forming a duet: thai ways of co-constructing a story in...

Forming a duet: Thai ways of co-constructing a story in task-based interactions

Natthaporn Panpothong

Siriporn Phakdeephasook

Department of Thai Faculty of Arts, Chulalongkorn University

1

! It is conclusive that all conversation requires participants to cooperate in taking turns at talk and providing appropriate feedback. However, people from different cultures may follow different interactional norms.

! There are significant differences between Western and non-Western interactions (i.e., Katagiri 2007, Fujii 2008, 2012, and Kim 2011).

2

! Well-known studies that provide a comparison between Thai and American interactions include Moerman (1988) and Bilmes (1992).

! In American mediation, one deals with dispute by

dealing with the anger of the disputants. In Thai mediation, on the other hand, the mediator emphasizes on the expression of good feeling and the denial of anger. The negotiation in Thai underlines positive social sentiments and the concept of interdependence.

3

! Task-based interactions in Thai have received little attention.

! The present study aims at examining how Thai speakers interact in task-based discourse. Following Fujii (2012), we look into how Thai speakers propose ideas and co-construct a story.

! The present study focuses its analysis on the 11 pairs of student-student task-based interactions. The participants are undergraduate students who are close friends.

4

Outline

! Thai ways of proposing ideas

! Forming a conversational duet in task-based discourse

! The interdependent construal of the self in Thai culture and its relation to some linguistic behaviors

5

Thai ways of proposing ideas As noted by Fujii (2012), Japanese and American

participants propose ideas and opinions through 4 devices. That is, they use

! declarative statements

! declarative statements with mitigating expressions

! declarative questions or declarative statements with a rising intonation

! question forms

6

1. Declarative statements

2. Declarative statements with mitigating expressions ¾  naaca (should be)

¾  khongca/ ?aatca (maybe)

¾  bEEp/ bEEpwaa/ ?arai ngia (something like that) ¾  duumIan/ duupen/ mIan/ mIanwaa/ mIankapwaa (It

seems…) ¾  songsai… (I wonder…)

¾  sommut… (Let’s say…)

¾  raw waa…/ raw khit waa…/ raw ?EEp khit waa… (I think…)

¾  Yang mai kOi nEEcai waa… (I’m not sure…)

7

3. Question forms

- All question markers are adopted.

- But the rIIplaaw which is the neutral form and the caimai which functions like tag-question in English are repeatedly used to induce responses.

8

! The use of the final particle na/nO at the end of a declarative statement to elicit agreement is also found. For example, อันนี้น่าจะเป็นภาพแรกเนอะ ‘This should be the first picture, right?’ ตัวสีเท่าก่อน (.) นะ ‘The grey one comes first, (.) right?’

! Declarative statements with a rising intonation are seldom used in Thai.

9

T02 T04 T06 T08 T10 T12 T14 T16 T18 T20 T22 Total

DS 24 32 39 31 69 25 27 37 25 34 17 360 458

DS+M 5 13 7 8 3 4 4 18 4 21 11 98

Q 20 25 28 31 35 37 19 28 16 17 42 298 298

10

Forming a conversation duet in task-based interaction

! The dataset examined here reveals that the Thai participants form a duet during the task through 4 devices include: 1. repetition

2. co-construction of a storyline and a proposition

3. showing enthusiastic agreement

4. teasing and joking to reinforce the sense of togetherness

11

Repetition

! Interestingly, in the task-based discourse examined here, repetition is frequently found during story co-constructing.

! It occurs in every pair.

12

(1) TS04

1. L: สมมุติว่ามันหยิบไม้ขึ้นมาปุ๊บ=

Let’s say, it picks up a stick=

2. R:à =แล้วก็หัก

=then, (the stick) breaks

3. L:à แล้วก็หัก หัก ตกลงไป=

Then, (the stick) breaks, and falls down=

4. R:à =แล้วก็โกรธ=

=then (the guy) gets angry=

5. L:à =โกรธ ไม=้

=(the guy) gets angry with the stick=

6. R:à =ก็เลยหมุนตัวกลับ

=so, turns back

7. L:à หมุนตัวกลับ=

turns back=

8. R:à =เดินไปหยิบไม ้

=walks to get a new stick

9. L:à เดิน เดินไปหยิบไม ้

walks, walks to get a new stick

13

(2) TS08

1. L:à คือเจออันนี้ แล้วก็ล่ืน แล้วก็ ก็เลยคิดต่อ ก็เดินกลับ (It) meets this one and slips. And then, tries to figures out and

walks back

2. R:à ก็เดินกลับไป=

and walks back=

3. L:à =ก็ไปเจอไอ้นี่

=then meets this one 4. R:à ก็ไปเจอ แล้วก็คุยๆ

Then (they) meet, and then talk

5. L:à แล้วก็คุย=

and then talk= 6. R: =มามะ มามะ

=“Come on. Come on”

14

15

Co-construction

! The notion of co-construction is one of the criteria to define a conversation in which participants express interest and affiliation with each other. (Clark 1996)

! Like repetition, co-construction is another feature repeatedly found in the present data. Every pair shows high frequency of relaying a storyline.

16

- lEEw/ lEEwk@@/ k@@

(then, and then)

- setpap/ pap/ pIp

(right after that)

- suan

(as for)

17

(3) TS16

1. L: ทำไงดีข้ามไม่ได=้

“What should (I) do? (I) can’t cross over”=

2. R:à =ข้ามไม่ได ้เดินย้อนกลับมา= =can’t cross over and walks back=

3. L:à =เจอตัวเล็ก

=meets the small one

4. R:à เจอตัวเล็ก ชวนตัวเล็กขึ้นหลัง ตัวเล็กขึ้นแล้วก็=

meets the small one, asks the small one to get on his back. The small one gets on, and=

5. L:à =ตัวเล็กก็ไม่สำเร็จ=

=the small one is not successful=

6. R:à =มาทับตัวเล็กอีก แล้วก็ไปเจอตัวใหญ่

=falls on top of the small one and then, meet the big one.

18

19

(4) TS10 1. R: นี่ไง ไอตัวเหลืองก็พยายามจะส่งมันข้ามไป

Here, the yellow one tries to send the guy over.

2. L:à แต่ว่า=

But=

3. R:à =แต่ล้มเหลว เลยทับมัน

=but (the yellow one) fails, so (it) falls on top of the guy.

…

4. R: อีนี่ก็เลยข้ามไปคนเดียว=

This one crosses over alone=

5. L:à =ก็เลยไม่เป็นไร เราขอ แล้วก็เด้งดึ๋ง ไอ้ตัวนี้ไง เด้งดึ๋งแล้วก็ข้ามมาได้

=“That’s alright. Let me go.” Then, (he) bounces over this one, and crosses over

6. R:à อ๋อ ก็เหลืออีตาเหลือกอยู่ไง นี่ตาเหลือก

I see. Only the bulging eyes is left here. Here is the bulging eyes.

7. L: เออ ตาเหลือกด้วย

Yeah, (its) eyes are bulging.

20

Showing enthusiastic agreement

! The frequent use of affiliation tokens can be regarded as supportive or intrusive depending on context and group norms.

! Thai participants recurrently use both minimal responses and full turn responses to show enthusiastic agreement to support their partner during the task.

21

(5) TS02

1. L: นี่ไงมันโดนหักหลัง โดนหักหลัง hhh(.) her her her (laughter)

Here, it’s betrayed. It’s betrayed. (laughter) 2. R:à เออ:: เออ เออ เออ เออ เออ เออปะ เออ เออ

Yeah. Yeah.Yeah.Yeah.Yeah.Yeah. Right? Yeah.Yeah.

3. L: เออ ดีมะ อะเดี๋ยวก่อน ต่ออย่างนี้ก่อน

Yeah. Sound good? Wait. This one first.

