Linguistic strategies used for responding to verbal irony of different social status and intimacy interlocutors in Thai
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
This research had the primary objectives to study the strategies of responding to verbal irony in Thai and analyze the relationship between responding strategies and factors concerning the interlocutors’ social social status and intimacy. Data used in this research were elicited from a sample of 400 respondents, of which 200 were male and 200 were female. The sample were asked to complete the Written Discourse Completion Task (WDCT)
According to the results, The responding strategy to sarcastic verbal irony divided into 4 strategies, ranking in the order of frequency as follows: 1) keeping relationship of interlocutor linguistic strategies ; 2) sarcastic linguistic strategies ; 3) humorous linguistic strategies and 4) conflict linguistic strategies. Meanwhile, the responding strategy to humorous verbal irony can be classified into 4 strategies, ranking in the order of frequency as follows: 1) keeping relationship of interlocutor linguistic strategies; 2) humorous linguistic strategies 3) sarcastic linguistic strategies; and 4) conflict linguistic strategies.
Upon consideration of the relationship between responding strategies and factors concerning the interlocutors’ social status and intimacy, it was evident that factors concerning the interlocutors’ social status and intimacy had an effect on the adoption of the responding strategies,there were statistically significant differences in the responding strategies at a p-value of less than 0.050 (P<0.050)
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
Journal of Thai studies is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-NoDerivatives4.0 Intenational (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) licence, unless otherwise stated. Plese read our Policies page for more information on Open Access, copyright and permissions.
References
Angsuchot, S. et al. (2014). Sathiti kan wikhro samrap kan wichai thang sangkhomsat lae pharuetikam sat : Theknik kan chai prokraem
LISREL. [Analytical statistics for research on Social and Behavioral Sciences: Programming LISREL Techniques]. Bangkok: Charoen
Mankhong Printing.
Bandumedha, N. (1998). Thai Views of Man as a social Being. In Amara Ponsapich (eds.), Traditional and Changing Thai World View,103-129. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
Benedict, R. (1952). Thai culture and behavior. Data Paper No.4. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell Asian Program.
Caisue, R. (2006). The speech act of complaining in Thai: a case study of university students. (Master’s Thesis). Chulalongkorn University,Bangkok, Thailand.
Emakson, P. (2006). The strategies of cancellation in Thai: a case study of hearers of different status. (Master’sThesis). Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Hall, S. (1981). Visual culture: the reader. London; Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, in association with the Open University.
Hurford, J. R., & Heasley, B. (1983). Semantics a coursebook. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Iaosiwong, N. (2003). Sitthi lae khwam krengcai: Watthanatham Khwam con. [Rights and Considerations: A culture of poverty]. Bangkok: Praew Publishing.
Insor, D. (1963). Thailand: A political social and economic analysis. London: G. Allen and Unwin.
Jandt, F. E. (2010). An introduction to intercultural communication: Identities in a global community. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.
Kanittanan, W. (1993). Politeness in Bangkok Thai. Bangkok: Thammasat University Press.
Klausner, W. J. (1981). Reflections on Thai Culture. Bangkok: Suksit Siam.
Komin, S., & Smakarn, S. (1979). Rai ngan wichai rueang khaniyom lae rabop khaniyom Thai: khrueangmue nai kan samruat wat. [Research report on Thai values and value system: Survey Instrument]. Bangkok: National Institute of Development Administration.
Kongchang, R. (2017). Responding strategies to verbal irony in Thai: A case study of speakers of equal status. (Master of Arts Thesis). Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Krutnet, P. (2014). Linguistic strategies used for terminating conflict talk in Thai interactions. (Doctoral dissertation). Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation. Psychological Review, 98(2), 224-253.
Mole, R. L. (1973). Thai Values and Behavior Patterns. Canada: M. G. Hurtig Ltd. Edmonton.
Mulder, N. (1996). Inside Thai society: An interpretations of everyday life. Amsterdam: Pepin Press.
Myer, A. (1976). On the function of irony in conversation. Working Papers in Linguistic. University of Michigan 2: 35-60.
Ongwuttiwat, S. (2006). The speech act of admonishing in Thai: A case study of teachers and students. (Master’sThesis). Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Ongwuttiwat, S. (2015). Disagreement in Thai conversational discourse and native speakers’ motivational concerns. (Doctoral dissertation).Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Ongwuttiwat, S. (2021 a). Linguistic Strategies Used for Responding to Disagreement in Different Situations in Thai: A Case Study of Interlocutors with Equal Status. Journal of Thai Language and Literature, 38(2), 56-113.
Ongwuttiwat, S. (2021 b). Responding to a Complaint in Thai: A Case Study of Interlocutors with Equal Status. Journal of Thai studies, 17(1), 181-246.
Ongwuttiwat, S. (2021 c). The speech act of responding to disappointment in Thai: A Case Study of Interlocutors with Equal Status. Graduate studies of humanities, 10(2), 1-27
Palakornkul, A. (1972). A Socio-linguistic study of pronominal strategy in spoken Bangkok Thai. Ann Arbor, Mich: University Microfilms International.
