Expressions Considered Bullying: Meaning Perceived by Thai Speakers of Generations Y and Z
Article Sidebar
Main Article Content
Abstract
Defining the meanings of (im)politeness-related terms from the perspectives of language users has recently attracted interest of pragmaticists, and the term “bullying” is widely used in Thai society nowadays.
This paper aims to investigate the meaning of the term “expressions considered bullying” as perceived by Thai speakers of generations Y and Z, using first-order (im)politeness as the analytical framework. Data were collected by online survey, questionnaire, and in-depth interviews. The results revealed that there are numerous definitional dimensions of this term from the perception of Thai speakers of generations Y and Z. However, definitional dimensions are largely perceived similarly. The “content” and “consequence” are key definitional dimensions, which serve as fundamental concerns in judging whether expressions are considered bullying. This term, based on lay perceptions, is defined with a broader meaning than the term “bullying” as defined within theoretical constructs by scholars. These findings can be conceptualized to elucidate the meaning of the term “expressions considered bullying” in Thai and can be applied to judge expressions considered bullying in Thai society.
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
References
ณัฐพร พานโพธิ์ทอง. (2566). วัจนปฏิบัติศาสตร์กับความสุภาพและวัฒนธรรม: แนวคิดและแนวทางวิจัยภาษาไทย. โครงการเผยแพร่ผลงานวิชาการ คณะอักษรศาสตร์ จุฬาลงกรณ์มหาวิทยาลัย.
ณัฐรัชต์ สาเมาะ. (2556). การรับรู้ของเยาวชนต่อการรังแกในพื้นที่ไซเบอร์ [วิทยานิพนธ์ปริญญามหาบัณฑิต]. มหาวิทยาลัยมหิดล.
ทัศนีย์ เมฆถาวรวัฒนา. (2554). ปัจจัยที่ใช้ในการตัดสิน “ความสุภาพ” ในการสนทนาของเพศชายและเพศหญิงในกลุ่มตัวอย่างระดับอุดมศึกษาของไทย. วารสารพัฒนบริหารศาสตร์, 51(3), 141-166.
แนวหน้า. (2567, 24 กุมภาพันธ์). ‘กลั่นแกล้ง-รังแก’ จุดเริ่มต้น ‘สังคมรุนแรง’. https://www.naewna.com/politic/columnist/58095
ภัทรธิดา ชัยเพชร, และพิมลพรรณ ไชยนันท์. (2564). การคุกคามทางเพศในสื่อสังคมออนไลน์. วารสารการสื่อสาร มหาวิทยาลัยราชภัฏเชียงราย, 4(3), 1-38.
ศิรวัตร ไทยแท้. (2562). การตัดสินความสุภาพจากถ้อยคําการตอบกลับการตําหนิในภาษาไทย: มุมมองจากคนสองวัย. วารสารอักษรศาสตร์, 48(1), 77-96.
สกล วรเจริญศรี. (2559). การข่มเหงรังแก. สารานุกรมศึกษาศาสตร์, 51, 13-20.
สำนักข่าวไทย. (2563, 21 สิงหาคม). รณรงค์ไม่ทน “บูลลี่”. https://url.in.th/xIvDm
สำนักงานราชบัณฑิตยสภา. (2563). พจนานุกรมศัพท์นิเทศศาสตร์ ฉบับราชบัณฑิตยสภา. สำนักงานราชบัณฑิตยสภา.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1978). Universals in language usage: Politeness phenomena. In E. N. Goody (Ed.), Questions and politeness: Strategies in social interaction (pp. 56-311). Cambridge University Press.
Brown, P., & Levinson, S. C. (1987). Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge University press.
Culpeper, J. (2011). Politeness and impoliteness. In K. Aijmer & G. Andersen (Eds.), Sociopragmatics, Volume 5 of Handbooks of Pragmatics (pp. 391-436). Mouton de Gruyter.
Culpeper, J. (2021). Impoliteness and hate speech: Compare and contrast. Journal of Pragmatics, 179, 4-11.
Culpeper, J., & Haugh, M. (2021). The metalinguistics of offence in (British) English: A corpus-based metapragmatic approach. Journal of Language Aggression and Conflict, 9(2), 185-214.
Fraser, B., & Nolan, W. (1981). The association of deference with linguistic form. International Journal of the Sociology of Language, 27, 93-109.