22

(6) TS10

1. R: มาเจออันนี้ แล้วก็เลยเดินกลับ (It) faces this and then walks back

2. L:à อ้าวเดินกลับ อะ ได้ ได้ ได้ ได้ Walking back? Okay. Okay. Okay. Okay.

….

3. R: อันนี้มันสีเทาโว้ย ก็คือมันทับอีตัวนี้เว้ย

This is the grey one. It falls on top of this one. 4. L:à ใช่ ใช่ ใช่ ใช่

Right. Right. Right. Right.

23

(7) TS18

1. R: ไอ้เนี่ยมันยังอยู่ฝั่งนี้อยู่เลย ไอ้เนี้ยมันก็ค่อยเด้งไป This one is still on this side. This one bounces off.

2. L:à อ๋อ อ๋อ เออ เออ ได้ ได้ I see. I see. Yeah. Yeah. Okay. Okay.

24

(8) TS14

1. R: โอเค โดมเดินมา แล้วโดมก็มาเจอดิว (Laughter) Okay. Dome comes here and meets Dew. (Laughter)

2. L:à เออ เออ ใช่ เพราะดิวตัวดำ

Yeah. Yeah. Right. Because Dew has a dark complexion.

25

(9) TS12 1. R: อืม หน้าโกรธ แบบว่า อ้าวเฮ้ย ทิ้งฉัน

Mhm. An angry face like “How come! You left me” 2. L:à อ้าว ฉิบเป๋ง

Oh. Damn it.

…

3. R: เออ ไอ้เนี่ยตาย แล้วก็ไอนี้มันก็เลยแบบเพ่ือนตาย This one died. Then, this one is like “My friend died”

4. L:à อ้าว เวรกรรม Oh. Poor guy!

26

(10) TS16

1. L : ตัวเล็กเลย แดงยังไม่ผ่าน แล้วก็แบบคิดใหม่ แล้วก็เดินย้อน So the small one… It could not cross over. Then, (it)

finding a new way and walk back.

2. R :à อือ เก๋ดี คิดใหม่อะ Yeah. It’s cool. Finding a new way .

27

Teasing and Joking

! In Kim (2011), digression is defined as materials that do not contribute to the completion of the task.

! Thai participants digress often from the task. Digression occurs in 8 out of 11 pairs.

! However, the type of digression often found in the data is teasing.

28

(11) TS14

1. L: อันนี้มันซับซ้อนกว่าอันที่แล้วอะ อิสคอมพลิเคท This one is more complicated than the one I did.

It’s complicated.

2. R: มาก Extremely.

29

(12) TS10

1.--> R: เค้าให้เวลาไม่จำกัดทำถึงบ่ายสามละกัน

There is no time limit. Let’s do it until 3 pm.

2. L: เอาไงดี เดี๋ยวดิ อันนี้ ตุ๊ด ตุ๊ด (.) ตุ๊ด What should (we) do? Wait. This one. Tick, tick, (.) tick

……………

3.--> L: อ่าว หลุด หลุด เดอะสตาร์เก้าหลุด เออ

Oh, (it) slipped out. (It) slipped out. The Star 9 slipped out.

…………. 4.--> R: อ้าวจ๋ิวเหรอ ร้องเพลงสิ เดอะสตาร์

Oh, are you Jew? Then sing, the Star.

5.--> L: อย่าเอาความเหงามาลง

(singing a Thai song)

6. R: เสร็จเถอะ เสร็จเถอะ อายเค้า Let’s finish. I’m embarrassed.

30

31

(13) TS02

1. L: ฮ้ึย ฮ้ึย ฮ้ึย มีเร่ืองใหม่มาเพ่ิม (laughter) Hey. Hey. Hey. There are new pictures. (laughter)

2. R:à ทำตัวเป็นเด็กแอ๊บแบ๊วนะเธออะ You act like an innocent child.

3. L:à เฮ้ยไม่ เราเป็นเด็ก (.)แอ๊บแบ๊วน่ารัก (laughter)

No, I really am. I’m a cute innocent child. (laughter)

32

! The device of self-deprecation as Kim observes in the Korean data is rarely found in the Thai data.