Panpothong, N. (1996). A pragmatic study of verbal irony in Thai. (Doctoral dissertation). Universityof Hawaii at Manoa, United States of America.
Panpothong, N. (1999). The functions of Metaphor from the Thai Speaker’s point of view. Journal of Thai Language and Literature, 16(1), 259-268.
Panpothong, N. (1999).Thai ways of saying `no` to a request.Paper presented at the International Symposium on Linguistic Politeness, Chulalongkorn University, December 7-9, 1999.
Panpothong, N. (2012). Teaching materials for 2201783 Pragmatic Analysis of Thai. Photocopied and revised document. Department of Thai, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Panpothong, N, and Phakdeephasook, S. (2009). “Mai pen rai as a reflection of Buddhist ideology in Thai ways of interaction.” Paper presented at the 11th International Pragmatics Conference. July 12-17, 2009. University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Australia.
Panpothong, N., & Phakdeephasook, S. (2014). Phuphut phasathai pati samphan yangrai nai kan sonthana baep nen pharakit: kansueksa khomun Mister O tam naeo Emancipatory Pragmatics. [How do Thai native speakers interact in task-based conversation?: A case study of Mister O Corpus in Emancipatory Pragmatics]. A seminar paper of Language and Linguistics in 2014, Department o fLinguistics, Faculty of liberal arts, Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Panpothong, N., & Phakdeephasook, S. (2017). Task-Based Conversation in Thai and Related Socio-Cultural Factors: A Case Study of the Thai Mister O Corpus. Journal of Thai Language and Literature, 34(2), 1-40.
Petcharatmora, J. (2001). A study of making apologies in Thai by speakers of different social status. (Master’s Thesis). Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Phakdeephasook,S. (2004).Samnuan[Idioms]. InTeaching materials for 2201607 Language and Culture. Photocopied document Department of Thai, Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Phillips, H. P. (1970). Thai peasant personality: the pattern of interpersonal behavior in the village of Banchan. Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
Pongsapich, A. (Ed.). (1998). Traditional and changing Thai world view. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
Prosrimas, W. (2000). Refusal strategies in responding to favor-expressing speech acts in Thai. (Master’s Thesis). Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Rapeepat, A. (1996). Mong sangkhom phan chiwit nai chumchon. [Considering society through life in the community].Bangkok: Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre (Public Organisation).
Roongrengsuke, S., & Chansuthus, D. (1998). Conflict management inThailand. In Conflict management in the Asia Pacific assumption and approaches in diverse culture (p.167- 221). Leung, K., and Tjosvold, D. (Eds.). Singapore: Wiley.
Saihoo, P. (2013). Nuai thi ha pharuetikam kan suesan nai choeng sangkhom lae watthanatham ekkasan kan son chut wicha pharuetikam kan suesan nuai thi nueng thueng paet. [Chapter 5: Social and cultural communication behaviors in teaching materials for communication behaviors unit 1-8]. Nonthaburi: Sukhothai Thammathirat OpenUniversity.
Searle, J. (1969). Speech acts: An essay in the philosophy of language. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University.
Smakarn, S. (1992). Khwamkhatyaeng pom panha lae anakhot khong sangkhom Thai: phicharana chak khaniyom thang watthanatham pen samkhan [Conflicts, Problems and the Future of Thai Society: Considering cultural values as a priority.] In the social and cultural research report: Observations and changes. Bangkok: National Institute of Development Administration.
Sukwisith, W. (2004). The speech act of reprimanding in Thai. (Master’s Thesis). Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Supap, S. (1986). Sangkom lae wadthanathum Thai: Kaniyom, Kropkrow Sadsana Prapaenee. [Thai society and culture: Value, family, religion and tradition]. Bangkok: Thai Watana Panich.
Takahashi,T, and Beebe,L, M. (1993). Cross-Linguistic Influence in the Speech Act of Correction. In Kasper, G., and Blum-Kulka, S (eds.) Interlanguage Pragmatics, 138-157. New York: Oxford University Press.
Vatcharasuwan, P. (2004). The act of disagreeing in Thai by speakers of different social status: A case of teachers and students. (Master’s Thesis). Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Weisz, J. R. (1991). Culture and the development of child psycho-pathology: Lessons from Thailand. In Rochester Symposium on Development Psychopathology Vol. 1. Cicchetti, D. (Ed.). New York: Cambridge University press.
Wichianchot, W. (1971). Khwam krengchai nai khon thai. [Khwam-kreng-jai in Thai people]. Bangkok: National Research Council of Thailand.
Wichianchot, W. (1972). A Research on Courtesy Bias of the Thai. Bangkok: Srinakarinwirot University.
Wilson, D., & Sperber, D. (1992). On verbal irony. Lingua, 87, 53-76. Cited in Panpothong, N. (1996). A pragmatic study of verbal irony in Thai. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Hawaii at Manoa, United States of America.
Yamklinfung, P. (1966). Social Structure and national security. Journal of Social Sciences, Faculty of Political Science, Chulalongkorn University, 4(2), 14-24.
Yaowarittha, C. (2012). The concept of “Bunkhun” and three types of speech acts in Thai society. (Master’s Thesis). Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.