of humans is rather variable and may relate in some ways to the history or social organization of different Tai groups. In some languages tus, as well as classifying animals, includes all people, in others, only human children, while adults have a separate classifier. In other groups tua is limited to non-human animals (and, in Central Thai, to some metaphorical extensions). For several groups (including Central Thai, as noted above) multiple classifiers for humans are available, and may relate to status differences. Some changes have been quite recent or are still in progress. As noted above, in 1942 Haas reported that for non-royal humans thin, na:y and khon as classifiers were differentiated hierarchically on the basis of social status of person to be classified. Nowadays, the difference is more one of formality of situation orjournalistic style. Earlier written Thai sources allow a few observations on change in classifier usage. On an inscription of about 1500, for example, cups, bowls and other roundish items are classified with duang. I*By the early 19th century at least some of these items were classified with bay. I9As we saw above, in royal vocabulary bay as a classifier was avoided and these same items were to be counted with the repeater construction. In modern Thai, bay or 1ii:k would probably be used. On 14th century inscriptions there is evidence that an was used as a very general classifier. Images of the Buddha, pavilions (&la:), towns (nakho’:n), temples (wzit)

Social Issues in Thai Classifier Usage

325

and inscriptions themselves are all counted with an.20In modern written or formal Thai this usage would no longer be acceptable. The general picture from the comparative and historical data strongly confirms the view that Central Thai, in its royal vocabulary register, has greatly inflated a more limited classifier system, often for avoidance or taboo-related reasons. This is both through extending the repeater construction and through specifying new classifier usages based on common nouns. Also, more literary or formally “correct” syntactic structures involving classifiers (or their absence) have been separated from more colloquial ones. The original core system may have been based on more-or-less natural semantic classes, such as animals, trees, etc., and probably on a few basic shapes. (One could speculate that this core system might be dimly reflected in the acquisitional data discussed above.) Different Tai varieties shifted and elaborated the system somewhat in various ways. For the royal vocabulary register of Central Thai, the lexical elaboration has been quite substantial and there have even been attempts to create new minor patterns in syntax. A combination of taboo substitution, proliferation of forms and required repeater constructions (e.g. instead of tua and an) is responsible. Finally, a scaled-down version of the royal vocabulary system is now prescribed for “polite speech”. A good deal of modern classifier variation is probably due to the survival in ordinary (or lower-class) colloquial Thai of a simpler system considerably closer to the earlier SWT one, although more research would be necessary to show this conclusively. Modern educated urban Thai now mixes this earlier simpler system (which is also acquired more naturally) with the “polite speech” elaborated one (some of which must be formally learned). Thus to say, for example, that classifiers like tua, an, etc., are “beginning to replace” other more specific classifiers in modern Central Thai may be saying more about shifting language attitudes and what is meant by “modern Central Thai” than about linguistic change of other sorts. Tua, an, etc., as we saw above, have been widespread (non-royal) classifier use for a long time for items that also have more idiosyncratic classifiers appropriate for higher speech levels. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank Mrs Yehom Buragohain, Mr Nabin Syam, Mrs Ranoo Wichasin and Dr Cam Trong for providing comparative Tai data, and Tony Diller for help in preparing this English version and for comments on earlier drafts.

326

Language Sciences,

Volume 10, Number 2 (1988)

NOTES 1.

In earlier Thai works classifiers were also called kham ph8:t pla:y bA:t singkhayi:.

2. 3. 4. 5.

6.

7.

8.

9. 10.

11. 12.

