Article published In: International Journal of Language and Culture
Vol. 7:2 (2020) ► pp.215–240
Different cultural conceptualizations underlying intercultural business communication problems between Thais and Koreans
Published online: 8 March 2021
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.18016.hyu
https://doi.org/10.1075/ijolc.18016.hyu
Abstract
When people from different cultural backgrounds interact, their divergent conceptualizations may result in
communication problems. While the significance of intercultural business interactions between Thais and South Koreans has
increased with the development of trade relations between their countries, few attempts have been made to research interactional
problems in this context. This study investigates the respective Thai and Korean cultural conceptualizations that underlie
communication problems between them in the context of Korean multinational companies operating in Thailand. By analyzing data
derived from in-depth interviews, this article elucidates the linguistic features of Thai and Korean speakers in relation to four
different culture-specific conceptualizations: for Thais, the cultural schema of kreng jai and the cultural
category of phinong; and for Koreans, the cultural schemas of ppalli ppalli and
gunsinyuei. The findings show that these cultural conceptualizations govern Thais’ and Koreans’ different
ways of interacting, and the paper discusses how these differences lead to and shape misunderstandings and interpersonal conflicts
between these cultural counterparts during intercultural business communications.
Article outline
- 1.Introduction
- 2.Literature review
- 2.1Approaches to intercultural communication
- 2.2Cultural linguistics and intercultural communication
- 2.3Analytical framework of cultural linguistics
- 3.Methodology
- 4.Results
- 4.1Thai cultural schema of kreng jai
- 4.2Thai cultural category of phinong
- 4.3The Korean cultural schema of ppalli ppalli
- 4.4The Korean cultural schema of gunsinyuei
- 5.Concluding remarks
- Notes
References
References (54)
Ahn, H. (2017).
Seoul uncle: Cultural conceptualisations behind the use of address terms in Korean. In Sharifian, F. (Ed.), Advances in Cultural Linguistics (pp. 411–432). Singapore: Springer.
Baker, C. and Phongpaichit, P. (2005). A history of Thailand. 2nd edition. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bilmes, L. (2001). Sociolinguistic aspects of Thai politeness (Ph.D. Thesis). University of California, Berkeley.
Brew, F. P. and Cairns, D. R. (2004). Do culture or situational constraints determine choice of direct or indirect styles in intercultural workplace conflict? International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 28(5), 331–352.
Byon, A. S. (2004). Sociopragmatic analysis of Korean request: Pedagogical settings. Journal of Pragmatics 36(36), 1673–1704.
Chaidaroon, S. S. (2003). When shyness is Not incompetence: A case of Thai communication competence. Intercultural Communication Studies, 12(4), 294–307.
Chakorn, O-O. (2006). Persuasive and politeness strategies in cross-cultural letters of request in the Thai business context. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 16(1), 103–146.
Chen, G-M. and Chung, J. (1994). The impact of Confucian on organizational communication. Communication Quarterly, 42(2), 93–105.
Hooker, J. (2012). Cultural differences in business communication. In Christina Bratt Paulston, Scott F. Kiesling, and Elizabeth S. Rangel (Eds.), The handbook of intercultural discourse and communication (pp.389–407). West Sussex: Wiley-Blackwell.
Hwang, S. (1991). Terms of address in Korean and American cultures. Intercultural Communication Studies, 1(2), 117–136.
Hyun, K. J. (2001). Sociocultural change and traditional values: Confucian values among Koreans and Korean Americans. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 25(2), 203–229.
Hyun, Y. W. (2017). Preserving harmony first, then conveying information: Asian ways of interpreting as maintaining rapport at a Korean trans-national corporation in Thailand. Manusya: Journal of Humanities, 20(3), 61–84:
Intachakra, S. (2012). Politeness motivated by the ‘heart’ and ‘binary rationality’ in Thai culture. Journal of Pragmatics, 44(5), 619–635.
Jung, Y. (2009). Korea. In Bargiela-Chiappini, F. (Ed.), Handbook of business discourse (pp. 356–386). Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
Jung, Y. and Louhiala-Salminen, L. (2012). Korean employees are direct: (Im)politeness and rapport in international professional encounters. Dispute Resolution Studies Review, 10(2), 179–210.
Kang, J. W. (2011). Political uses of Confucianism in North Korea. The Journal of Korean Studies, 16(1), 63–87.
Katejulasriroj, P. (2011). “Face” conflict and conflict resolution in Thai-Japanese MNCs in Thailand (Ph.D. Thesis). Chulalongkorn University.
Khanittanan, W. (1988). Some observation on expressing politeness in Thai. Language Science, 10(2), 353–362.
Kim, A. H-O. (2011). Politeness in Korea. In Kádár, Dániel Z., and Mills, S. (Eds.), Politeness in East Asia (pp. 176–207). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kim, K. and Hong, S. (1997). Accounting for rapid economic growth in Korea, 1963–1995. Seoul: Korea Development Institute.
