{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.036574273541098185, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0062233711522811045, 'mean_word_length': 4.970277222063447, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
SYNTACTIC WORD-COMPOUNDING IN TAI KHRANG

In this article, we claim that most word compounds in Tai Khrang are relatively transparent in the way that they can display both grammatical and semantic roles/relations in a complex and sophisticated manner, rather than arbitrary grammatical/semantic associations. Also, the term idiosyncratic or transparent is best accounted for in continuum. In this essay, we investigate the structures, grammatical relations and semantic roles/relations of word compounds in Tai Khrang with data collected from two Tai Khrang villages, Ban Nong Moet, Kamphaeng Phet, and Ban Sa Yai Chi, Phichit, in the lower northern part of Thailand. Another type of corpus is one composed of naturally occurring texts such as narratives. The results show that syntactic word compounding in Tai Khrang is complex and sophisticated, performed in three categories i.e. synthetic, verb-verb and noun-noun compounds. The synthetic strategy involves the imitation of simple clauses, non-simple clauses, nominalization, and phrases. The verb-verb strategy is observed in certain serial verb constructions. The noun-noun strategy displays three semantic aspects, gradually differing from more to less transparent, which reveal various patterns of semantic relations.


Introduction
Tai Khrang is a Tai ethnic group located in Thailand that still continues to speak its own language, a member of the Tai-Kadai language family. The Khrang ethnic group in the northern part of Thailand maintain their traditional lifestyle and practices. They are referred to by Thai people (both local and government) by many names in different perspectives such as "Lao Khrang/Khi-Khrang" (people from Laos who use shellac as a red dye), "Lao Phu Khang" (people who came from the Phu Khang area of Laos), "Lao Wiang" (people who came from the Vientiane in Laos), "Tai Khao" (Tai Khao ethnic group in Laos), "Lao Ka" (people who talk like crows), "Lao Phut" (Buddhist Lao), "Lao Dan" (Lao people who came to Thailand through Dan Sai District, Loei province) and "Lao Tao Loeng" (Lao people who live in the land of yellow turtles or the lower northern part of Thailand) (Wongwattana 2017). This ethnic group is well-known for the textile "Teen Chok Sarong", a kind of woman's long skirt with a red lower part, as shown in the picture below:

Figure 1 Tai Khrang women and Teen
Chok Sarongs Since the Tai Khrang are a minority group whose traditional practices and beliefs are quite different from those of the majority of people in Thailand, Tai Khrang is considered an endangered language and culture in need of protection and preservation. The best way to preserve these communities is to strengthen their minority rights. Linguistically, most of the previous studies on the group concentrated on phonology and lexical words, e.g., Wilailak Decha (1987), Wichit Kamman (1992), Wanleeya Watcharaporn (1991), Chen Nakorn.
However, no study has focused on word formation such as compounding in Tai Khrang although word compounding is a salient aspect of the Tai languages (Singnoi 2005). We also claim here that most word compounds in Tai Khrang are relatively transparent in the manner that they are syntactic or can display grammatical relations and semantic roles/relations in a complex and sophisticated manner, rather than arbitrary grammatical/semantic associations. In addition, the term idiosyncratic or transparent is best accounted for in continuum.

