Work Unit:
Sichuan University, China
Issue:
Vol.8 No.1 (Serial No.12) 2020
Page:
125-138
Date:
2020-06-30
Abstract:
The kinship terms of Thai can be divided into native kinship terms and foreign kinship terms based on the source, and can also be divided into civilian kinship terms and royal kinship terms based on the users. Thai kinship terms have different degrees of distinction in the following six dimensions: paternal and maternal, age, gender, the lineal and the collateral, consanguinity and affinity, users and use occasions. The unique use rules of Thai kinship terms reflect Thai people’s concept of the distinctions between superiority and inferiority, seniors and juniors, intimacy and estrangement. In addition, Thai kinship terms reflect the marriage form that the Thais have experienced, and also reflect Thai people’s ethnic cognitive orientation of experience familiarity, cognitive distance and metaphorical thinking.
Key Words:
Thai language, kinship terms, culture, cognition
DOI:
doi: 10.26478/ja2020.8.12.8
References:
Engels, F. 1957. The Origin of Family, Private Ownership and State [M]. Beijing: People’s Publishing House. Enke, B. 2018. Kinship Systems, Cooperation, and the Evolution of Culture [OL]. CESifo Working Paper. (https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm? abstract_id=3144249) Evans, V. & M. Green. 2006. Cognitive Linguistics: An introduction [M]. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Fotaki, M. & R. Jingjit. 2018. Humanising Bureaucracy: Clan-oriented culture in the Thai civil service [A]. In S. Bice, A. Poole & H. Sullivan (eds). Public Policy in the Asian Century [C]. London: Press for Palgrave Macmillan UK, 154-181. Han, J-H. 2019. The Study of Thai Elephant Culture Based on the “Elephant Metaphors” in Thai Idioms [J]. Comparative Literature: East & West, 3(2):148-162. He, S. 2003. A Comparative Study of Kinship Terms between Zhuang and Thai [J]. Journal of Guangxi University for Nationalities (Philosophy and Social Science Edition), 25(1):149-154. Huang, M. 2006. Cultural Connotation of Zhuang (Daxin dialect) and Thai Kinship Terms [J]. Academic Forum, (5):175-179. Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1980. Metaphors We Live by [M]. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Lakoff, G. 1993. The Contemporary Theory of Metaphor [A]. In A. Ortony (ed.). Metaphor and Thought [C]. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 202-251. Lakoff, G. & M. Johnson. 1999. Philosophy in the Flesh: The embodied mind and its challenges to western thought [M]. New York: Basic Books. Landau, M. J., C-B. Zhong & T. J. Swanson. 2018. Conceptual Metaphors Shape Consumer Psychology [J]. ConsumPsychol Rev, (1):54–71. Lertjirawanich, M. 2014. A Comparative Study of Chinese and Thai Negative Appellations [D]. Doctoral Dissertation. Shanghai, China: East China Normal University. Marwede. M. & C. Herstatt. 2019. No Innovation for the Elderly? The Influence of Cognitive Distance in Corporate Innovation [J]. Creativity and Innovation Management, 28(3):355-367. Metcha, S. 2005. A Comparative Study of Chinese and Thai Appellations [D]. Doctoral Dissertation. Nanjing, China: Nanjing Normal University. Morgan, L. H. 1877. Ancient Society [M]. New York: Henry Holt And Company. Ouyang, S. 2019. Cohesion and Division: Cross-cultural Translatability of Kinship Terms [J]. Journal of Yuan Dao, (1):266-278. Prasithrathsint, P. 1990. Certain Significant Characteristics of Thai Culture as Evidenced in Thai Kinship Terms [J]. Thai Language and Literature, 7(1):34-47. Prasithrathsint, A. 2001. A Componential Analysis of kinship Terms in Thai [A]. In K. Tingsabadh & A. S. Abramson (eds). Essays in Thai linguistics [C]. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press, 261-275. Qonsuli, L. E., S. Sharifi & M. M. Dini. 2016. Cognitive Linguistics: The study of discourse goals of using different types of figurative language [J]. Anglisticum, 2(5):124-131. Reda, G. 2016. Ferdinand de Saussure in the Era of Cognitive Linguistics [J]. Language & Semiotic Studies, (2):93-104. Shu, H., G. Edwards & C. Qi. 2013. Cognitive Distance [A]. Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical Engineering [C]. 290-296. Tang, Q-H. & W-C. Rama. 2019. Physical Practice and Cultural Metaphors: Based on the investigation of the Bimo and Suni of Yi people in Liangshan [J]. Social Science Research, (4):118-123. Viphakun, W. 1996. The Connotation of Thai kinship Terms [J]. The Journal of Thammasat University, (3):16-29. Wang, M-S. 2019. The Study on Cognitive Process and Translation of Conceptual Metaphor Understanding: Also discussing on the difference between “Translation Metaphor” and “Metaphor Translation” [J]. English Studies, (1):144-153. Wang, Y. 2002. The Philosophical Foundation of Cognitive Linguistics: The philosophy of experience [J]. Foreign Language Teaching and Research, 34(2):82-89. Wuyts, S., M. G. Colombo, S. Dutta & B. Nooteboom. 2004. Empirical Tests of Optimal Cognitive Distance [J]. Social Science Electronic Publishing, 58(2):277-302. Zhang, G-J. & S-Q. Ding (ed.). 2004. A Course Book of Cultural Linguistics [M]. Beijing: Educational Science Press. |
link: