Article published In: Pragmatics
Vol. 20:3 (2010) ► pp.289–313
Rapport management in Thai and Japanese social talk during group discussions
Available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial (CC BY-NC) 4.0 license.
Published online: 1 September 2010
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20.3.01aok
https://doi.org/10.1075/prag.20.3.01aok
According to Hofstede’s (2003) often quoted survey, Japanese and Thai cultures rank high on the collectivist scale and both cultures attach the greatest importance to group harmony. Accordingly, we should see similar characteristics in Japanese and Thai speakers during discussions within their respective social groups. However, this is not the case. This paper examines social talk during the task-oriented interaction of Japanese and Thai speakers. The analysis focuses on how the speakers of Japanese and Thai present themselves and construct rapport in casual group talk. Using the concept of consciousness deployed in ‘idea units’ (Chafe 1980, 1994) and some semantic considerations, I identify three major differences in rapport construction between Japanese and Thai speakers. First, Japanese participants prefer to build common ground through discussion of communal topics and through dealing with the comprehensiveness and the orderliness of the situation, whereas Thai participants incline toward Individual-oriented topics and independent styles of talk. Second, the Japanese show a preference for using softening devices and conventionalized expressions in group discussion while the Thais tend to use intensifiers and spontaneous expressions to indicate involvement and create a friendly and fun atmosphere. Third, the Japanese like to demonstrate the minimization of self and the relevancy between the self and the collective whereas the Thais value the capitalization of the self and the strengthening of personal relationships. Japanese and Thai communicative styles can be viewed as reflection of the different way the two cultures conceptualize the notion of rapport and the self. With regard to the component of rapport management (Spencer-Oatey 2000), the Japanese place more emphasis on the observation of sociality rights, while the Thais incline toward the management of face. This suggests that rapport construction in collectivist cultures may possess totally different characters.
Keywords: Japanese, Communicative styles, Rapport, Thai, Social talk, Group discussion
References (49)
Bales, Robert F. (1976) Interaction process analysis: A method for the study of small groups. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Barnlund, Dean C. (1975) Public and private self in Japan and the United States. Tokyo: Simul Press.
Benedict, Ruth (1943) Thai culture and behavior: An unpublished war-time study dated September, 1943. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University.
Brosnahan, Leger (1990) Japanese and English gesture: Constructive nonverbal communication. Tokyo: Taishūkan.
Brown, Penelope, and Stephen C. Levinson (1987) Politeness: Some universals in language usage. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Chafe, Wallace (1980) The deployment of consciousness. In W. Chafe (ed.), The pear stories: Cognitive, cultural, and linguistic aspects of narrative production.Norwood, NJ: Ablex, pp. 9-50. BoP
(1994) Discourse, consciousness, and time. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. BoP
Cheng, Winnie (2003) Intercultural conversation. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company.
Eggins, Suzanne, and Diana Slade (1997) Analysing casual conversation. London: Cassell. BoP
Embree, John F. (1950) Thailand, a loosely structured social system. American Anthropologist 521: 181-93.
Gumperz, John J. (1982) Discourse strategies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. BoP
Hasada, Rie (2006) Cultural scripts: Glimpses into the Japanese emotion world. In C. Goddard (ed.), Ethnopragmatics: Understanding discourse in cultural context.Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter, pp. 171-198.
(2003) Geert Hofstede™ cultural dimensions. 19 Nov 2009 <[URL]>.
Honda, Atsuko (2002) Conflict management in Japanese public affairs talk shows. Journal of Pragmatics 341: 573-608. BoP
Iwasaki, Shoichi, and Preeya Ingkaphirom Horie (1998) The ‘Northridge Earthquake’ conversations: Conversational patterns in Japanese and Thai and their cultural significance. Discourse and Society 9.4: 501-529.
Komin, Suntaree (1998) The world view through Thai value systems. In A. Pongsapich (ed.), Traditional and changing Thai world view. Bangkok: Chulalongkorn University Press, pp. 207-228.