Methodology and Framework
Methodologically, this research paper is descriptive. It is aimed at the study of syntactic word-compounding in the Tai Khrang language in order to understand its linguistic characteristics such as syntactic and semantic aspects. Data were collected mainly from two informants in the lower northern region, one at Ban Nong Moet (Saen To sub-district, Khanuwaralakburi district, Kamphaeng Phet province), and the other at Ban Sa Yai Chi (Nong Sano sub-district, Sam Ngam district, Phichit province). Data were also taken from naturally occurring texts such as narratives.
The analysis was conducted mainly on the basis of a functional typological linguistic perspective and cognitive linguistics such as those of Givón (2001) and Lakoff (1987). Following Givón (2001), the analysis makes use of a variety of sources of information aimed at understanding the core formal properties of syntactic constructions such as constituency, hierarchy, grammatical relations and semantic roles. At the same time, the cognitive (conceptual meaning) and communicative (propositional and information discourse coherence or pragmatics) underpinning of grammatical universals are elucidated and underscored, and the interplay between grammar, cognition and communication is outlined. Primary grammatical markers involve coding devices such as morphology and the sequential order of words or morphemes (intonation and rhythmics are also included in spoken communication). Although it is coded or located wholly in the phrase or clause, its functional scope is not primarily about the propositional information couched in the clause in which it resides. Rather, grammar is mainly about the coherence relations between the propositional (clause) and its wider discourse context. In other words, clause typessuch as Mary kissed John, Mary didn't kiss John, Kiss John!, Who kissed John?, Did Mary kissed John?, John was kissed by Mary, It was Mary who kissed John, The woman who kissed John was Mary,…etc.are structural variants that share, more or less, the same propositional semantic theme. The various types (structural variants) are different grammatical packaging of propositional-semantic contents in different discoursepragmatic functional domains.
Also, in Givón (2001), the simple or basic clause is the main, declarative, affirmative, active clause. It is the most frequent clause-type in human discourse and is thus an unmarked syntactic construction. Such a clause-type has to have a privileged cognitive position used in a particular functional domain. It serves as the reference point for grammatical description. Describing the various types of simple clauses is tantamount to describing the various types of verbs, or predications, (states, events, and actions) used in language. Simple clauses are thus defined in terms of their two matching templates or frames, one semantic frame of participant roles, the other syntactic frame of grammatical roles. Clause types other than the basic one are seen as variations.
Compound words are considered as lexical constructions that have imitated a variety of clause types and phrases, either basic ones or variants.

Syntactic word-compounding
As already known, the term "compounding" generally refers to the method or strategy whereby two or more totally different occurring words are picked up to form a compound word which refers to a new thing or idea that is different from any of the original words or the composition of the original words. The new word meaning is idiosyncratic (peculiar to the individual), rather than transparent (straightforward) like a phrase. We would, however, claim here that most "word compounds" in Tai languages such as Thai (Singnoi 2005) and Tai Dam (Wongwattana 2016) and Tai Khrang are relatively transparent in the manner that they are syntactic or could display both grammatical relations and semantic roles/relations, rather than arbitrary grammatical/semantic associations. As stated in Singnoi (2005), the term idiosyncratic or transparent, however, is best accounted for in continuum, rather than two clear-cut conceptual poles. We could still see the track, obviously in the degree of transparency, from which the new meaning is metaphorically created. The following examples display the continuum of compounds in Tai Khrang from more transparent (less idiosyncratic) as in (1a) to more idiosyncratic (less transparent) compound words as in (1c), where an intermediate is in (1b).
In fact, words may be compounded or combined in terms of their syntactic relations and non-syntactic, or lexical relations (such as reduplication, synonymousness, similarity, membership, and opposition) as illustrated in Wongwattana (2016). The non-syntactic or lexical combining cases, however, are not our concern here since they are not consistently considered "compounding strategies" in some other significant studies such as Thanwarachon (1991), Warotamasikkhadit (2003), Manomaiwiboon (2004) and so forth. Syntactic compounding here, refers to a word formation strategy used to create a word compound that can display both syntactic and semantic relations. We have found that syntactic compound words in Tai Khrang are basically formed in three ways: synthetic, verb-verb and noun-noun, which are different in terms of structure, syntactic relation and semantic relation.

Synthetic compounding
Synthetic compounding is the word building strategy that imitates clauses and phrases. That is, certain compound members convey argument structures 4 , the mapping of grammatical relations and semantic roles between the main verb and arguments (nominal constituents), just like clausal constituents do. Consider the following example where a synthetic compound word in (2a) and a clause in (2b) are compared.
(2) a. nák-tī:-mūaj person-hit-boxing 'boxer' b. khɔ̂j tī: mūaj keŋ I hit boxing ably 'I fight (with the fist) well.' In example (2), the clause /khɔ̂j tī: mūaj keŋ/ in (2b) displays the argument structure where /khɔ̂j/ is an agent subject, /tī:/ a transitive verb, and /mūaj/ a patient object. Similarly, the compound word /nák-tī:-mūaj/ in (2a) imitates the argument structure: that is, /nák/ is the agent subject, /tī:/ the verb, and /mūaj/ the patient object at the word level. The different levels of the clause and compound word can be illustrated in the figure below. Synthetic compounds are found in two structures: noun head and verb head compounds. Regarding the argument structures of this compounding type, we have found that they reveal various mappings of syntactic relations (e.g., subject, object, adverbial) and semantic relations (e.g., agent, patient, dative, instrument,…) with the following verbs just like those of simple clauses. Thus, this results in a variety of synthetic compound patterns as exemplified below.
( Aside from the finite-clause forms, it seems that compound words are in forms similar to nominalization. According to Givón (2001), nominalization is a grammaticalrather than lexicalderivationalprocess and thus difined as the process by which a finite clause is converted (either a complete clause or a subject-less verb phrase) 5 into a noun phrase. In such compounds, the head functions like a nominalizer and thus can be called a compound nominalizer (CN)a grammaticalized unit that forms a compound from a non-nominal category such as clausal or verbal. This is a morpheme such as /Ɂī:/, originated from a superordinate noun referring to 'female human', as exemplified below.
(4) Ɂī:-lō:j CN-to sprinkle 'watering can' A number of compound words have been lexicalized from verbal phrases where the head verb is modified/preceded by an auxilairy as shown in (5a) or a negative marker as in (5b) 6 below.
(5) verb phrases a. kʰì:-tʰǐ: always-to be frequent 'to be niggardly' b. bɔ̄:-sabā:j not-comfortable 'to be sick' In addition, a few compound words imitate noun phrases where the head noun is modified/followed by a prepositional phrase as shown in (6)