! For the Thai participants, the sense of togetherness is mainly reinforced by joking and laughing together.

33

! The Thai participants propose ideas mainly through declarative statements.

! After ideas are proposed, they form a conversational duet to accomplish the task.

! They support and complete each other by echoing their partner, co-constructing a storyline, and showing enthusiastic agreement. The three devices repeatedly occur in every pair.

! Moreover, the participants prefer joking or teasing each other to reinforce the sense of togetherness. Having fun or สนุก is a Thai way of working together to accomplish a task.

34

35

The interdependent construal of the self in Thai culture and its relationship to some linguistic behaviors

- Independent vs Interdependent construals of the self

- The concept of interdependent self in Thai culture

- Its relationship to linguistic behaviors

- Co-constructing a story

- Thai pronominal usage

- KKJ

Independent vs Interdependent construals of the self

! People in different cultures have different construals of the self, of others and of the relationship between the two. These construals can influence the ways people interact with others.

! Two main types of the construal of the self:

1) Independent construal of the self 2) Interdependent construal of the self

(Markus and Kitayama 1991)

36

Interdependent construal of the self ! Markus and Kitayama (1991: 226)

! A person with independent construal of the self views her/himself as an autonomous individual whose inner core of self is of most significant.

! The behavior of such individual is organized and made meaningful mainly by reference to her/his own internal repertoires of thoughts, feelings, and actions rather than

by reference to those of others.

37

Interdependent construal of the self

! Markus and Kitayama (1991: 227)

! A person with interdependent construal of the self views her/himself as part of an encompassing social relation.

! S/he recognizes that her/his behavior is contingent on what s/he perceives to be the thoughts, feelings, and actions of others in the relationship.

38

Interdependent construal of the self

! Thich Nhat Hanh

! One of his most important ideas is ‘interbeing’, which concerns the mutual interconnectedness of all living things.

! “I am, therefore you are. You are, therefore I am. That is the meaning of the word “interbeing”’. (Thich Nhat Hanh: Being Peace)

39

40

Inter-being

! “If you are a poet, you will see clearly that there is a cloud floating in this sheet of paper. Without a cloud, there will be no rain; without rain, the trees cannot grow; and without trees, we cannot make paper. The cloud is essential for the paper to exist. If the cloud is not here, the sheet of paper cannot be here either. So we can say that the cloud and the paper inter-are. “Interbeing” is a word that is not in the dictionary yet, but if we combine the prefix “inter-“ with the verb “to be,” we have a new verb, inter-be.”

(Thich Nhat Hanh)

41

The concept of interdependent self in Thai culture

! Markus and Kitayama 1991: 228) “Thai culture is among the cultures whereby interdependent construal of the self is predominant.”

! Weisz (in press; cited in Markus and Kitayama 1991: 228)

Thai people place high value upon self-effacement, humility, deference, and on trying to avoid disturbing others.

42

The concept of interdependent self in Thai culture

! Buddhist society

-- Interconnectedness of all beings in the samsara or watta songsan

! Agricultural society

Mutually depending on each other

-- ลงแขก (long khaek) (to gather one’s neighbors to help at harvest time)

43

44

45

! Expressions

ร่วมแรงร่วมใจ ruamraeng ruamjay

(lit. to join force and to join hearts)

‘to be united in action and spirit’

ถ้อยทีถ้อยอาศัย thoythee thoy?asay

‘to mutually depend on each other.’

46

Proverbs

สองหัวดีกว่าหัวเดียว song hua dee kwa hua diaw

(lit. two heads are better than one.)

น้ำพ่ึงเรือ เสือพ่ึงป่า nam phueng rue sue phueng pa (lit. water depends on boats; tigers depends on

forest)

‘everything is dependent on something else’

47

Slogans / campaigns / songs (during crisis)

- “คนไทยไม่ทิ้งกัน”

Thai people will never abandon each other.