For discussion of details of the use of deictics with classifiers, see Noss( 1964), Hundius and Kiilver (1983) and Diller and Juntanamalaga (forthcoming), Thonglo (1952: 283) describes classifiers as a kind of noun. However, the normal modern order is Number+ Abstract noun, not the other way around, as is apparently claimed by Allen (1977: 306). They claim that “measures of time . . . are unmistakeably measures, not nouns: many of them, e.g. wan ‘day’, cannot be combined with adjectives” (Hundius and Kijlver 1983: 168). Their argument (n.12, 210) is based on the unacceptability of *wan t6’:n ‘a hot day’. This may be due to semantic incompatibility of Thai temperature words and the semantics of wan. Neither of these are exactly like the English translations. Note that *n&m ni:w ‘cold water’ is also strange in Thai. On the other hand wan di: ‘a good (or lucky) day’ is perfectly acceptable; so are many similar expressions. Another problem for the claim that wan, pi:, etc., are never nouns is that these words can occur in full repeater constructions; this would require an unnecessary adhoc rule like Classifier + Number + Classifier, alongside Pattern I above. For example, compound formation, where classifiers are used as compounding heads (Blagonravova 1971; Noss 1964: 105). Some of the examples cited in this paragraph might be considered compounds. Another shared construction of classifiers and non-classifier nouns is when they occur after pen ‘be’ as an adjective-like predicate description: pen ph&n ‘to be in flat sheets’ (Cp. phdn Clusszper for flat items); pen sanim ‘to be rusty’ (cp. sanim Noun ‘rust’). For more discussion of these issues, especially the question of how “proper classifiers” relate to units, measures, etc., see Greenberg (1974). Krupa (1978) and Lehman (1979). When Hundius and Kolver (1983: 172) report that “there are no NP’s of the structure *t6m khan” [umbrella Classifier] they are apparently referring to normatively correct written Thai, not to colloquial speech. For example, Prachum silacaruk phak 1 (1978: 17). Haas (1964) defines phii’:n as “strip, sheet, piece; hence elf. for cloth in a form suitable for use and having a definite function, e.g. towels, sheets, curtains, rugs, dust, rags, etc.” Haas (1964) frequently indicates several possible classifiers in her entries for nouns, sometimes with notes on different nuances. The historical background of this variation is discussed below.

Social Issues in Thai Classifier Usage

327

13. For detailed treatment of these registers, see Gedney (1961). 14. Or perhaps “elegant”, as in Haas (1964), bay and I&k being the colloquial ones. See also the discussion in Palakornkul (1976). 15. The Department of Education (Krom Suksathikan 1891) warned students that the classifiers to be memorized were khwiiy-khw’e: ‘confusing; disorganized’. 16. Phibanthaen (1952: 138); but perhaps old-fashioned pens or pen-points are assumed. In modern “correct” Thai, d&m is the specified classifier for pens. 17. See Jones (1970) for different patterns among Tai languages. Dr Cam Trong informs me that in his dialect of Black Tai both Noun + Number + Classzjier and Number + Classifier -I- Noun are acceptable, but with different discourse uses. Could this also have been the earlier situation? 18. In modern Central Thai duang has shrunk, it would appear, to classify only seals (e.g. next note), stars, stamps and a few other items. 19. Kotmai Tra Sam Duang (1972:2: 107). 20. Prachum silacaruk phak 1 (1978). See inscriptions 1.2.25; 1.3.24-5; 2.1.9,35, etc. REFERENCES Allen, K. 1977 “Classifiers,” Language 53, 285-311. Barz, R. K. and A. V.N. Diller 1985 “Classifiers and Standardization: Some South and South-east Asian Comparisons, n in Language Policy, Language Planning and Sociolinguistics in South-east Asia, pp. 155-184, David Bradley (ed.), Canberra: Pacific Linguistics Series A No. 67 (Papers in South-east Asian Linguistics No. 9). Blagonravova, J. L. 1971 “0 predsubstantivnoi pozicii klassifikatorov v sovremennom taiskom (siamskom) iazyke,” in Iazyki Kit& i Hugo-vosrocnoi Azii, pp. 104118, N. F. Alieva et al. (eds.), Moscow: Nauka. Bradley, D. B. 1873 Dictionary of the Siamese Language, Bangkok: Khurusapha Press (facsimile edition (1971)). Conklin, Nancy F. 1981 “The Semantics and Syntax of Numeral Classification in Tai and Austronesian,” Ph.D. Thesis, University of Michigan. Diller, A. V. N. and Preecha Juntanamalaga “Diectic Derivation in Thai.‘* Forthcoming

328

Language

Sciences,

Volume

10, Number 2 (1988)

Fischer, G. I972 “Die syntaktischen und semantischen Eigenschaften der Numeralklassifikatoren im Thai,” Archiv Orientcilni 40, 65-78. Gandour, Jack, Soronee Holasuit Petty, Rochana Dardaranda, Sumalee Dechongkit and Sunee Mukngoen 1984 “The Acquisition of Numeral Classifiers in Thai,” Linguistics 22, 455-479. Gedney, William J. 1961 “Special Vocabularies in Thai,” Georgetown University Roundtable Monograph Series Language and Linguistics 4, l-22. 1972 “A Checklist for Determining Tones in Tai Dialects,” in Studies in Linguistics in Honor of George L. Trager, pp. 423-437, M. E. Smith (ed.), The Hague: Mouton (Janua Linguarum, Ser. Maior 12). Gorol, D. R. 1978 “Numeral Classifier Systems: A Southeast Asian Cross-Linguistic Analysis,” Linguistics of the Tibeto-Burman Area 4, l-72. Greenberg, J. H. 1974 “Numeral Classifiers and Substantival Number,” Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of Linguistics, pp. 17-37, L. Heilmann (ed.), Bologna. Haas, Mary R. 1942 “The Use of Numeral Classifiers in Thai,” Language 18, 201-205; reprinted in Language, Culture and History; Essays by Mary R. Haas, Selected and Introduced by Anwar S. Dil, pp. 58-64, Stanford: Stanford University Press (1978). 1964 Thai-English Student’s Dictionary, Stanford: Stanford University Press. Hiranburana, Samang 1979 “A Classification of Thai Classifiers,” in Southeast Asian Linguistic Studies, Vol. 4, pp. 39-54, N.D. Liem (ed.), Canberra: Pacific Linguistics Series C No. 49. Hundius, Harald and Ulrike KUlver 1983 “Syntax and Semantics of Numeral Classifiers in Thai,” Studies in Language 7, 165-214. Jones, R. B. 1970 “Classifier Constructions in Southeast Asia,” Journal of the American Oriental Society 90, l-l 2. Kblver, U. 1979 “Syntaktische Untersuchung von Numeral-Klassifikatoren im Zentralthai,” Arbeiten des Kolner Universalienprojekts 34, Cologne.

Social Issues in Thai Classifier Usage

329

1982 “Klassifikatorkonstruktionen in Thai, Vietnamesisch und Chinesisch,” in Apprehension: Das Sprachliche Erfassen von Gegenstiinden, pp. 160-185, H. Seiler and C. Lehmann (eds.), Ttibingen. Kotmai Tra Sam Duang (Law of the Three Seals) 1972 Bangkok: Khurusapha Press. Krom Suksathikan (Department of Education) 1891 Waiyakorn, Bangkok: Aksonnithi. Krupa, Victor 1978 “Classifiers in the Languages of Southeast Asia: Evolution of a Lexicosemantic Category,” Asian and African Studies (Bratislava) 14, 119124. Lehman, F. K. 1979 “Aspects of a Formal Theory of Noun Classifiers,” Studies in Lunguuge 3, 153-180.

Li, Fang-Kuei 1977 A Handbook of Comparative Tui, Honolulu: University Press of Hawaii, Oceanic Linguistics Special Publications Number 15. Noss, R.B. 1964 Thai Reference Grammar, Washington D.C.: Foreign Service Institute. Palakornkul, Angkab 1976 “Some Observations on Variation and Change in the Use of Classifiers in Thai,” Pusuu 6, 186-199. Panupong, Vichin 1970 Inter-sentence Relations in Modern Conversational Thai, Bangkok: Siam Society. 1979 Khrongsang Phasa Thai: Rabop Waiyakon, Bangkok: Ramkhamhaeng University Press. \ Phibanthaen, Sutthi 1952 Rachasap Phak Sombun, Bangkok: Aksonwattana Press. Plam, Y. 1972 “Sur la Classification des Noms dans la langue Thai (Siamoise),” in Langues et techniques, Nature et SocUte, Vol. 1, pp. 195-201, J. M. C. Thomas and L. Bemot (eds.), Paris. Placzek, Jim 1985 “The Missing ‘Long Things’ in the Thai Noun Classifier System,” Journal of the Siam Society 73, 162-175.

Prachum prakat R.4 (Collected Edicts of the Fourth Reign) 1960 Bangkok: Khurusapha Press. Prachum silacaruk phak 1 (Collected Inscriptions, Vol. 1)

330

Language Sciences, Volume 10, Number 2 (1988)

1978 Bangkok: Samnak Lekhathikan Nayok Ratthamontri. Thonglo, Kamchai 1952 Luk phasa Thai, Bangkok: Bamrung Sasana Press. T’sou, B.K. 1973 “The Structure of Nominal Classifier Systems,” Proceedings of the Ist International Conference on Austroasiatic Linguistics, pp. 1215-1247, Honolulu. Upakit-Silapasan, Phraya 1971 Luk Phasa llai, Bangkok: Thai Wattanapanit (1919).