Verb-verb compounding
Verb-verb compounding should be separated from the verb-phrase and verbalphrase compounding strategies discussed above since it conveys a different grammatical relation; namely, serial verb constructions such as activity-objective as in (6a), direction-activity as in (6b) and manner-activity as in (6c) on the one hand, and less-prototypical ones such as headcomplement as in (6d) and headpreposition as in (6e) on the other. 7 (7) a. kʰúa-kīn to fry without oil-to eat 'to fry b. pāj-bāw to go-to be light 'to go pee' c. wíŋ-mǔn to run-to rotate 'turbine' d. hǐw-lâp be hungry for-to sleep 'to want to sleep/ to be sleepy' e. kʰit-hɔ̂:t to think-to arrive 'to miss'

Noun-noun compounding
Nominal or noun-noun compounding is a salient word-creation strategy where two nouns or nominal units are semantically associated. Since the semantic relation in this compounding type is relatively more complex, to be better construed, it would be accounted for in terms of formulas which can be classified into three forms according to transparency degree levels, graduating from more transparent to less transparent, as shown in the figure below.

Formula I: X-x  x
A number of noun-noun compounds in Tai Khrang display the semantic formula X-x  x, where the first/head member is the class/higher term 8 of the second member which stands for the whole compound itself. The pattern can be separated into five different manners according to the semantic feature of the head parts: namely, generic, shape, gender, whole and excretion heads.

Generic head
Lakoff states that "Every time we see something as a kind of thing, for example, a tree, we are categorizing. Whenever we reason about kinds of thingschairs, nations, illnesses, any kind of thing at allwe are employing categories" (Lakoff 1987: 5). With evidence in the analysis of 'eating' terms in Thai, Singnoi (2006) concludes that, in order to understand individual things in the world, we have to understand them not only in terms of themselves but also as categories. This implies that the words of a language can be understood via the concept of categorization rather than only in terms of individual words. 8 According to DeLancey (1986, 440), class terms are different from classifiers. The difference would obviously be predicted on the grounds that class terms occur with their classified nouns in lexicalized compounds, while classifiers occur with their classified terms in nonce syntactic constructions, so that it is perhaps unnecessary to connect this with any significant difference in semantic function.
Typically, people categorize spatial/concrete entities into animate and inanimate and further categorize animate into human and animal (Givón, 2001), as shown in a simple taxonomic diagram below. , display a portion of taxonomy as such in the way that the compound head is a superordinate term, or class term, followed by a subordinate term as the other member. It is the subordinate member that displays the meaning of the compound since the head is too basic or broad to present a communicative meaning, as illustrated in the following example.

Shape head
Rather than a subordinate term, the classterm head is the shape class term of the other member, as shown below.

Gender head
A number of class-term heads are the gender of the other member which display various kind of identities including, even though inconsistently, kin, animal, fruit, important object and normal object, as respectively shown below.

Whole head
A number of class-term heads display the whole of a part presented by the other member, as exemplified in (10), where the part member conveys a communicative meaning.

Excretion head
Last but not least, there are many compounds whose head member is the excretion /kʰî:/ to present negative interpretation of the other member, as shown below.

