Responding to a Complaint in Thai: A Case Study of Interlocutors with Equal Status
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
The purpose of this research article is to examine the linguistic strategies in responding to a complaint by Thai native speakers with equal status. There were research questions on how Thai native speakers adopt linguistic strategies in responding to a complaint; a case study of interlocutors with equal status; and what factors are Thai native speakers concern with when adopting linguistic strategies in responding to a complaint. The data were collected in the form of Written Discourse Completion Task (WDCT) and in-depth interviews (200 for the WDCT and 30 for the in-depth interviews).
The linguistic strategies were categorized into four groups, presented with the accompanying percentages of frequency of linguistic strategies in descending order: 1. mitigative linguistic strategies (63.50 %); 2. persuasive linguistic strategies (22.50%); 3. conflict linguistic strategies (10.00%); and 4. sarcastic linguistic strategies (4.00%).
An analysis of the motivational concerns of native speaker reveals that there are three types of motivational concerns, presented with the accompanying percentages of frequency of motivation concerns: 1) motivational concerns relating to the speaker and hearer (63.50 %); 2) motivational concerns relating to the hearer (30.00 %); and 3) motivational concerns relating to the speaker (6.50 %). It was found that Thai speakers place a priority on maintaining a relationship with the interlocutor.
Such linguistic behavior might be motivated by three sociocultural factors: 1) aninterdependent view of self; 2) collectivism andaffiliative society; and 3) the concept of “sanuk” or fun.
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 (ed.), 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.
Bettinghaus, E.P. (1968). Persuasive communication. New York: Holt Renehautand Winston.
Blachard, W. (1958). Thailand: Its people, its society, its culture. New York: Harf Press.
Boxer, D. (1993). Social distance and speech behavior: The case of indirect complaints. Journal of Pragmatics, 19, 103-125.
Brown, P. and S. Levinson. (1978). Universal in language usage: Politeness phenomena. London: Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P. and S. Levinson. (1987). Politeness: Some universal in language usage. London: Cambridge University Press.
Charoenngam, S. and Jablin. (1999). An Exploratory Study of Communication Competence in Thai Organizations. Journal of Business Communication, 36(4), 382–418.
Clyne, M. (1994). Intercultural Communication at work cultural Values in Discourse. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cooper, R. (1982). Culture shock Thailand. Singapore: Times Books International.
Fieg, J. P. (1989). A common core: Thais and Americans. New York: Intercultural Press.
Gu, Y. (1990). Politeness phenomena in modern Chinese. Journal of Pragmatics, 14(2): 237-257.
Hanks, W. F., S. Ide and F. Katagiri. (2009). Introduction Towards an emancipatory pragmatics. Journal of Pragmatics, 41, 1-9.
Hofstede, G. (1984). Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage Pub.
Hofstede, G. (1987). Culture’s consequences: international differences in work-related values. Beverly Hills: Sage Pub.
Hovland, C. (1965). Experiments on mass communication. New York: Wiley.
Hongladarom, K. (2009). Indexicality in Thai and Tibetan: Implication for a Buddhism grounded approach. Journal of pragmatics, 41, 47-59.
Hurford, J. R. and B. Heasley. (1983). Semantics a coursebook. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Ide, S. (1982). Japanese sociolinguistics: Politeness and women’s language. Lingua, 57(2-4), 357-385.
Insor, D. (1963). Thailand: a political social and economic analysis. London: G. Allen and Unwin.
Intachakra, S. (2009). Khwam krengcai khwam suphap duai cai. [Khwam-kreng-jai: Respectful Politeness]. Seminar paper of Language and Linguistics in 2009, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of liberal arts, Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Intachakra, S. (2011). Politeness, Khwam-kreng-jai and Emancipatory Pragmatics. Language and Linguistics, 29(61), 17-42.
Jaisue, R. (2006). Complaining in Thai: a case study of university students. (Master’s Thesis). Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Jandt, F. E. (2010). An introduction to intercultural communication: Identities in a global community. Thousand Oaks: CA Sage Publications.
Klausner, W. J. (1981). Reflections on Thai Culture. Bangkok: Suksit Siam.
Koanantakool, P. C. (1999). Boek rong: kho phicharana nattakam nai sangkhom. [Prelude: dramatic considerations in Thai society]. Bangkok: Thai Khadi Research Institute.
Komin, S. and S. Smakarn. (1979). Rai ngan wichai rueang khaniyom lae rabop khaniyom Thai: khrueangmue nai kan samruat wat. [Research report on Thai values and value system: Survey Manual]. Bangkok: National Institute of Development Administration.
Kanittanan, W. (1993). Politeness in Bangkok Thai. Bangkok: Thammasat University Press.
Krutnet, P. (2014). Linguistic strategies used for terminating conflict talk in Thai interactions. (Doctoral dissertation). Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Larson, C, U. (1986). Persuasion: reception and responsibility. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Pub. Co.,
Leech, G. (1983). Principles of Pragmatics. London: Longman.
Maneerat, P. (2013). Nuai thi si ngan kap len ekkasan kan son chut wicha naeokhit Thai nuai thi nueng thueng hok. [Chapter 4: work and play in teaching materials for Thai concepts, unit 1-6]. Nonthaburi: Sukhothai Thammathirat Open University.