Haugh, M. (2007). The discursive challenge to politeness theory: An interactional alternative. Journal of Politeness Research, 3(2), 295-317.
Kanetsuna, T., & Smith, P. K. (2002). Pupil insights into bullying, and coping with bullying: A bi-national study in Japan and England. Journal of school violence, 1, 5-29.
Koo, H., Kwak, K., & Smith, P. K. (2008). Victimization in Korean schools: The nature, incidence, and distinctive features of Korean bullying or wang-ta. Journal of School Violence, 7(4), 119-139.
Lampert, M., & Ervin-Tripp, S. (2006). Risky laughter: Teasing and self-directed joking among male and female friends. Journal of Pragmatics, 38, 51-72.
Lee, S., Smith, P. K., & Monks, C. P. (2012). Meaning and usage of a term for bullying-like phenomena in South Korea: A lifespan perspective. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 31(3), 342-349.
Locher, M. A. (2004). Power and politeness in action: Disagreement in oral communication. De Gruyter Mouton.
Locher, M. A. (2008). Relational work, politeness, and identity construction. In G. Antos, E. Ventola & T. Weber (Eds.), Handbook of interpersonal communication (pp. 509-540). De Gruyter Mouton.
Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2005). Politeness theory and relational work. Journal of Politeness Research, 1(1), 9-33.
Locher, M. A., & Watts, R. J. (2008). Relational work and impoliteness: Negotiating norms of linguistic behavior. In D. Bousfield, & M. A. Locher (Eds.), Impoliteness in language: Studies on its interplay with power in theory and practice (pp. 77-99). De Gruyter Mouton.
Macklem, G. L. (2003). Bullying and teasing: Social power in children’s groups. Springer Science & Business Media.
Madsen, K. C. (1996). Differing perceptions of bullying and their practical implications. Educational and Child Psychology, 13(2), 14-22.
Monks, C. P., & Smith, P. K. (2006). Definitions of bullying: Age differences in understanding of the term, and the role of experience. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 801-821.
Noknoi, N., & Srichampa, S. (2024). “Bully” in Thai context: A semantic componential analysis. Journal of Language Research and Practice, 1(1), 21-39.
Olweus, D. (1993). Bullying at school: What we know and what we can do (Understanding children’s worlds). Blackwell Publishing.
Rigby, K. (2002). New perspectives on bullying. Jessica Kingsley.
Sifianou, M. (2019). Im/politeness and in/civility: A neglected relationship?. Journal of Pragmatics, 147, 49-64.
Smith, P. K., & Thompson, D. (1991). Dealing with bully/victim problems in the UK. In P. K. Smith & D. Thompson (Eds.), Practical approaches to bullying (pp. 1-12). David Fulton.
Smorti, A., Menesini, E., & Smith, P. K. (2003). Parents’ definitions of children’s bullying in a five-country comparison. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(4), 417-432.
Steer, O. L., Betts, L. R., Baguley, T., & Binder, J. F. (2020). “I feel like everyone does it”-Adolescents’ perceptions and awareness of the association between humour, banter, and cyberbullying. Computers in Human Behavior, 108, 1-10.
Taki, M. (2003). ‘Ijime bullying’: Characteristic, causality and intervention. In Oxford-Kobe seminars: Measures to reduce “Bullying in Schools” (pp. 97-113). Japan.
Taylor, C. (2017). The relationship between irony and sarcasm: Insights from a first-order metalanguage investigation. Journal of Politeness Research, 13(2), 209-241.
Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., Hymel, S., Krygsman, A., Miller, J., Stiver, K., & Davis, C. (2008). Bullying: Are researchers and children/youth talking about the same thing?. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32(6), 502-511.
Vandebosch, H., & Van Cleemput, K. (2008). Defining cyberbullying: A qualitative research into the perceptions of youngsters. Journal of Cybertherapy and Rehabilitation, 11(4), 499-503.
Watts, R. J. (2003). Politeness. Cambridge University Press.
Watts, R. J. (2005). Linguistics politeness research: Quo Vadis? In R. J. Watts, S. Ide & K. Ehlich, (Eds.), Politeness in language: Studies in its history, theory and practice (pp. xi-xlvii). De Gruyter Mouton.
Ypulse. (2022, June 14). The biggest problem gen Z & Millennials say they’re facing in 2022. https://www.ypulse.com/article/2022/06/14/the-biggest-problem-gen-z-and-millennials-say-theyre-facing-in-2022/