Formula II: x-y  xy
There are a number of compounds of the noun-noun type displaying the semantic formula x-y  xy, where the two members are not related in the same manner as compounds in Formula I. Rather, the second member modifies the head with more specific information including portion, whole, compared item, shape, color, amount, material, purpose, possessor, possessed item, body part, location, temporal, profession, expertise, nationality and gender. Portion A number of compounds in this formula reveal the metonymic model, a basic characteristic of cognition. Metonymy in the sense of cognitive linguistic theory like that of Lakoff and Johnson (1980) is the case that salient part or aspect is commonly used to stand for the thing as a whole or for some other aspect or part of it. They display that an object name or concept is employed as a compound member for that of the other member to which it is related, or of which it is a part. Examples are shown below.

Compared
A large number of compounds in this formula reveal the metaphorical model, another basic characteristic of cognition. Metaphor, as stated by Lakoff and Johnson (1980), helps us to understand some things in terms of others that we already understand. It is conceptual, not merely a use of language, and involves people's world view and thought in a social system. This compound type makes use of metaphor in the way that the second member applies to an object that implies a resemblance with the head/first member. Examples are shown below.

Shape
The modifying member is also found to display the shape of the head when the compound does not refer to a normal-shaped object, as shown below.

Color
The modifying member displays the color of the head, as shown below.

Amount
The modifying member displays the collective amount of the item head, as shown below.

Temporal
The modifying member displays the time of the head, as shown below.

Profession
The modifying member displays the profession of the human head, as shown below.

Expertise
The modifying member displays the expertise of the human head, as shown below.

Nationality
The modifying member displays the nationality of the head, as shown below.

Gender
The modifying member displays the gender of the animate head, as shown below.

Formula III: x-y  z
There are a relatively small number of compounds displaying the semantic formula x-y  z, where the two members are not related in the same manners as compounds in formulas I and II, and the compound meaning is not from the modified head in the same manner as that in Formula II. Rather, compound meaning does not seem to relate to any compound member. In other words, the compound meaning is highly idiosyncratic or unpredictable from any compound member. Examples are shown below.

Conclusion
The study of syntactic word compounding in the Tai Khrang language reveals that people intuitively create new words by employing a variety of syntactic aspects constituting the language. Also, word formation is performed in a variety of complex and sophisticated manners. The complex taxonomy of syntactic compounds in Tai Khrang is illustrated below.

Figure 5 Taxonomic categorization of syntactic compounds in Tai Khrang
The figure above shows that syntactic compounds in Tai Khrang can discussed in three basic, structural ways: synthetic, verbverb and noun-noun compounding. The synthetic strategy is a compound formation that imitates clausal/phrasal constructions such as simple clauses, nominalization, and phrases. Compound words imitating clausal structures convey various patterns of argument structure such as subject/agent-verb, subject/dative-verb, subject/instrument-verb, subject/patient of state-verb, object/patient of change-verb, adverbial/locative-verb, adverbial/temporalverb, verb-object/patient of change, verbobject/locative, and copular verb-adjective. The verb-verb strategy displays a different synthetic relation such as serial verb construction. The noun-noun strategy displays three semantic aspects that can formulated as X-x  x, x-y  xy and x-y  z, graduating from more transparent to less transparent. The first formula contributes to a number of head-difference semantic relations such as generic-noun, shape-noun, gender-noun, whole-noun and excretion-noun. The second formula provides various noun-noun patterns that display different semantic domains inherited in the second member such as portion, whole, compared, shape, color, amount, material, purpose, possessor, possessed, body part, location, temporal, profession, expertise, nationality and gender. The last formula reveals a relatively small number of less-transparent noun-noun compounds.
The findings of this study regarding syntactic word compounding in Tai Khrang are specific to Tai Khrang. The complex taxonomy of compounding categorization in Tai Khrang contributes to a greater understanding of either language and cognition on the one hand and minority language preservation and revitalization on the other, a topic that goes beyond earlier work on other Tai languages. The complicated methods seen in Tai Khrang word compounding imply that the Tai Khrang language and culture, like every other, are prestigious in their value, as stated by Wasi (2012): Regarding culture as the concept, every community or country is equally prestigious. No one is more prestigious than others since cultures vary and local cultures are not centralized and are accepted in their own values. This is the best way to carry on multi-culture communities and make them stronger and durable.