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 Paper in Linguistic. University of Michigan 2 : 35-60.
Olshtain, E. and L. Weinbach. (1987). Complaints: A study of speech behavior among native and non-native speakers of Hebrew. In J. Verschueren and M. Bertucelli-Papi (Eds.), The Pragmatic Perspective (pp. 195-208). Amsterdam: John Benjamins. Cited in Rakmak, T. (2017). Responding strategies to passengers’ complaints: A case study of airline customer service agents. (Master’s Thesis). Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Ongwuttiwat, S. (2006). Admonishing in Thai: a case study of teachers and students. (Master’s Thesis). 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. (2017). Linguistic strategies used for complaining in Thailand native speakers’ motivational concerns. Thammasat University Journal, 36(3), 1-21.
Ornnomdee, W. (2013). Complaining in Middle East e-mails. (Master’s Thesis). Silpakorn University, Nakhon Pathom, Thailand.
Panpothong, N. (1996). A pragmatic study of verbal irony in Thai. (Doctoral dissertation). University of Hawaii at Manoa, United States of America.
Panpothong, N. (1999). The functions of Metaphor from a 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 S. Phakdeephasook. (2009). Bunkhun nai thana patcai thang watthanatham thi mi itthiphon to kan patisamphan nai phasathai : koranisueksa kan toprap khamkhopkhun tam naeo emancipatory pragmatics. [“Bunkhun” as a cultural factor impacting interactions in Thai: A case study of responses to thanking in emancipatory pragmatics]. Seminar paper of Language and Linguistics in 2009, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of liberal arts, Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Panpothong, N., & Phakdeephasook, S. (2012). The wide use of mai pen-rai, ‘It’s not substantial’, in Thai interactions and its relationship to the Buddhist concept of Tri Laksana. Journal of Pragmatics, 69, 99-107. Retrieved from: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pragma.2012.03.006
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]. Seminar paper of Language and Linguistics in 2014, Department of Linguistics, Faculty of liberal arts, Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Panpothong, N. and S. Phakdeephasook. (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]. In teaching 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: Patterns of interpersonal behavior in the village of Banchan. Berkelerand Los Angeles: University of California press.
Ploykhao, S. (2008). The act of complaining on the webboard. (Master’s Thesis). Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
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 in Thai. (Master’s Thesis). Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Rapeepat, A. (1996). Mong sangkhom phan chiwit nai chumchon. [Consideration of society through life in the community]. Bangkok: Princess Maha Chakri Sirindhorn Anthropology Centre.
Rakmak, T. (2017). Response strategies to passengers’ complaints: A case study of airline customer service agents. (Master’s Thesis). Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Roongrengsuke, S. and D. Chansuthus. (1998). Conflict management in Thailand. In Conflict management in the Asia Pacific assumptions 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 Open University.
Sairhun, Th. (1999). English refusal strategies in Thai learners of English as a foreign language: a study of pragmatic transfer. (Master’s Thesis). Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
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.
Somchanakit, K. (2016). Pragmatic transfer in the speech act of complaints by Thai JFL learners. (Research Paper). Songkhla: Thaksin University.
Sukwisith, W. (2004). 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.
Suvanajata, T. et al. (1984). Sangkhom lae watthanatham Thai: khosangket nai kan plianplaeng. [Thai society and culture: Observations on change]. Bangkok: Thammasat University.
Takahashi, T, and L. M. Beebe. (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.
Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism & collectivism. Boulder: Westview Press.
Tussanaboon, P. (2019). Khwam awuso or seniority and linguistic strategies in disagreeing, complaining and advising in Thai. (Master’s Thesis). Thammasat University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Vajanasoontorn, P. (1986). Khaniyom nai samnuan Thai. [Values in Thai idioms]. Bangkok: Odeon store.
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.
Vivatananukul, M. (2006). Kan suesan tang watthanatham. [Intercultural communication]. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.
Wang, J. (2006). A comparative study of complaints and their response in English and Chinese. (Master’s thesis). Jilin University, China.
Weisz, J. R. (1991). Culture and the Development of child Psycho-pathology: Lessons from Thailand. In Rochester Symposium on Development Psychopathology Vol. 1. D. Cicchetti (ed.). New York: Cambridge University press.
Wichianchot, W. (1971). khwam krengchai nai khon thai. [Khwam kreng-chai in Thai people]. Bangkok: National Research Council of Thailand.
Wichianchot, W. (1972). Research on Courtesy Bias of the Thai. Bangkok: Srinakarinwirot University.
Wilson, D., and D. Sperber. (1992). On verbalirony. 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.
Yang, L., and A. Wannarak. (2018). A cross-cultural pragmatics study of complaining by native Thai speakers and Chinese speakers. Kasetsart journal of social sciences. (in press)
Yaowarittha, C. (2012). The concept of “Bunkhun” and three types of speech acts in Thai society. (Master’s Thesis). Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok, Thailand.
Yuan, Z. (2011). A contrastive study of American and Chinese university student’ complaining strategies. Chinese Journal of Applied Linguistics, 34(1), 111-128.