Refusal Strategies of Thai and American Instructors at Chiang Mai University

This study aims to compare and contrast refusal strategies employed by Thai and American instructors working at Chiang Mai University and to investigate the effects of the social status of interlocutors on refusal strategies employed by both groups of instructors. The data was collected by means of...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Author: Kanokwan Kantakorn
Other Authors: Jirapat Jangjamras
Format: Independent Study
Language:English
Published: เชียงใหม่ : บัณฑิตวิทยาลัย มหาวิทยาลัยเชียงใหม่ 2018
Subjects:
Online Access:http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/46105
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Institution: Chiang Mai University
Language: English
id th-cmuir.6653943832-46105
record_format dspace
spelling th-cmuir.6653943832-461052018-04-17T20:08:30Z Refusal Strategies of Thai and American Instructors at Chiang Mai University กลวิธีการปฏิเสธของอาจารย์ชาวไทยและอเมริกันในมหาวิทยาลัยเชียงใหม่ Kanokwan Kantakorn Jirapat Jangjamras Refusal Strategies Chiang Mai University This study aims to compare and contrast refusal strategies employed by Thai and American instructors working at Chiang Mai University and to investigate the effects of the social status of interlocutors on refusal strategies employed by both groups of instructors. The data was collected by means of a Discourse Completion Test (DCT) completed by 15 Thai instructors and 15 American instructors. The DCT included situations of requests and suggestions for the participants to indicate how they would refuse. In addition, this study investigates whether or not the participants employ the refusal strategies that correspond to those in Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory. The results indicate that both groups of participants performed speech acts of refusal in a similar way since members of both groups preferred indirect strategies to direct strategies. The factor of social status did not appear to have much effect on refusal strategies for either type of speech acts investigated: requests and suggestions. Both Thai and American instructors employed ‘explanation/reason/excuse’ as the main strategy when refusing interlocutors of higher, equal, and lower status. However, it was observed that the content of the ‘explanation/reason/excuse’ of each group was different when refusing a superior’s request to work in a team with a person they dislike. American instructors mostly referred to an unpleasant work relationship and personal differences with the person in question, while Thai instructors gave as reasons their own lack of appropriate skills for the task and their availability. The findings were also analyzed under Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory and it was found that both groups of participants employed four main politeness strategies: 1) bold on record, 2) positive politeness, 3) negative politeness, and 4) off-record, to maintain the hearer’s positive face. 2018-04-17T08:19:16Z 2018-04-17T08:19:16Z 2015-04 Independent Study (IS) http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/46105 en เชียงใหม่ : บัณฑิตวิทยาลัย มหาวิทยาลัยเชียงใหม่
institution Chiang Mai University
building Chiang Mai University Library
country Thailand
collection CMU Intellectual Repository
language English
topic Refusal Strategies
Chiang Mai University
spellingShingle Refusal Strategies
Chiang Mai University
Kanokwan Kantakorn
Refusal Strategies of Thai and American Instructors at Chiang Mai University
description This study aims to compare and contrast refusal strategies employed by Thai and American instructors working at Chiang Mai University and to investigate the effects of the social status of interlocutors on refusal strategies employed by both groups of instructors. The data was collected by means of a Discourse Completion Test (DCT) completed by 15 Thai instructors and 15 American instructors. The DCT included situations of requests and suggestions for the participants to indicate how they would refuse. In addition, this study investigates whether or not the participants employ the refusal strategies that correspond to those in Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory. The results indicate that both groups of participants performed speech acts of refusal in a similar way since members of both groups preferred indirect strategies to direct strategies. The factor of social status did not appear to have much effect on refusal strategies for either type of speech acts investigated: requests and suggestions. Both Thai and American instructors employed ‘explanation/reason/excuse’ as the main strategy when refusing interlocutors of higher, equal, and lower status. However, it was observed that the content of the ‘explanation/reason/excuse’ of each group was different when refusing a superior’s request to work in a team with a person they dislike. American instructors mostly referred to an unpleasant work relationship and personal differences with the person in question, while Thai instructors gave as reasons their own lack of appropriate skills for the task and their availability. The findings were also analyzed under Brown and Levinson’s Politeness Theory and it was found that both groups of participants employed four main politeness strategies: 1) bold on record, 2) positive politeness, 3) negative politeness, and 4) off-record, to maintain the hearer’s positive face.
author2 Jirapat Jangjamras
author_facet Jirapat Jangjamras
Kanokwan Kantakorn
format Independent Study
author Kanokwan Kantakorn
author_sort Kanokwan Kantakorn
title Refusal Strategies of Thai and American Instructors at Chiang Mai University
title_short Refusal Strategies of Thai and American Instructors at Chiang Mai University
title_full Refusal Strategies of Thai and American Instructors at Chiang Mai University
title_fullStr Refusal Strategies of Thai and American Instructors at Chiang Mai University
title_full_unstemmed Refusal Strategies of Thai and American Instructors at Chiang Mai University
title_sort refusal strategies of thai and american instructors at chiang mai university
publisher เชียงใหม่ : บัณฑิตวิทยาลัย มหาวิทยาลัยเชียงใหม่
publishDate 2018
url http://cmuir.cmu.ac.th/jspui/handle/6653943832/46105
_version_ 1681421688963596288