Kim, M-Y. (2014). Why self-deprecating? Achieving ‘oneness’ in conversation. Journal of Pragmatics, 691, 82–98.
Kim, W. (2016). Between autonomy and productivity: The everyday lives of Korean women workers during the Park Jung-hee era. In Ludtke, A. (Ed.) Everyday life in mass dictatorship: Collusion and evasion (pp. 202–217). New York: Routledge.
Komin, S. (1990). Culture and work-related values in Thai organizations. International Journal of Psychology, 25(3–6), 681–704.
Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency. (2016). Nation’s information. Thailand, Retrieved on 20 September 2018 from [URL]
Lee, S., Brett, J. and Park, H. (2012). East Asians’ social heterogeneity: Differences in norms among Chinese, Japanese, and Korean negotiators. Negotiation Journal, 28(4), 429–452.
National Institute of Korean. (2014). The romanization of Korean, Retrieved on 1 July 2019 from [URL]
Office of the Royal Society. (1999). The principle of romanization of Thai. Retrieved on 1 July 2019 from [URL]
Punturaumporn, B. (2001). The Thai style of negotiation: Kreng jai, Bhunkhun, and other socio-cultural keys to business negotiation in Thailand. (Ph.D. Thesis). University of Ohio.
Sharma, S. (2015). South Korea’s geo-economic engagement in the Middle East: Obstacles and opportunities. East Asia, 32(3), 309–322.
Sharifian, F. (2010). Cultural conceptualisations in intercultural communication: A study of Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal Australians. Journal of Pragmatics, 421, 3367–3376.
(2017b). Cultural Linguistics: The state of art. In Sharifian, F. (Ed.), Advances in Cultural Linguistics (pp. 1–28). Singapore: Springer.
(2017c). Cultural Linguistics: Cognitive linguistics studies in cultural contexts. Amsterdam: John Benjamin Publishing Company.
Sharifian, F. and Jamarani, M. (2011). Cultural schemas in intercultural communication: A study of the Persian cultural schema of shamandegi ‘being ashamed’. Intercultural Pragmatics, 8(2), 227–251.
Spencer-Oatey, H. (2002). Managing rapport in talk: Using rapport sensitive incidents to explore the motivational concerns underlying the management of relations. Journal of Pragmatics, 341, 529–545.
Sriussadaporn-Charoenngam, N. and Jablin, F. M. (1999). An exploratory study of communication competence in Thai organization. The Journal of Business Communication, 36(4), 382–418.
Sriussadaporn, R. (2006). Managing international business communication problems at work: A pilot study in foreign companies in Thailand. Cross Cultural Management: An International Journal, 13(4), 330–344.
Sriwattananont, S. (2004). Kanseusan rawang watthanatham nai kan thamngan kong phanakngan chaothai lae chaotawantok (Intercultural communication between Thai employee and Western employee at workplace (Master’s Thesis). Chulalongkorn University.
Stowell, J. A. (2003). The influence of Confucian values on interpersonal communication in South Korea, as compared to China and Japan. Intercultural Communication Studies, 12(4), 105–114.
Ukosakul, M. (2003). Conceptual metaphors motivating the use of Thai ‘face’. In Casad, E. H. and Palmer, G. B. (Ed.), Cognitive linguistics and Non-Indo-European languages (pp. 275–304). Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Vongvipanon, P. (1994). Linguistic Perspective of Thai Culture. Paper presented at the Workshop of Teachers of Social Science, University of New Orleans.
Wierzbicka, A. (1991). Cross-cultural pragmatics: The semantics of human interaction. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter.
Wolf, H. (2015). Language and culture in intercultural communication. In Sharifian, F. (Ed.), The Routledge handbook of language and culture (pp. 445–459). Oxford: Routledge.
Wongwarangkul, C. (2000). Analysis of the nature of interlanguage pragmatics in choice making for requesting strategies by Thai EFL (Ph.D. Thesis). Michigan State University.
Wongwittayakamjon, N. (2011). The organizational communication and job satisfaction of Thai employees in Korean transnational companies in Bangkok (Master’s Thesis). Chulalongkorn University.
Woo, J-H. (2007). Samgaongoryuni hyeondaejeok jomyeong (Contemporary aspects of Samgangoryun). Daejeon: Ehwa.
Yaoharee, O. (2013). Power and politeness in intercultural workplace communication: Some implications for teaching English as a second language in Thailand (Ph.D. Thesis). University of California, Santa Barbara.
Yang, Key P. and Henderson, G. (1958). An outline history of Korean Confucianism: Part I: The early period and Yi factionalism. The Journal of Asian Studies, 18(1), 81–101.
Yu, K-A. (2004). Explicitness for requests is a politer strategy than implicitness in Korean. Discourse and Cognition, 11(1), 137–163.