- “เราคนไทยไม่เคยทิ้งกัน จะฝ่าวิกฤตินี้ไปด้วยกัน”

We Thais have never abandoned each other. We will get through this crisis together.

- Together we can รวมกันเราทำได้

48

49

50

51

52

Thai ways of co-constructing a story in task-based interactions (Mister O corpus) and the interdependent construal of the self

- Repetition and co-construction of a storyline

à Manifestation of the intertwining selves of the two participants

à Sharing one mind

- Showing enthusiastic agreement to support the partner’s stance

à to promote and sustain the interconnectedness between the two participants

53

- Teasing and joking

à Sanuk (Having fun) as a Thai way of working together to accomplish a task

à to create and reinforce the sense of togetherness

54

! Thai pronominal usage - The co-existence of self and other is crucial for pinning down the appropriate pronouns for each other. you and I : mae -- nuu

(you - mom) (I - child)

nisit , nuu -- khruu

(you - student, child) (I-teacher)

khun tamruat –- dichan

(you – policeman) (I – lady)

Tayfaala?ongthuleephrabaat -- Khaaphraphutthacaw

(you – king) (I – servant of the Lord Buddha)

55

! Referential shifting from the first person to second person pronouns

ตัวเอง tua-eng (oneself) -- I

-- you

A: ตัวเองจะกินอะไร

tua-eng jaa kin ?aray What would you like to eat?

B: แล้วตัวเองหละ laew tua-eng la? What about you?

A: ตัวเองก็นึกไม่ออกเหมือนกัน tua-eng kaw nik may ?ok muen kan I don’t know either.

56

! เรา raw (we) - We

- I

- you - เราไปกินข้าวเที่ยงกันมา raw pai kin khaw kan ma

We went to have lunch together.

- เราไม่อยากไปซื้อของคนเดียว raw yaak pay sue khong khon diaw

I don’t want to go shopping by myself.

- เราทำไมถึงได้อ้วนขนาดนี้ raw thamay thung daay ?uan khanaat nii

Why are you this overweight?

57

! เค้า khaw (that person) s/he

they

I - เค้าเป็นอาจารย์อยู่ที่จุฬาฯ He is a lecturer at Chulalongkorn University.

- เค้าจะมากันก่ีโมง

What time will they arrive?

- เค้ารอตัวเองตั้งนาน จะมาช้าทำไมตัวเองไม่โทรบอกเค้า I have been waiting long for you. (You) knew that you would

be late. What didn’t you give me a call?

58

Fujii (2011)

! Referential shifting from the first person to second person pronouns in Japanese

! The nature of non-separation of oneself and the other self in the shared domain of ba where ‘you and I’ can be easily merged into one.

59

Thai pronouns and the interdependent construal of the self

- “You” must be present in order that “I” can be realized.

- In some cases, “you” and “I” are merged into one.

- In the case of เค้า, “I” can even be merged with other(s) not present.

60

khwa:mkre:ŋjai (fear of bothering other’s heart) ! a crucial interactional principle in Thai culture

(Klausner 1984, Bilmes 1988, Mulders 1996, Hongladarom 2007, Intachakra 2010).

! Intachakra (2010) explains that khwa:mkre:ŋjai is a principle of self-restraint and other accommodation in Thai.

61

Bilmes (1992) ! Mediation in Thai culture

! The negotiation in Thai underlines positive social sentiments and the concept of interdependence.

62

! Conclusion

- Thai ways of co-construction a story in tasked-based interactions reflect the interdependent construal of the self.

- This are in line with other linguistic behaviors in Thai including pronominal usage, the principle of KKJ, and Thai negotiation strategies.

- The linguistic behaviors are correlated to Thai cultural values and practices.

- The concept of interdependent self plays a predominant role in Thai culture. To fully understand and account for linguistic behaviors in Thai culture, this aspect cannot be disregarded.

63

ご清聴ありがとうございました。

ขอบคุณมากค่ะ

Thank you very much.

64