MANUSYA: Journal of Humanities is a peer-reviewed journal that Brill publishes for Chulalongkorn University. The main objective of this journal is to provide an intellectual platform for researchers to publish their findings on various issues within the disciplines of history, philosophy, language, literature, music, dance, dramatic art, visual art, creative art, and applied art.
MANUSYA focuses on humanities issues related to Southeast Asia. However, submissions that examine broader phenomena and non-SEA related issues are also welcome. The journal follows a double blind peer review process, and contains research articles as well as book reviews.
Hedging means mitigating words so as to lessen the impact of an utterance. It may cause uncertainty in language but is regarded as an important feature in English academic writing. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the style of academic writing in English with particular reference to the significant role of hedging and the linguistic features that mark it. The data was taken from academic articles in the humanities written by native speakers of English, Filipino speakers of English, and Thai speakers of English. It is hypothesized that speakers of English as a foreign language use fewer and different hedging devices than native speakers of English. The result of the analysis shows that the prominent linguistic markers of hedging are the auxiliaries may, might, could, the verbs suggest, appear, seem, and the adverbs perhaps and often. They are divided into three groups according to their stylistic attributes of hedging; namely, probability, indetermination, and approximation. The use of hedging found in the data confirms what Hyman (1994) says; i.e., that hedging allows writers to express their uncertainty about the truth of their statements. It is also found that English native speakers use hedges most frequently. The Filipino speakers of English are the second, and the Thai speakers of English use hedges the least frequency. This implies that hedging is likely to be related to the level of competence in English including knowledge of stylistic variation, and that it needs to be formally taught to those who speak English as a second or foreign language.
Based on the generalization and classification of passives in the worldʼs languages put forward by Givón (1979), Siewierska (1984), and Keenan (1990) this study recapitulates the universal types of passive. Twenty types of passive are proposed. They are grouped into ten pairs of contrastive types; namely, passive vs. ergative, true passive vs. pseudo-passive, direct vs. indirect passive, sentential vs. lexical passive, personal vs. impersonal passive, plain vs. reflexive passive, neural vs. adversative or favorable passive, basic vs. non-basic passive, synthetic vs. periphrastic passive, passive with patient subject vs. passive with non-patient subject. It is found that five of these pairs are applicable to the analysis of passive types in Thai. A typological system of passives in Thai is proposed. It comprises eight actual types of passive, which are distinguished from one another by these features: [true], [neutral], [direct], [basic], and [synthetic].
This study traces the development of the adversative and neutral passives in Thai to draw inferences about their establishment and change. It shows how the word/thùuk/, which used to occur with only a verb with unfavorable meaning to form an adversative passive, is now used with virtually all transitive verbs in Thai. This suggests that the neutral passive has been established in Thai syntax. However, /thùuk/ is ambivalent because it marks both adversative and neutral passives . This means that the adversative passive still persists in Thai, but it is now likely to be marked by /doon/, which has a clear adversative meaning. This passive marker seems to have developed in the track of /thùuk/ and is replacing the equivocal /thùuk/ marker.
The aim of this study is to investigate the influence of grammatical gender on Russian speakers’ cognition, compared with Thai speakers’ cognition by means of object categorization. The key materials in the experiment are black-and-white pictures represented by nouns that are selected based on gender and appearance similarity. The hypothesis is that Russian speakers group two pictures that belong to the same grammatical gender class together, while Thai speakers generally rely on the size or shape of objects in the pictures. The result of the experiment statistically showed that Russian speakers categorized things on the basis of grammatical gender, while Thai speakers categorized things represented by things grouped on the basis of size or shape. Additionally, the result implies that bilingualism is a very important variable in a study testing the Linguistic Relativity Hypothesis.
A review of studies on Northern Thai food and culture shows that most of the works are ethnographic and descriptive. They do not provide a deep understanding of the Northern Thai way of cooking. In order to understand truly the Northern Thai cooking system, an in-depth semantic analysis needs to be done. This study thus aims to analyze the categorization of cooking terms in Northern Thai in order to understand Northern Thai people’s cooking system.