Vipas Pothipath
Department of Thai, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University
Languages are divided into three types with respect to the encoding of comitatives and instrumentals: IDENTITY – only one single relator for the two categories; DIFFERENTIATION – two different relators at least for the two categories; and MIXED – a mixture of features of the two aforementioned types (Stolz, Stroth & Urdze 2011). This paper argues in favour of the diachronic typological view that language types can be considered as stages in the process of language change (cf. Croft 2003). Evidence is provided by the development of the encoding of comitatives and instrumentals in the history of Thai. Diachronic data from Thai (13th-21st centuries or the Sukhothai period to the present) suggest that the three language types mentioned above correspond to the three stages of development of the relation hold between the two categories. These stages progress as follows: IDENTITY > MIXED > DIFFERENTIATION. In the 13th-17th centuries (Sukhothai to Middle Ayutthaya periods), Thai was presumably characterized by IDENTITY, that is to say, the language used only one single relator –the preposition dûay [ด้วย] “with” – for comitative, as well as instrumental. Later, in the late 17th-19th centuries (Late Ayutthaya to Early Rattanakosin periods), the preposition kàp [กับ] “and/with”, which was originally used as a noun phrase conjunction, had become grammaticalised to a comitative marker as well. Irrespective of this ongoing change, the preposition dûay had been preserved to encode comitative, as well as instrumental. Accordingly, Thai in the 17th-19th centuries employed the pattern of MIXED. The comitative kàp became more frequent during the course of the 17th-19th centuries. On account of the principle of economy in language evolution (i.e., two forms are unlikely to coexist with exactly the same function), the comitative dûay gradually gave way to the alternative comitative kàp. In a further stage, around the late 19th century (King Rama IV to the present), the comitative dûay has been losing its place, while the comitative kàp has remained and developed. Again, Thai underwent another typological change from MIXED to DIFFERENTIATION. For present-day Thai, the preposition dûay has been preserved for instrumental, as well as other grammatical functions, but not for comitative. However, sporadic traces of the comitative dûay remain in a few lexicalised adverbs (e.g., dûay kan [ด้วยกัน] “together”). As for the preposition kàp, the relator is now used exclusively to encode comitative function. Interestingly, recently, the preposition kàp also appears to have developed into an instrumental marker, severely restricted in its use though. Overall, this paper will contribute to the studies of typological change in the encoding of comitatives and instrumentals.
(Presented in the 2020 Chulalongkorn Asian Heritage Forum : Thai-Tai Language and Culture, 20 July 2020, The St.Regis Hotel, Bangkok, organized by Institute of Thai Studies, Chulalongkorn University, Department of Thai, Department of Linguistics, Southeast Asian Linguistics Research Unit, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University)