Linguistics strategies for responding to admonish in Thai and native speakers’ motivational concerns “บทความเรื่องนี้ได้ถูกถอนออกจากวารสารฯ เนื่องจากการตีพิมพ์ซ้ำซ้อนของบทความ”

Main Article Content

สิทธิธรรรม อ่องวุฒิวัฒน์

Abstract

                This research article aims to study linguistic strategies that Thai people adopted to respond to admonish, as well as studying native speakers’ motivational concerns in performing the act, using Emancipatory Pragmatics (EP) through Discourse Completion Test (DCT) for the Thai speakers sample survey, The 100 informants were Bachelor’s students from various faculties and years. Also, in-depth interviews were conducted with30 students out of the informants. The results indicate that Thai speakers adopted mitigating strategies more frequently than bold-on record strategies. An analysis of native speaker’ motivational concerns reveals that there are two types of motivational concerns-1)motivational concerns relating to the purpose of conversation 2) motivational concerns relating to the context of conversation. It is found that Thai speakers place a priority on keeping relationship with the interlocutor. This linguistic behavior might be motivated by three sociocultural factors: 1. an interdependent view of self 2. Collectivism and 3. High context culture

Article Details

How to Cite
อ่องวุฒิวัฒน์ ส. (2019). Linguistics strategies for responding to admonish in Thai and native speakers’ motivational concerns: “บทความเรื่องนี้ได้ถูกถอนออกจากวารสารฯ เนื่องจากการตีพิมพ์ซ้ำซ้อนของบทความ”. Humanity and Social Science Journal, Ubon Ratchathani University, 10(1), 234–252. retrieved from https://so02.tci-thaijo.org/index.php/human_ubu/article/view/182594
Section
บทความวิจัย (Research paper)

References

Bilmes, J. (1992). “Dividing The Rice: A Microanalysis of Mediator’s Role in A Northern Thai Negotiation” Language in society21: 569-602.

Hall, S. (1976). Visual culture: the reader. London;: SAGE Publications.

Hanks,W, Ide,S, and Katagiri,Y. (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.

Jandt, F. E., and P.B. Pederson. (1996). Constructive conflict management: Asia – Pacific cases. ThousandOaks;CA: Sage Publications.

Klauser, W, J. (1981). Reflections on Thai Culture. Bangkok: Suksit Siam.

Markus, H. R., and Kitayama,S. (1991). Culture and the Self: Implications for Cognition, Emotion, and Motivation.Psychological Review98, 2:224-253.

Mulder, N. (1996). Inside Thai society : An interpretations of everyday life. Amsterdam: Pepin Press.

Panpothong, Natthaporn. (2012). Pragmatics in Thai. (Unpublished). (in Thai)

Podhisita, C. (1998). Buddhism and Thai world view.In Amara Ponsapich(eds), Tradittionnal And Changing Thai World View, pp. 29-62. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press.

Pongsapich, A (eds). (1998). Traditional and changing Thai world view. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press. (in Thai)

Triandis, H, C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder: Westview Press.

Yaowarittha, Chanwit. (2011). The Concept of "Bunkhun" and Three Types of Speech Acts in Thai Society Chulalongkorn University, Bangkok. (in Thai)