Kumagai, Tomoko (2004) The role of repetition in complaint conversations. In P. Szatrowski (ed.), Hidden and open conflict in Japanese conversational interaction. Tokyo: Kurosio Publishers, pp. 199-220.
Lekawatana, Pongsri (1974) A contrastive study of English and Thai. Monterey, CA: Defense Language Institute.
Malinowski, Bronislaw (2006 [1926]) On phatic communion. In A. Jaworski and N. Coupland (eds.), The discourse reader, second edition. New York: Routledge, pp. 296-298.
Markus, Hazel R., and Shinobu Kitayama (1991) Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, and motivation. Psychological Review 98.2: 224-253.
Maynard, Senko K. (1989) Japanese conversation: Self-contextualization through structure and interactional management. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Media Monitor (2009) <[URL]> (accessed 19 November 2009)
Morita, Emi (2005) Negotiation of contingent talk: The Japanese interactional particles ne and sa. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company. BoP
National News Bureau (2009) <[URL]> (accessed 19 November 2009)
Ochiai, Rumiko (2008) Gōi keisei kaiwa de hyōshutsu suru serufu to ba no riron-kakunin. Proceedings of the 21st Japanese association of sociolinguistic sciences, March 22-23. Tokyo Woman’s Christian University, Japan, pp. 76-79.
Pavlidou, Theodossia-Soula (2000) Telephone conversations in Greek and German: Attending to the relationship aspect of communication. In H. Spencer-Oatey (eds.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures. London: Continuum, pp. 121-142.
Pelto, Pertti J. (1968) The difference between “tight” and “loose” societies. Transaction 51: 37-40.
Scollon, Ron, and Suzanne Wong Scollon (2001) Intercultural communication: A discourse approach. Oxford: Blackwell.
Spencer-Oatey, Helen (2000) Rapport management: A framework for analysis. In H. Spencer-Oatey (ed.), Culturally speaking: Managing rapport through talk across cultures. New York: Continuum, pp. 11-45. BoP
Straehle, Carolyn A. (1993) “Samuel?” “Yes, dear?”: Teasing and conversational rapport. In D. Tannen (ed.), Framing in discourse. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 210-230.
Tannen, Deborah (1984) Conversational style: Analyzing talk among friends. Oxford: Oxford University Press. BoP
Young, Linda W.L. (1994) Crosstalk and culture in Sino-American communication. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Ubonsakul, Margaret (2009) Significance of ‘face’ and politeness in social interaction as revealed through Thai ‘face’ idioms. In F. Bargiela-Chiappini and M. Haugh (eds.), Face, Communication and Social Interaction. London: Equinox, pp. 289-305.
Uyeno, Tazuko (1971) A study of Japanese modality - A performative analysis of sentence particles. Ph.D. dissertation. University of Michigan.
Wichiarajote, Weerayuth (1973) The theory of affiliative society.Bangkok: College of Education, Prasanmitr, pp.118-119. cited in Steven Piker (1975). The psychological study of Theravada societies. Netherlands: Brill Academic Publishers.
Witthayasakphan, Somphong (2009) kaan chái phaasǎa sadɛɛŋ khwaam runrɛɛŋ nai phâat huǎ kaaw aachayaakam nai nǎŋsɯ̌ɯphim raai wan. <[URL]> (accessed 19 November 2009)
Cited by (3)
Cited by three other publications
Omotunde, Samuel Adebayo & Olumide Ogunrotimi
2021. Rapport management strategies among the Yoruba people of Southwestern Nigeria. International Journal of Language and Culture 8:2 ► pp. 169 ff.
Mapson, Rachel
2020. Intercultural (Im)politeness. In Politeness in Professional Contexts [Pragmatics & Beyond New Series, 311], ► pp. 151 ff.
This list is based on CrossRef data as of 30 november 2025. Please note that it may not be complete. Sources presented here have been supplied by the respective publishers. Any errors therein should be reported to them.
