full2010.pdf - page 1732

1694
Abstract
The objective of this research were to study: 1) politeness strategies in refusal of request, suggestion and
caution in private corporation and government sector and 2) the relationship of politeness strategies used and the
social status of the interlocutors. Data are collected, using a questionnaire answered by one hundred Thai private
corporation worker and government officials.
It is found that the politeness strategies in refusal in private corporation differ slightly from those of
government sector. Politeness strategies in private corporation are divided into ten types: expressing desire to help,
giving reason, suggesting, giving deference, offering an postponing, expressing agreement, thanking, apologizing,
promising, and stating desire. They can be explained by using the politeness framework specified by Brown and
Levinson (1978). In government sector ten politeness strategies as above, and permissing more, are found.
Moreover, the social status of interlocutors is related to politeness strategies used in refusal.
The findings of this study shown that both private corporation worker and government officials tentative
use are giving reason, stating desire and offering an postponing, to decide on the role and power of conversation
participations.
Keywords: Politeness, Request, Suggestion, Caution
‡ÎµœÎµ
£µ¬µÁž}œÁ‡¦ºÉ°Š¤º °°¥nµŠ®œ¹ÉŠÄœ„µ¦ºÉ°µ¦ °Š‡œÄœ´ Š‡¤ ×¥¤¸ª´ ˜™»ž¦³Š‡rÁ¡ºÉ °Â—Š‡ªµ¤‡·—
‡ªµ¤¦¼o ¹ „ °ŠÁ¦µÄ®oŸ¼o°ºÉœÅ—o¦¼o¨³Á oµÄ‹ °¸„š´ ʊ¥´ŠšÎ µÄ®o¦¼o¨³Á oµÄ‹‡ªµ¤¦¼ o ¹ „ °ŠŸ¼o°ºÉœ—o ª¥ ÁœºÉ°Š‹µ„¤œ»¬¥rš» „‡œ
˜o°Š°µ«´¥°¥¼n¦nª¤„´œ˜o°Š¡¹ÉŠ¡µ°µ«´¥Ž¹ÉŠ„´œÂ¨³„´ œ š´ÊŠœ¸Ê „µ¦Äo£µ¬µÄœÂ˜n¨³´ Š‡¤œ´Êœ¥n°¤ ¹Ê œ°¥¼n„´‡ªµ¤µ¤µ¦™
°Š»‡‡¨Äœ„µ¦Á¨º°„čoÄ®oÁ®¤µ³¤„´ ™µœ£µ¡ ™µœš¸É ¨³Ã°„µ®µ„Á¨º°„čo™o°¥‡Î µš¸ÉŤn Á®¤µ³¤ °µ‹
nŠŸ¨Ä®o‡¼n œšœµ¤¸‡ªµ¤¦¼o ¹„ªnµŸ¼o¡¼ —ŤnÄ®oÁ„¸ ¥¦˜·Â¨³šÎµÄ®o ‡ªµ¤´¤¡´œ›r¦³®ªnµŠ»‡‡¨®¥»—³Š´ „ ®¦º°Å¤nŗoŸ¨
Ášnµš¸É‡ª¦
Ĝ„µ¦ž’·Á›®µ„Ÿ¼o¡¼—Ťn µ¤µ¦™š¸É‹³ž’·Á›˜¦ŠÇ ŗo „È‹³˜o°Š®µÁ®˜»Ÿ¨š¸Éœnµ‹³šÎµÄ®o‡¼n œšœµÅ¤n ¦¼o ¹„
Ħ› ®¦º°Á¸ ¥®œoµ —´Šš¸É Mey (1993) „¨nµªÅªoªnµ “Á¤ºÉ °Ÿ¼o¡¼—¡¥µ¥µ¤š¸É ‹³ž’·Á› Á µ°µ‹‹³™¼ „¤°Šªnµ„ε¨´ŠÄ®o o°¤¼¨
Á¡ºÉ°š¸É ‹³¦oµŠ‡ªµ¤ž¦³š´Ä‹ªnµ„µ¦ž’· Á›œ´ÊœÅ¤nŗo Áž}œšµŠÁ¨º°„ °ŠŸ¼o¡¼ — ˜nÁž}œÁ¡¦µ³™µœ„µ¦–r °¥¼nÁ®œº°
„µ¦‡ª‡»¤ °ŠÁ µ ” ¨³Å¤nªnµ™µœ£µ¡ °Š‡¼n œšœµ‹³Áž}œÁn œÅ¦„µ¦ž’·Á›„È ‹³Áž}œÅž˜µ¤™µœ„µ¦–rš¸É
Á„·— ¹Ê œ Ž¹ÉŠ Brown and Levinson (1987) Á¦¸¥„„µ¦ž’·Á›ªnµÁž}œ„µ¦„¦³šÎµš¸É‡»„‡µ¤®œoµ (Face threatening act ®¦º°
FTA) ×¥š¸É ®œoµ (face) ®¤µ¥™¹Š£µ¡¨´„¬–ršµŠ´ Š‡¤š¸Éš» „‡œ˜o°Š„µ¦ ž¦³„°Åž—oª¥®œo µ—oµœª„ (positive
face) ‡º° ‡ªµ¤˜o°Š„µ¦„µ¦¥°¤¦´ ¥„¥n°Š‹µ„Ÿ¼o°ºÉœ ¨³®œoµ—oµœ¨ (negative face) ‡º° ‡ªµ¤˜o°Š„µ¦š¸É„µ¦„¦³šÎµ
°Š˜œ‹³Å¤n ™¼„ ´ — ªµŠ®¦º°¦„ªœ š´ÊŠœ¸Ê„µ¦Á¨º°„čo™o°¥‡Îµš¸É ¤¸¦³—´‡ªµ¤»£µ¡ °Š£µ¬µš¸É™¼„˜o°ŠÁ®¤µ³¤„´
™µœ„µ¦–rš¸É Á„·— ¹Êœ Ÿ¼o°¦o°Š‹³˜o°ŠÄo‡ªµ¤¡¥µ¥µ¤°¥n µŠ¤µ„Äœ„µ¦Äo‡Îµ¡¼—Á„¨¸Ê¥„¨n °¤Ä®o°¸„ i µ¥¥°¤„¦³šÎµ
˜µ¤Äœ·ÉŠš¸É˜o°Š„µ¦ ˜nĜ –³Á—¸¥ª„´œ®µ„Ÿ¼o ™¼„ °¦o°Š˜o°Š„µ¦š¸É‹³ž’· Á›„Șo°Š¡¥µ¥µ¤Á¨º °„čo „¨ª·›¸ ®¦º°™o°¥
‡Îµ¡¼ —Äœ„µ¦ž’·Á›š¸ÉŤnÄ®oŸ¼o°¦o°Š¦¼o ¹„Á¸ ¥®œoµ ®¦º°Á¸ ¥‡ªµ¤¦¼o ¹„š¸ ɟ¼o ™¼„ °¦o°ŠÅ¤n˜o °Š„µ¦„¦³šÎµÄœ· Ɋš¸É